Core studies

• Milgram key theme


  Destructive obedience to authority figures
• Milgram year


  1963
• Milgram sample


  40 men, self-selected from New Haven by newspaper ad- $4.50 for showing up
• Milgram ethics


  > newspaper ad said it was a study on memory and learning (deception, informed consent)

  > made to believe selection of teacher and student was random when acc fixed (deception)

  > made to believe confederate was receiving severe electric shocks (protection, deception)

  > encouraged to continue even when distressed (protection, RTW)

  > eventually debriefed
• Milgram method


  > Lab experiment/Controlled observation

  >14 Yale seniors made predictions of result before exp

  > participants were given 'chance' role of teacher and gave confederate 'trial shock' (ecological validity

  > Ps told to ask pair word questions and gives shock of increasing voltage for wrong answers (15V-450V)

  > tape recording of predetermined responses (internal reliability) played

  > if teacher asked experimenter for advice, predetermined encouragements given (standardised procedure=internal reliability)

  > Data gathered by experimenter in room and others through one-way mirror
• Milgram results


  PREDICTIONS

  > unanimously low, ave. 1.2% would complete all 450V

  ACTUAL

  > 100% went to 300V

  > 65% went to full 450V (14 were disobedient)

  > Observed sweating, trembling, stuttering, nervous laughing, sighs of relief at end
• Milgram conclusions


  > Inhumane acts can be done by ordinary people

  > Situational influences (eg being at the prestigious Yale uni) can cause loss of autonomy

  > Authority figures can cause people to go against moral codes (Individual differences affect extent)
• Bocchiaro key theme


  Whistleblowing and social power
• Bocchiaro year


  2012
• Bocchiaro sample


  149 undergraduate students (mean age 20.8) for €7 by self selected sample

  +92 Ps in 8 pilot tests

  +138 comparison students
• Bocchiaro method


  > 8 pilot studies to control for ethics and credibility (concurrent validity)

  > Comparison group asked to predict their behaviour and behaviours of other uni students if in the setting

  > Lab experiment/ Controlled observation

  > Participants briefed and assured of confidentiality (ethics)

  > Each participant was met by the same male experimenter and given their task by standardised procedure (internal reliability)

  > Ps were told an experiment on sensory deprivation was being done- recently done in Rome and caused hallucinations and cognitive impairments- and the Ps needed to write an enthusiastic statement to attract volunteers (including two adjectives eg eciting, superb)

  > Ps given 3mins alone to reflect on the proposed study then taken to room with a computer to write the statement, a mailbox and anonymous forms to report to the Research Commitee (reduce social desirability bias)

  > After 7 mins (standardised = reliable) Ps were taken out of the room and asked Qs regarding religion and faith (holisitic), given a HEXACO -PI-R test, and a Decomposed Games test about social value

  >Ps were then fully debriefed (ethics)
• Bocchiaro results


  PREDICTED

  >self: 3.6% obey, 64.5% whistleblow

  >others: 18.8% obey, 37.3% whistleblow

  ACTUAL

  >76.5% obeyed

  >9.4% whistleblowed (2/3 also obeyed)

  >personality had no significant impact

  >gender and religion had no significant impact

  >faith had a significant impact (belief in God)

  >prosocial and individualist Ps were distributed between whistleblowers, obeyers and disobeyers
• Bocchiaro conclusions


  >People tend to obey authority figures, even if authority is unjust

  >whistleblower have more faith than those who don't whistleblow

  >People behave differently in new or extreme situations

  OR

  >People believe they will act differently than they do under situational influences
• Loftus and Palmer key theme


  Reconstructive memory, Schema and Leading questions
• Loftus and Palmer year

  1974
• Loftus and Palmer sample

  Exp 1: 45 students, 5 groups of 9

  Exp 2: 150 students, 3 groups of 50
• Loftus and Palmer method

  EXP 1

  >All Ps shown the same 7 clips of traffic accidents (internally valid and reliable)

  >After each clip, Ps were given a questionnaire asking them to describe the clip and answer questions about it

  > key question asked for speed estimate using different words (the IV): smashed, hit, collided, contacted, bumped

  EXP 2

  > Ps shown a 1minute clip containing a 4 second crash

  --> Group 1 asked for speed estimate when they hit

  -->Group two asked for speed estimate when the smashed

  -->Group 3 sent home (control)

  >One week later, all Ps asked if there had been broken glass (none in original film)
• Loftus and Palmer results

  EXP 1

  > smashed = fastest speed estimates, contacted = slowest

  > All estimates were higher than the actual crashes

  EXP 2

  > More Ps in 'smashed' said there was broken glass than in 'hit' and the control (6-7Ps vs 16Ps)

  > Most Ps correctly recalled no glass
• Loftus and Palmer conclusions

  >Misleading post event info can affect memory

  >Memories are formed of info from event and after event

  >Eye witness testimony is rarely accurate (esp as speed estimate accuracy was so poor in general)
• Grant key theme


  Context Dependent memory of meaningful material
• Grant year


  1998
• Grant sample


  40 students by opportunity sample
• Grant method


  >lab experiment using independent measures

  >4 levels of IV: matched silent, matched noisy, silent then noisy, noisy then silent (Ps randomly assigned = internally valid)

  > Each P had a headset playing either background noise from a cafeteria or nothing

  >Standardised brief and instructions given to all Ps, as if a class assignment (ecological validity)

  > Ps had to read a 2 page, 3 columned article about psychoimmunology (standardised BUT participant variable of interest in subject) once- could highlight or underline (ecological validity)

  > 2min break given them a short test

  >Test= short answer first (recall) then multiple choice (recognition)
• Grant results


  >roughly the same amount of time was spent studying- reading time = covariable

  > matched conditions produced better results

  >noisiness had no significant impact
• Grant conclusions


  > students should study in silence to replicate exam conditions

  > noisiness doesn't actually affect how much is learnt

  > recognition is easier than recall, so different neural pathways are used in each
• Bandura key theme


  Social learning theory and Observational learning (behaviourist perspective)
• Bandura year


  1961
• Bandura sample


  72 children (36 male, 36 female)- mean age 52months

  From Stanford Uni Nursery (ethnocentric/not representative)
• Bandura hypotheses


  1. Children shown aggressive models will behave more aggressively than those shown non-aggressive or no model

  2. Children shown non-aggressive models will behave less aggressively than those shown no model

  3. Boys will be more aggressive than girls

  4. Children will imitate same sex models more than opposite sex models
• Bandura method


  >Lab experiment, matched pairs design (by predisposed aggression measured by classroom observations)

  >3 IVs: aggressive or non-aggressive model, sex of model and sex of child

  >children were tested individually

  > STAGE 1: children taken to playroom and sat at table to ply with paints and stickers for 10mins while model played with tinker toy. In aggressive condition, after 1min the model began to hit the Bobo doll with standardised verbal and physical violence. (internal validity&reliability)

  >STAGE 2: aggression arousal. Allowed to play with attractive toys but after 2mins told they were being saved for other children and told to play next door (construct validity)

  >STAGE 3: taken into a third playroom containing aggressive and non-aggressive toys. Observed through a one way mirror for 20mins (inter-rater reliability)

  >operationalised behaviour categories were: imitative aggression, partially imitative aggression, non-imitative aggression, non-aggressive behaviour
• Bandura results


  >Children in aggressive model were more aggressive than in other two conditions

  >Non-aggressive and control group showed no significant difference in aggression levels

  > Same-sex imitation was far higher than opposite sex, esp male physical aggression and female verbal aggression

  > Boys were more aggressive than girls overall

  > Male models were more imitated in physical aggression by both boys and girls
• Bandura conclusions


  > Children learn behaviour through observation and imitation

  > Aggression is especially imitated when the model is male
• Chaney key theme


  Operant condition- positive reinforcement
• Chaney year


  2004
• Chaney sample


  32 children (mean age: 3.2yrs) with asthma who used a pMDI and spacer to administer medication
• Chaney method


  >Field experiment with repeated measures design

  >Funhaler and prescribed equipment compared for safety (ethics- protection from harm)

  > Ps + parents were given questionnaire regarding attitudes to pMDI and spacer before finding out about Funhaler

  >Given Funhaler for two weeks (regular use checked by random phone calls=internal reliability)

  > Parents were interviewed and completed same questionnaire as before for Funhaler

  > Self report asked: ease of use, compliance and attitudes (eg fun, scary ect)
• Chaney results


  > Compliance improved with Funhaler

  > 60% more children used the spacer correctly when using the Funhaler

  > 22/30 were 'always' successful in administering with Funhaler vs 3/30 with pMDI and spacer
• Chaney conclusions


  > Positive reinforcement is helpful in clinical practice

  > Operant condition can help improve health of children
• Sperry key theme


  Contralateral function and localisation of function
• Sperry year ...