Social Psychology Case Studies

SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY STUDIES
Piliavin: The Good Samaritanism:

Aim: It was to find out factors affecting helping behavior in emergency situations.
IVs:
- Victim condition; ill or drunk.
- Race of victim.
DVs:
- Frequency of help.
- Speed of help.
- Race of helper.
Sample: -
- People on New York Subway train.
- Around 4450 people; 43 per trial on an average.
- Racial distribution in a car in each trial was around 55% white and 45% black.
Research Method & Design:
- A field experiment.
- Total trials conducted were 103 trials.
- 38 drunk condition and 65 ill condition.
- The trial was conducted during 7.5-minute journey b/w Harlem to Bronx.
- There were 4 teams of students, each with four members; aged b/w 26 to 35 years.
- Each team had 2 females and 2 males.
- 3 males white, 1 black.
- All males dressed identically Eisenhower jackets, old slacks and no tie.
- Female observers recorded quantitative data the frequency of help; number of people
helping; race/sex of helper and comments from the passengers and qualitative data;
comments made by passengers, their gestures and etc.
- The drunk victim smelled alcohol and carried a bottle of alcohol wrapped in brown
paper bag.
- Cane victim appeared sober and carried a black cane.
Results:
- Cane victim received spontaneous help on 62/65 trials.
- Drunk victim received spontaneous help on 19/38 trials.
- Cane victim received 100% help out of which 96% was spontaneous.
- Drunk victim received a total help of 81% out of which 50% was spontaneous.
Milgram: Obedience
Aim: It was to find if people would obey harsh and inhumane orders if ordered by authority.
Hypothesis: Germans are different and only they can conduct such harsh acts.
Sample:
- 40 males recruited from new heaven area by advertising into newspaper.
- Belonged from wide range of occupations; teachers, salesmen, businessmen.
- Conducted in Yale university.
- Every participant was paid $4.5 to come to lab.
Stooges:
- A 47-year-old accountant Mr. Wallace played the student. Mild mannered.
- Role of experimenter was played by 31-year-old biology teacher who introduced himself
as Jack William. He wore a lab coat and remained emotionless throughout the study.
Research Method & Design:
- The false aim that was told was to study the relation b/w punishment and learning;
education.
- The shock generator was powered by a 45 Volt battery only.
- The sessions were filmed and observed through one-way mirror.
- Prior to research learner was given a series of pairs of words.
- When experiment started, the teacher gave learner a word with 4 options. The learner
had to indicate the correct words by pressing 1 of the 4 switches.
- Order of right and wrong answers was standardized.
- For every wrong answer an electric shock was given and with each increasing wrong
answer a 15+ volt shock was given.
- At 300 volts the learner pounded on the wall and then the answers no longer appeared.
- The teachers at this point turned to experimenter who would use standardized prods.
- Participants showed signs of nervousness e.g. digging nails into their flesh, sweating,
stutter, tremble and extreme nervousness e.g. laughing fits and seizures.
- Participants were told that it was an experiment for learning and memory.
- After the experiment participants were debriefed.
Prods used:
- When the participant turned to the experimenter when he was confused whether to
continue with shocks or not the experimenter said:
 Prod 1: Please continue or please go on.
 Prod 2: The experiment requires that you continue.
 Prod 3: It is absolutely essential that you continue.
 Prod 3: You have no other choice you must go on.
- When the participant asked if the student is going to suffer from any permanent
physical injury the experimenter would say the following prods:
 Prod 3: Although the shocks maybe painful they would not cause any
permanent tissue damage so please go on.
Results:
- 5 participants refused to continue after 300 shocks.3 refused to continue after 315
shocks. 2 refused at 330 shocks.
- 14 stopped at different points before 450 volts where 26 gave up to 450 volts.
- 65% of the participants gave full level of shocks; 450 volts.
Yamamoto: Chimp helping
Aim: to find out if animals are altruistic to each other or not.
IV:
- The situation; Can see & cannot see.
- The tools presented.
DV:
- The targeted helping behavior.
Sample:
- 5 chimps pair of mother and child.
- Recruited from Primate Research Institute of Kyoto University.
Other Details:
- Repeated measure design.
- The trials were recorded to produce quantitative data; number of correct tool offered
per trial, gestures of chimps.
- Chimps were seated in booths, one in each.
- One task required stick and the other required a straw.
- Chimps were familiar with tool-use tasks.
- Tray included 7 objects; string, stick, straw, paint brush.
- Chimps went through a familiarization phase where each could examine the objects.
- Each chimpanzee went through the conditions in same order. Can see then cannot see
and then again can see to confirm that any change in selection of tool was intentional
and not an order effect.
- 48 trials were carried out; 24 stick and 24 straws.
- 2-4 trials per day.
- After 5 minutes when no tool was passed the trial ended.
- Only first tool was counted.
Results:
- In can see condition 90% help was offered mostly on request of conspecific.
- Mainly the correct tool was offered.
- In cannot see condition at least one object was offered was 96%.
- In can see condition object was offered in 91% of the trial.
- Object was offered total of 96% out of which 80% was on request.
- Pan mainly offered brush.
- In cannot see a chimp Ayumu did select a correct tool when he was able to see, he
peered through the hole.
Conclusions:
- Conspecifics will offer help who require it in majority of the cases.
- Chimps rely on visual confirmation of whether their conspecifics require help.
Strengths & Weaknesses:
+ It was a lab experiment, high levels of control and standardized procedure; presentation of
objects in tray was same, the order of conditions was same- increases reliability of the study.
Collects qualitative and quantitative data, both. Gives object as well as reasoning data.
_ It was low on ecological validity as experiment was conducted in artificial environment and
the tools used were something that the chimps in wild wouldn’t come in contact with possibly.
The sample was too small as well as it was from a research center which means that the chimps
had been previously part of similar experiments, and hence might be familiar with tool
selection procedure as well as use of objects. So there is a problem of generalizability. It used
animals and there are some important considerations about animals well-being, their
treatment, food and housing. However, the researchers state that it was approved by Animal
Care Committee of the Primary Research Institute at Kyoto University.

Social Psychology Case Studies

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Social Psychology Case Studies

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Social Psychology Case Studies

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY STUDIES

Piliavin: The Good Samaritanism:

You might also like