AICE Exam - Psychology 9990 Questions with Complete Solutions, Rated A+

Milgram - obedience Piliavin - subway Samaritans Yamamoto - chimpanzee helping Bandura et al. - aggression Saavedra and Silverman - button phobia Pepperberg - parrot learning Andrade - doodling Baron-Cohen et al. - eyes test Laney et al. - false memory Dement and Kleitman - sleep and dreams Schachter and Singer - two factors in emotion Canli et al. - brain scans and emotions (obedience) Milgram: Sampling Method - Volunteer (replied to newspaper ad, or to direct mail solicitation) (obedience) Milgram: Sample - 40 males Age 20-50; all white; all from same area Ranging from professionals to no education at all Strengths: Range of backgrounds, careers, and ages Weaknesses: All male, all white, all from New Haven Lowered generalizability (obedience) Milgram: AIMS - See how obedience would change if orders were given by authorities. Specific: how large an electric shock a person would give to a helpless subject if ordered to do so. (obedience) Milgram: DV - Maximum shock given by each subject (obedience) Milgram: IV - Lacks IV (would have to compare at least 2 different situations) (obedience) Milgram: Procedure - Subjects paid ($4.50 equal to about $37 in 2018); Yale university lab; experimenter 31-year old biology teacher with stern demeanor; Subject was introduced to other subject who was a confederate (Mr. Wallace) and informed about why punishment was used for learning (pg. 85, Roberts); "Teacher" role always assigned to subject; "Learner", Mr. Wallace, was strapped into chair in other room separated by a wall (could not see but could hear across); 45-volt demonstration (sample) shock given; word-pairs and then recognition test (4 answer choices) for learner; for each mistake learner was given shock in 15-volt increasing increments; looked real because of blue light, sound, dial; Preliminary run (trial) of 7 shocks (for 7 wrong answers out of 10); at 300 and 315 volts Wallace pounded on wall, after that, he stopped responding; teacher was encouraged to continue with 4 prods (always in same order); 1. Please continue or please go on 2. The experiment requires that you to continue 3. It is absolute essential that you continue 4. You have no other choice, you must go on 2 special prods to answer certain questions about shocks causing injury or learner not wanting to go on (obedience) Milgram: Conclusions - 26 followed the orders from an authoritative figure, who actually had no power. Subjects found the experience of obeying destructive orders very stressful. Results were not expected (starts paragraph 45). Before experiment, Yale students has predicted that 0-3% of subjects would give maximum shock. Support of situational hypothesis. (obedience) Milgram: Ethics strengths and weaknesses - Strengths: Debriefing: At end subjects were interviewed and de- hoaxed (de-briefed), asked open-ended questions and were given tests to reveal hidden emotions. Protection: Goal was for subjects to leave in a state of well-being. All met Mr. Wallace who reassured them he was not harmed and all was done for an important cause Weaknesses: Deception- people believed they were actually harming someone Right to withdraw (partial)- was not clear due to the prods Protection of participants- participants were visibly distressed Informed consent (partial) - Ss did consent but did not know the truth about what they were going to be asked to do (obedience) Milgram: Type of data collected: QL or QT - Quantitative - maximum shock administered by each subject Qualitative - observations of behaviors and comments of subjects (obedience) Milgram: Results - Results Quantitative: Number of subjects (out of 40) who gave shocks up to various levels: see study, pg.376 Everyone gave 300 volts; last few switches labeled "Danger! Severe Shock! 26/40 (65%) of subjects went all the way to the maximum possible (450 volts) Results qualitative: Many subjects showed signs of great distress: some started to sweat, tremble, stutter, bite their lips, groan, laughing nervously; uncontrollable seizures happened in 3 subjects; visibly stressed Interviews: "well it's not fair to shock the poor guy ..., I don't think this is very humane. Subjects were convinced that experiment was real (as determined during de-briefing interview) (subway Samaritans) Piliavin: Sampling Method - Opportunity sample: participants were passengers on the train, not deliberately selected (subway Samaritans) Piliavin: Sample - 4450 people; 45% black 55% white; avg. 43 people per carriage; avg. 8.5 in critical area (subway Samaritans) Piliavin: AIMS - Study bystander behavior outside the lab, in a realistic setting, where participants would have a clear view of the victim See whether helping behavior is affected by 4 variables: 1. Victim's responsibility (ill or drunk) 2. race - black or white 3. effect of modeling and 4. group size (subway Samaritans) Piliavin: DV - "The level of bystander helping" This was operationalized/measured as: Quantitative DV: Qualitative DV: (subway Samaritans) Piliavin: IV - 1. Victims personal responsibility: Cane (ill- low responsibility) or smelling of alcohol and carrying a bottle in a paper bag (drunk- high responsibility) (2 levels) 2. Victim's race- white or black (2 levels) 3. Presence of a model: whether the male model, either close or distant, helped after 70 seconds or 150 seconds; or no model (5 levels) 4. Number of bystanders (group size): how many people were present in the vicinity (this is a natural IV as the researcher cannot change it) (subway Samaritans) Piliavin: Procedure - One team (of 4) boarded the train using different doors. Female confederates sat and recorded data covertly. Male model and male victim stood. Victim always stood next to the pole in the critical area. Shortly after the train had passed the first station (after 70 seconds) the victim staggered and collapsed. Until any help was given, (spontaneously by passengers, or by models) he lay on the floor looking at the ceiling. In the no-model condition, if the victim did not receive help by the time the train got to the next station, the model helped him back to his feet The team got off the train, waited, boarded a train in the opposite direction and repeated. 6-8 trials per day. On any given day, all victims were the same condition. (subway Samaritans) Piliavin: Conclusions - • Passengers gave spontaneous help to both ill and drunk victim • Passengers were willing to assist other passengers who had first stepped up to help • An individual who appears to be ill is more likely to get help then one who appears drunk. • In most trials, passengers helped spontaneously before the model (if there was one) stepped in. • Help is given much more quickly to ill victims, than to drunk victims (subway Samaritans) Piliavin: Ethics strengths and weaknesses - Strengths: --Confidentiality --Privacy Weaknesses: --Deception: staged event --Informed consent: participants did not know they were part of a study so they could not give permission --Protection: witnessing someone collapse can be distressing (and some people did leave the scene); participants were not protected from experiencing psychological stress --Right-to-withdraw: could not be done --Debriefing: could not be done (subway Samaritans) Piliavin: Type of data collected: QL or QT - Quantitative DV: --Time taken for the first passenger to help --Total number of passengers who helped Qualitative DV: --Race, gender and location of each helper was recorded --Verbal remarks of bystanders were also recorded (subway Samaritans) Piliavin: Diffusion of responsibility - 'Diffusion of responsibility' was NOT found, actually found a trend toward the opposite 1. This refuted the hypothesis derived from laboratory studies that the more people are present, the less help would be offered. In fact, there was a trend for more help being offered with the larger group size. 2. Authors suggest this may be because the Ps were face to face with the victim unlike in the lab experiments, where they could not see victims and maybe also because they had nowhere else to go. Also, the more people, the more potential helpers present?