- Created by: Tabby Lazenbury
- Created on: 18-05-16 15:02
40 Male, 20-50 from District of New Haven,North America, Self Selected - Newspaper Advertisment
1 of 26
2 of 26
The max voltage administered to 'learner' (confederate participant.
3 of 26
Predicted obedience: 1.2% for max v, whereas 100%=350V 65%=400V, some sezieres, sweating,
4 of 26
Conclusions from Milgram
People are much more obedience to destructive orders than we predict. Th emajory are quite willing to obey the authority figure, but some find it very distressing as it triggers a conflict between two deeply ingrained tendencies; to obey and not harm
5 of 26
Assumes all behaviour is learnt from social interactions, operate, classical and observed learning. We are like a spongy absorbing into the social world around us. Behavior is determined by social pressures, the need to fit into society.
6 of 26
Assumes behavior is due to complex thought processes, perception and memory. We learn information though; encoding, processing, storage and recall, and recognition.
7 of 26
Loftus and Palmer Participants
Opportunity sample 45 -> 5 groups of 9 in experiment number 1. 150 in experiment 2 -> 50 in 'smashed, 50 in 'hit' and 50 in 'control'
8 of 26
Method for Loftus and Palmer, IV & DV
Laboratory experiment; IV- The verb used in the critical question; smashed, contacted, collided, hit or bumped. The DV; the mean speed estimate given in response to the critical question + the yes/no response to the broken glass question in no2. exp.
9 of 26
Results and conclusions for Loftus and Palmer
Exp. 1= 'Smashed' 40.5 mph, whereas 'Contacted' =31.8 mph. Experiment 2, 16 people in the 'smashed' group responses yes to the broken glass question, compared to only 7 people in the 'hit' condition responding 'yes'.
10 of 26
The extent to which people will obey, diobey and whistel blow an unethical request to encourage their fellow student to take part in an unethical tramatic sensory deprivation experiment. And to measure how good people are at predicting the results.
11 of 26
Pilot study; 92 participants Real study: 149 particpants from Uni in Amsterdam
12 of 26
3.6% were predicted to obey, but 76.5% actually did. Similarly, 64.5% were predicted to whistle blow whereas only 9.4% did.
13 of 26
Grant et al. Aim and participants
To investigate the effects for context dependency on the recall and recognition of meaningful information. Opereationalized by 39 psychology students an article about Psychommunology. then complete 10 short answer and 16 multi-choice questions
14 of 26
Independent measures - match (silent/silent or noise/noise), mismatch (silent/noise) or (noise/silent)
15 of 26
Grant Results/ Conclusions
Short answer silent/silent= mean score of 6.7, compared to short answer silent study/noisy test was 4.6. so, matching conditions=better recall. No affect of noise on study/recognition (14.3 in both)
16 of 26
Assumes all behaviour is down to our biological make-up; the structure of our brain, hormones, genes, and neurotransmitters. The studies relate to this area because they look at the effect of localisation/lateralisation of function - brain structure.
17 of 26
Sperry et al. aim
To investigate the
18 of 26
Casey et al. (2011) aim
To investigate the extent to which the delay of gratification in childhood affected the same participants in adulthood. To examin how the locatisation of function was responsible for cognitive control and sensitivity to alluring stimuli.
19 of 26
What is a hot and cool stimuli?
A 'hot' stimuli is one which is responsible for making things see attractive/alluring (i.e facial expressions). 'Cool' stimuli help you to suppress temptation (i.e. neutral expressions)
20 of 26
Longitudinal study, and Quasi experiment- IV - high/low delayer
21 of 26
562 participants from Stanford Bing Nursey School. 117 were contacted to participant, 59 of which in exp. 1, then from that 59, 27 (15 high, 11 low) also participated in the second experiment.
22 of 26
Experiment 1 - Casey
Computer programmed task sent to participants; 1st half was 'cool' task and the 2nd was the 'hot' task - 'go/no go'
23 of 26
Experiment 2 - Casey
fMRI scan whilst completing the 'hot' version of the task.
24 of 26
IV and DV
IV=high/low delayer. DV- performance on the impulse control task (in terms of reaction times and accuracy) in Experiment 1 and the performance on the impulse control task (in terms of reaction times and accuracy) and imaging results using fMRI.
25 of 26
Results from Casey
Exp.1 both high + low delayers in 'cool' 'go/no go' task was very accurate (cool=99.8% and hot=99.5%) Low delayers=more mistakes in no-go tasks and worse at the 'hot' task. Exp. 2; 14.5% of low delayers made mistakes in no-go trails. Loc. funct.
26 of 26
Other cards in this set
Conclusions from Milgram