Experimental Psychology PSY 433

1
Experimental PsychologyPSY 433

• Chapter 13
• Social Psychology (Cont.)

2
Conditions Affecting Obedience

• The setting did Yale foster obedience because
  it was well-known, Ivy League?
• Replication in a sleazy part of Bridgeport
• 48 gave max shock, compared to 65
• Presence/absence of peers also showing defiance
  or conformity
• Conforming peers encouraged greater shock.
• Proximity to the victim 74 when hear victim,
  40 when see victim, 30 when touch victim

3
Interpreting Conformity Results

• Perhaps subjects trusted that no harm would
  really come to the subjects treated the context
  as make believe.
• Perhaps results underestimate conformity, since
  the experimenter truly has no authority over the
  subject.
• Obedience is not necessarily bad society would
  not function if people ignored laws and persons
  in authority.

4
Dependent Variables

• Questionnaires measuring belief, attitude,
  preference (liking).
• Rating scales
• Behavioral measures
• Aggression measured by shock given.
• Attraction measured by how long a man talks to a
  woman, smiles at her, whether he asks her out.
• Converging measures are better.

5
Independent Variables

• Characteristics of a social situation or of
  people (demographic variables).
• Factors believed to affect behavior are
  manipulated
• Persuasiveness manipulate number or type of
  arguments used.
• Aggression manipulate temperature in a room to
  test whether heat affects behavior.
• Conformity manipulate number of people who
  agree or disagree.

6
Demand Characteristics

• Are subjects acting normally in an experiment, or
  are they just doing what they think they are
  expected to do?
• Did Milgrams subjects give shock because the
  experimental context demanded it?
• Orne and Evans (1965) examined demand
  characteristics in a hypnosis study.
• Is behavior due to hypnosis or due to demand
  characteristics?

7
Ornes Results
8
The Bystander Studies

• Several incidents pre-1970 got researchers
  interested in another area of social influence
• The mere presence of other people
• The bystander effect -- the more people who
  observe a crisis, the less likely any one of them
  is to help the victim.
• Is this true in every situation?

9
Outside of a Small Circle of Friends

• http//www.youtube.com/watch?vY4bSqSdto5g

10
Kitty Genovese (1964)
11
Darley and Latane (1968)

• Over an intercom, subjects discussed problems in
  college life with 1, 2, or 5 others.
• IV Number of bystanders (0, 1, or 4)
• DV whether subject responded elapsed sec
• The more bystanders, the less likely subjects
  were to respond and the longer it took when they
  did respond
• Note typo in Kantowitz Table 13-2.

12
Darley Latanes Results
13
Diffusion of Responsibility

• Piliavin et al. (1969) manipulated
• Race of the victim simulating a crisis.
• Whether victim appeared ill or drunk.
• They recorded race of helper, number of helpers,
  racial composition of bystanders.
• Results
• Help offered more readily to ill (95) than drunk
  (50).
• Race only mattered for drunk victims.
• Number of bystanders didnt matter.

14
Where Did the Effect Go?

• Piliavin et al.s study was done in the field not
  in the lab. Maybe other factors were present.
• If people are made to feel responsible for a
  situation they are more likely to help,
  regardless of bystanders.
• Milgrams subjects were told that the
  experimenter was responsible.
• People may be reluctant to intervene due to
  potential embarrassment, loss of poise.