lOMoARcPSD|66458793
Milgram et al.
It was based on the “Germans are different” hypothesis which was from the war and was proving
that Germans did what they did because they were told to, not because they enjoyed inflicting pain.
Background
It was also based on other historical events and was proving that dispositional attribution is not
correct and it is not based on a person’s characteristics.
To investigate whether participants would show obedience to an authority figure who told them to
Aim
administer electric shocks to another person
Method Controlled observation (DV = obedient/disobedient)
Sample 40 males (aged 20-50), all from New Haven and middle-class workers
100% of participants got to 300v but only 26/40 administered the full 450 volts. Participants
Results displayed signs of sweating, trembling, stuttering and groaning. Some even said comments such as
“I can’t go on with this”
Milgram concluded that an important factor influencing behaviour is the situation that a person is in.
Conclusion Also, an authority figure who looks professional will also make people obey because they could be
afraid to disobey so carry on because they are unsure of the consequences if they do not
Responses to people in authority covers how people behave, including how they change their
behaviours when an authority figure gives orders. An authority figure is someone seen as of higher
status or with more perceived power. Milgram investigated whether a participant would show
obedience to an authority figure who told them to administer electric shocks to another person even
Key Theme though it was unethical. They wanted to see how much the participants would administer before
they stopped the experiment and how many prods they would need before they fully refused to
continue. Results show that 65% of participants completed the full experiment which shows that
they will obey to an authority figure. But, the participants showed signs of nervousness which
showed they didn’t want to be doing the experiment.
Social psychology is an approach that assumes that the main influences on our behaviours, thought
processes and emotions are the surrounding environment and other people. The approach believes
that our social context rather than individual characteristics changes and influence people’s
behaviour. Milgram investigated whether a participant would show obedience to an authority figure
who told them to administer electric shocks to another person even though it was unethical. They
Key Area
wanted to see how much the participant would administer before they stopped the experiment and
how many prods they would need before they fully refused to continue. Results proved that the
situation that the person is in will influence behaviour massively and that people would obey
because of the presence of the authority figure and would trust that what they were doing was right
because they were being instructed to do it.
, lOMoARcPSD|66458793
Bocchiaro et al.
Bocchiaro looked at Milgram’s study of responses to people in authority and he wanted to see how
far people would disobey as well as to see if people would whistle-blow and if they would openly
Background
disobey, disobey in secret, obey and whistle-blow or just fully obey. It looked at famous cases of
whistle-blowing for background information, such as the cases of Chelsea Manning.
The aim was to investigate the rates of obedience, disobedience and whistle-blowing in a situation
where no physical violence was involved but where it was quite clear that the instructions were
Aim ethically wrong. There were two additional aims: to investigate the accuracy of people’s estimates
of obedience, disobedience and whistle-blowing in this situation; and to investigate the role of
dispositional factors in obedience, disobedience and whistle-blowing.
Method Controlled experiment (DV = whether participants obeyed, disobeyed or whistle-blowed)
Sample Pilot study (92 students, 8 pilot studies), main experiment (149 Undergrads, 11 removed)
76.5% obeyed, 14.1% disobeyed and 9.4% whistle-blowed (3.4% open whistle-blowers and 6%
Results
anonymous whistle-blowers)
Behaving in a moral manner is challenging for people even when this reaction appears to observers
Conclusion as the simplest path. This can be caused by an authority figure. Disobedience and whistle-blowing
are psychologically, socially and economically demanding.
Responses to people in authority covers how people behave, including how they change their
behaviour when an authority figure gives orders. An authority figure is someone seen as of higher
status or with a perceived power. Bocchiaro’s aim was to investigate the rates of obedience,
disobedience and whistle-blowing in a situation where it was clearly ethically wrong but there was
Key Theme no physical violence. They had to read a cover story and they were told to accept it and post it as
ethical but they could also report it or whistle-blow and do both. Results showed that 76.5% of
participants were obedient and only 9.4% of participants were whistle-blowers when it was
expected that 37.3% would. This shows that an authority figure present will mean that people are
more likely to do what they have been told.
Social psychology is an approach that assumes that the main influences on our behaviours, thought
processes and emotions are the surrounding environment and other people. The approach believes
that our social context rather than individual characteristics changes and influence people’s
behaviour. Bocchiaro’s aim was to investigate the rates of obedience, disobedience and whistle-
Key Area blowing in a situation where it was clearly ethically wrong but there was no physical violence. They
had to read a cover story and they were told to accept it and post it as ethical, but they could also
report it or whistle-blow and do both. Results show that in an actual event, most people are likely to
be obedient because they want to be in the test and the authority figure may have been
intimidating.
, lOMoARcPSD|66458793
Piliavin et al.
Piliavin based his study on the story of Kitty Genovese, who was stabbed 3 times outside a block of
flats. Although 38 people witnessed the attack, no-one called the police or offered any type of help
Background
to her. After 30 minutes, when she had fallen through someone’s front door, the police were called,
but by the time the ambulance arrived, it was too late and she had died.
Piliavin’s aim was to investigate the effect of the following variables on helping behaviour: type of
victim (drunk or white cane); race of victim (black or white); whether people were more likely to help
Aim
in an emergency situation if they have seen someone else displaying helping behaviour (modelling);
the relationship of group size (diffusion of responsibility).
Field experiment (IV’s = type of victim, race of victim, effect of group size, model conditions, DV =
Method time taken to help, total number of passengers, gender/race/location of helpers, comments made,
movement of participants in/out of the critical area)
4,450 men and women, travelled on 8th Avenue in NYC, between 59 th to 125th street, on weekdays
Sample from 11am to 3pm, from 15 th April to 26 th June 1968, travelled through Harlem and the Bronx, 45%
black and 55% white.
Cane victim (62/65 trials received help before model, 5 seconds = median time to help) drunk victim
Results (19/38 trials received help before model, 109 seconds = median time to help), 90% of first helpers
were male, black victims received help less quickly, slight ‘same race’ effect
The drunk is helped less often because the cost of helping is seen as greater because it is likely to
cause disgust, embarrassment or harm. The cost of not helping is less because nobody will blame
Conclusion
someone for not helping a drunk because it is perceived that the victim is responsible for his own
situation.
Peoples responses to others in need are said to be affected by the nature of the situation, the
nature of the helper, the cost to the helper and the nature of the victim. It can also be affected by
diffusion of responsibility where people assume others will help so it isn’t their job. Piliavin was
investigating different variables effects on helping behaviour. They wanted to see if the race or type
Key Theme of victim would affect the amount of help they received and the type of help they would receive.
They looked at the nature if the situation, the nature of the helper, the cost of helping and the nature
of the victim. Results showed that the type of victim plays a big part in whether a person receives
help or not. Race also slightly plays a part as well. It also depends on the cost of helping on the
helper.
Social psychology is an approach that assumes that the main influences on our behaviours, thought
processes and emotions are the surrounding environment and other people. The approach believes
that our social context rather than individual characteristics changes and influence people’s
behaviour. Piliavin was investigating different variables effects on helping behaviour. They wanted
Key Area
to see if the race or type of victim would affect the amount of help they received and the type of help
they would receive. Results showed that the drunk is less helped because the perceived cost of
helping is greater and they are seen as being responsible for the situation they are in whereas
someone with a cane is going to get quicker help because the cost is less to the helper.
Milgram et al.
It was based on the “Germans are different” hypothesis which was from the war and was proving
that Germans did what they did because they were told to, not because they enjoyed inflicting pain.
Background
It was also based on other historical events and was proving that dispositional attribution is not
correct and it is not based on a person’s characteristics.
To investigate whether participants would show obedience to an authority figure who told them to
Aim
administer electric shocks to another person
Method Controlled observation (DV = obedient/disobedient)
Sample 40 males (aged 20-50), all from New Haven and middle-class workers
100% of participants got to 300v but only 26/40 administered the full 450 volts. Participants
Results displayed signs of sweating, trembling, stuttering and groaning. Some even said comments such as
“I can’t go on with this”
Milgram concluded that an important factor influencing behaviour is the situation that a person is in.
Conclusion Also, an authority figure who looks professional will also make people obey because they could be
afraid to disobey so carry on because they are unsure of the consequences if they do not
Responses to people in authority covers how people behave, including how they change their
behaviours when an authority figure gives orders. An authority figure is someone seen as of higher
status or with more perceived power. Milgram investigated whether a participant would show
obedience to an authority figure who told them to administer electric shocks to another person even
Key Theme though it was unethical. They wanted to see how much the participants would administer before
they stopped the experiment and how many prods they would need before they fully refused to
continue. Results show that 65% of participants completed the full experiment which shows that
they will obey to an authority figure. But, the participants showed signs of nervousness which
showed they didn’t want to be doing the experiment.
Social psychology is an approach that assumes that the main influences on our behaviours, thought
processes and emotions are the surrounding environment and other people. The approach believes
that our social context rather than individual characteristics changes and influence people’s
behaviour. Milgram investigated whether a participant would show obedience to an authority figure
who told them to administer electric shocks to another person even though it was unethical. They
Key Area
wanted to see how much the participant would administer before they stopped the experiment and
how many prods they would need before they fully refused to continue. Results proved that the
situation that the person is in will influence behaviour massively and that people would obey
because of the presence of the authority figure and would trust that what they were doing was right
because they were being instructed to do it.
, lOMoARcPSD|66458793
Bocchiaro et al.
Bocchiaro looked at Milgram’s study of responses to people in authority and he wanted to see how
far people would disobey as well as to see if people would whistle-blow and if they would openly
Background
disobey, disobey in secret, obey and whistle-blow or just fully obey. It looked at famous cases of
whistle-blowing for background information, such as the cases of Chelsea Manning.
The aim was to investigate the rates of obedience, disobedience and whistle-blowing in a situation
where no physical violence was involved but where it was quite clear that the instructions were
Aim ethically wrong. There were two additional aims: to investigate the accuracy of people’s estimates
of obedience, disobedience and whistle-blowing in this situation; and to investigate the role of
dispositional factors in obedience, disobedience and whistle-blowing.
Method Controlled experiment (DV = whether participants obeyed, disobeyed or whistle-blowed)
Sample Pilot study (92 students, 8 pilot studies), main experiment (149 Undergrads, 11 removed)
76.5% obeyed, 14.1% disobeyed and 9.4% whistle-blowed (3.4% open whistle-blowers and 6%
Results
anonymous whistle-blowers)
Behaving in a moral manner is challenging for people even when this reaction appears to observers
Conclusion as the simplest path. This can be caused by an authority figure. Disobedience and whistle-blowing
are psychologically, socially and economically demanding.
Responses to people in authority covers how people behave, including how they change their
behaviour when an authority figure gives orders. An authority figure is someone seen as of higher
status or with a perceived power. Bocchiaro’s aim was to investigate the rates of obedience,
disobedience and whistle-blowing in a situation where it was clearly ethically wrong but there was
Key Theme no physical violence. They had to read a cover story and they were told to accept it and post it as
ethical but they could also report it or whistle-blow and do both. Results showed that 76.5% of
participants were obedient and only 9.4% of participants were whistle-blowers when it was
expected that 37.3% would. This shows that an authority figure present will mean that people are
more likely to do what they have been told.
Social psychology is an approach that assumes that the main influences on our behaviours, thought
processes and emotions are the surrounding environment and other people. The approach believes
that our social context rather than individual characteristics changes and influence people’s
behaviour. Bocchiaro’s aim was to investigate the rates of obedience, disobedience and whistle-
Key Area blowing in a situation where it was clearly ethically wrong but there was no physical violence. They
had to read a cover story and they were told to accept it and post it as ethical, but they could also
report it or whistle-blow and do both. Results show that in an actual event, most people are likely to
be obedient because they want to be in the test and the authority figure may have been
intimidating.
, lOMoARcPSD|66458793
Piliavin et al.
Piliavin based his study on the story of Kitty Genovese, who was stabbed 3 times outside a block of
flats. Although 38 people witnessed the attack, no-one called the police or offered any type of help
Background
to her. After 30 minutes, when she had fallen through someone’s front door, the police were called,
but by the time the ambulance arrived, it was too late and she had died.
Piliavin’s aim was to investigate the effect of the following variables on helping behaviour: type of
victim (drunk or white cane); race of victim (black or white); whether people were more likely to help
Aim
in an emergency situation if they have seen someone else displaying helping behaviour (modelling);
the relationship of group size (diffusion of responsibility).
Field experiment (IV’s = type of victim, race of victim, effect of group size, model conditions, DV =
Method time taken to help, total number of passengers, gender/race/location of helpers, comments made,
movement of participants in/out of the critical area)
4,450 men and women, travelled on 8th Avenue in NYC, between 59 th to 125th street, on weekdays
Sample from 11am to 3pm, from 15 th April to 26 th June 1968, travelled through Harlem and the Bronx, 45%
black and 55% white.
Cane victim (62/65 trials received help before model, 5 seconds = median time to help) drunk victim
Results (19/38 trials received help before model, 109 seconds = median time to help), 90% of first helpers
were male, black victims received help less quickly, slight ‘same race’ effect
The drunk is helped less often because the cost of helping is seen as greater because it is likely to
cause disgust, embarrassment or harm. The cost of not helping is less because nobody will blame
Conclusion
someone for not helping a drunk because it is perceived that the victim is responsible for his own
situation.
Peoples responses to others in need are said to be affected by the nature of the situation, the
nature of the helper, the cost to the helper and the nature of the victim. It can also be affected by
diffusion of responsibility where people assume others will help so it isn’t their job. Piliavin was
investigating different variables effects on helping behaviour. They wanted to see if the race or type
Key Theme of victim would affect the amount of help they received and the type of help they would receive.
They looked at the nature if the situation, the nature of the helper, the cost of helping and the nature
of the victim. Results showed that the type of victim plays a big part in whether a person receives
help or not. Race also slightly plays a part as well. It also depends on the cost of helping on the
helper.
Social psychology is an approach that assumes that the main influences on our behaviours, thought
processes and emotions are the surrounding environment and other people. The approach believes
that our social context rather than individual characteristics changes and influence people’s
behaviour. Piliavin was investigating different variables effects on helping behaviour. They wanted
Key Area
to see if the race or type of victim would affect the amount of help they received and the type of help
they would receive. Results showed that the drunk is less helped because the perceived cost of
helping is greater and they are seen as being responsible for the situation they are in whereas
someone with a cane is going to get quicker help because the cost is less to the helper.
