Experimental Psychology PSY 433 Chapter 13 Social Psychology (Cont.)

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

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.

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.

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.

Demand Characteristics Are subjects acting normally in an experiment, or are they just doing what they think they are expected to do? Did Milgram’s 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?

Orne’s Results

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?

Outside of a Small Circle of Friends

Kitty Genovese (1964)

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.

Darley & Latane’s Results

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 didn’t matter.

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. Milgram’s subjects were told that the experimenter was responsible. People may be reluctant to intervene due to potential embarrassment, loss of poise.