Piliavin et al. (1969) Good Samaritanism: An Underground Phenomenon? Obedience= Doing what you are told by an authority figure e.g being quiet when a teacher asks you too Authority Figure-someone with more power and control than another e.g a policeman Conformity=Matching the behaviour and beliefs of the majority because you want to fit in or you don’t know how to behave Types of conformity: Compliance: Going along with the majority even though we privately do not agree Internalisation: Going along with the majority because we agree with the beliefs Identification: Temporarily going along with the majority Piliavin et al. (1969) Good Samaritanism: An Underground Phenomenon? Background: Were interested to know why people did not help Kitty Genovese Aim: To investigate helping behaviour in a natural environment and understand why some people help and some don’t. Method: 4500 people travelling on a New York subway between 11am-3pm for 2 months and were part of a covert observation. An actor collapsed and 2 other actors recorded who helped and how long it took them. The victim, had a walking stick, acted drunk or was normal. Results: 62/65 times when victim had walking stick he was helped. 19/38 times when victim acted drunk he was helped. Men were more likely to help than women. Conclusion: Larger groups more likely to help than smaller groups. Experiment was conducted on New York subway=high ecological validity Covert observation= participants acted naturally so no demand characteristics Covert observation= not fair on participants Victim collapsed =distressing for people to watch Deindividuation: Loosing your own identity when part of a group. We blend in and become anonymous so tend to act differently and feel less responsible for our own actions. E.g members of the London riots. Kitty Genovese Was murdered in 164 outside her apartment. Many people heard her and witnessed the assault but no-one stepped in to help her. Social Influence BYSTANDER EFFECT MILGRAM EXPERIMENT Factors affecting Obedience Situational Factors- Proximity of Victim-When victim was in same room=more likely to obey Proximity of Authority Figure-When authority figure in a different room=less likely to obey Authority Figure-If authority figure looked official=more likely to obey Legitimacy of Context-If location looked official=more likely to obey Personal Responsibility-If person wasn’t actually giving the shock=more likely to obey Support of Others-If person worked with others that didn’t go to 450 volts=less likely to obey Personal Factors- Authoritarian Personality-A type of personality that is respectful of authority and has rigid beliefs=more likely to obey Bystander Intervention Situational Factors: Diffusion of Responsibility-larger crowd=less responsibility to help Noticing the event-larger crowd=less likely to notice event Pluralistic Ignorance-if we see a large number of people not helping=less likely to help Cost of helping-if costs weigh out benefits we are less likely to help e.g if situation is dangerous Personal Factors: Competence-if we feel like we can help and offer support , we are more likely to help Mood-people are more likely to help if they are in a good mood Similarity-if we think we are similar to the victim, we are more likely to help e.g same age/gender

Haney, Banks and Zimbardo (1973) Stanford Prison Experiment Background: Were interested to know why there was so much conflict in prisons Aim: To investigate prisoner and guard conflict in a simulated prison environment Method: Advert placed in newspaper and participants were paid $15 to take part. 10 prisoners and 11 guards. Prison was in the Stanford University basement. Guards had no rules-just to maintain order. Prisoners were arrested from their homes before being put into ‘prison’. Experiment was meant to last 2 weeks but was cancelled after 6 days. Results: After a few hours guards became increasingly aggressive. Prisoners were physically and mentally abused and became anxious and depressed. Conclusion: Both prisoners and guards conformed to role assigned to them. Uniforms deindividuated them. Factors affecting Conformity Situational Factors- Size of the majority-Larger the majority=more likely to conform Unanimity of the majority-Disagreement in majority=less likely to conform Task Difficulty-We find task difficult=more likely to conform Personal Factors- Locus of Control-how much control we think we have over our behaviour Internal-We have a lot of control=less likely to conform External-We do not have any control=more likely to conform Behaviour of crowds Deindividuation-people in crowds can loose their own identity and take on group identity so act differently (like the group) Obedience-authority figure in crowd can tell crowd to act differently (peaceful or aggressively) Each participant was fully debriefed at the end of the experiment and the researchers made sure they were ok. The participants fully believed that they were part of the experiment so they were not acting. Distress was caused to the participants (physical and psychological harm) Conducted in a University=lacks ecological validity Only conducted on male college students=results can’t be related to everyone e.g females Social Issues... Cultural Issues... (I) Individualistic=Value independence (C) Collectivist=Value group membership Conformity- I-less likely to conform C-more likely to conform Obedience I-less likely to obey C-more likely to obey Deindividuation- I-no differences C-no differences Bystander Effect I-less likely to help C-more likely to help “An issue that affects a community” E.G... Riots Conformity=People act violently because they don’t know how else to act or they want to fit in with the crowd. Holocaust Obedience=Nazi’s did what they were told by authority figure. Deindividuation=Nazi soldiers put on uniform so acted differently Bystander Effect=Other German people did not help Jewish people as they thoughts others would or the cost of helping was too high Blind Obedience= Obeying without question Social Support (having support from others) Familiarity (understanding the situation) Distance (increasing distance from authority figure Education (teaching people about dangers of blind obedience) WAYS TO PREVENT BLIND OBEDIENCE