Piliavin et al. (subway samaritans)
VICTIM:
* 4 teams of students, each with a victim aged 26-35
* dressed in old trousers & jacket
* one victim was black, 3 were white
* 38 trials DRUNK CONDITION (carried liquor bottle wrapped in brown bag)
* 65 trials ILL CONDITION (carried black cane)
MODEL:
* all white males aged 24-29
* 4 conditions where model helped victim to a sitting position (order randomised):
1. critical area-early (stood in critical area, gave help after 70 seconds)
2. critical area-late (stood in critical area, gave help after 2.5 minutes)
3. adjacent area-early (stood in adjacent area, gave help after 70 seconds)
4. adjacent area-late (stood in adjacent area, gave help after 2.5 minutes)
5. there was also a non-model condition
Pozzulo et al. (lineups)
Dement & Kleitman (sleep and dreams)
STUDY 1:
* participants would be woken up with a loud doorbell, and were required to report their dream into a tape recorder next to them, whether or not they could recall their dream. If they did, they had to describe it
STUDY 2:
* Initially, the researchers would wake them up after various REM stages and ask them to estimate how long they’d been dreaming for. This was too difficult for participants
* Revised procedure: participants were woken up after 5 or 15 minutes of REM and asked them to guess how long they were dreaming for (5 or 15 mins)
STUDY 3:
* when participants reported their dream, the researchers investigated whether the movements described in their dream matched their eye movements
Fagen et al. (elephants)
Saavedra and Silverman (button phobia)
a) Contingency management (positive reinforcement therapy) = behavior focused approach
* boy was rewarded for showing less fear and handling buttons
* positive reinforcement given by mother ONLY AFTER he completed a gradual exposure to buttons
* sessions lasted 20-30 min
* researchers observed how he handled the buttons, then measured his subjective rating of distress in the Feelings Thermometer
b) Imagery exposure therapy
* seven sessions where the therapists asked the boy to describe how buttons look, feel and smell and to explain how he felt while imagining them.
* images progressed from larger to smaller buttons
* measured subjective rating of distress in Feelings Thermometer
Post-treatment
1. ADIS-C/P was used directly after treatment to measure efficacy of treatment, and again 6 and 12 months later
Bandura et al. (aggression)
CONDITIONS
1. there were 8 experimental conditions, with 6 participants in each condition, as well as a control condition with 24 participants (12 males and 12 females) who saw no model
2. in the experimental conditions, half observed an aggressive model, the other half observed a non-aggressive model
3. within this group, half observed male model, half observed female model
4. within these groups, the model was either same sex or opposite sex to participants
HOW PARTICIPANTS WERE ALLOCATED TO GROUPS
1. observed by a teacher & experimenter on aggression
2. each participant had a composite score on aggression from 4 five-point scales (physical aggression, verbal aggression, aggression towards inanimate objects, aggression inhibitions)
3. participants matched on aggression were arranged in threes
4. they had an equal chance of being in one of the experimental groups
PROCEDURE FROM WHEN A PPT ENTERED AN EXPERIMENTAL GROUP UNTIL THE MODEL ASSEMBLED THE TOYS
Non-aggressive condition
Model played with the tinker toys in a quiet manner and played with the Bobo doll
Aggressive condition
After a minute of playing with the tinker toys, model was aggressive to the Bobo Doll for 9 minutes
The model repeated these 3 times, along with aggressive comments:-
1. laid the doll on its side
2. sat on it
3. punched its nose
4. lifted it and hit it on the head with mallet
5. throwing it up and kicking it around the room
AGGRESSION AROUSAL PROCEDURE
* child brought into a room with toys (e.g. fire engine, doll carriage, crib)
* they were told they could play with them
* as soon as they began to play, the experimenter stopped them and they were told that these toys were reserved for other children
* experimenter sat away from the child and completed paperwork
FINAL PART (DELAYED IMITATION)
* each participant spent 20min in the experimental room and their behavior was observed thru a one-way mirror
* room contained range of dolls including Bobo Doll
* behavior was rated in behavioral checklist (imitative, imitative verbal aggression, imitative non-aggressive verbal response, mallet aggression, aggressive gun play, punches Bobo ball, non-aggressive behaviour)
* behavior was recorded every 5 seconds
* total of 240 response units were recorded per ppt
Baron-Cohen (eyes test)
Hassett et al.
Andrade
Calculation of monitoring performance score:
number of correct names - number of false alarms
Milgram
*** participant was told that they were taking in a study on the effect of punishment on learning as little was known about this
* almost no studies have been developed on humans **
PRELIMINARY RUN:
1. a preliminary run was conducted so the participants mastered the task
2. seven of these trials involved delivering shocks to a maximum of 105V
REGULAR RUN:
1. when shock levels of 300V and 315V were administered, learner was pounding on the wall
2. after 300V, he stopped responding to questions completely
3. participant was told to treat no as an incorrect answer
If participants were unwilling to continue, a series of ‘prods’ were used:
1. Please continue
2. The experiment requires that you continue
3. It is absolutely essential that you continue
4. You have no other choice, you must go on.
* If the participant refused after the 4th prod, the study ended.
If a participant was scared it’d cause permanent injury:
“Although the shocks may be painful, there’s no permanent tissue damage, so please go on”
If a participant commented on the learner wanting to stop:
“Whether the learner likes it or not, you must go on until he has learned all the word pairs correctly. So please go on.”
Holzel et al. (mindfulness)
4) The control group also took two scans, 66 days apart, as well as completing the FFMQ once after the first scan, and once again after the second scan
CONTROLS
1) All participants took the same standardized FFMQ, once before the session, and once after
2) The FFMQ was scored on a standardized rating scale
3) All participants in the experimental group went through the same MBSR training for the same duration
4) The use of the MRI was standardized, and scans were always taken two weeks before the training program, and two weeks after
Perry et. al (Personal space)
Prior to Experiments, Procedures: