Welcome to the Social Area: Core Studies
Welcome! In this guide, we will break down the Social Area of psychology for your OCR A Level course. The social area looks at how human behavior is influenced by the real, imagined, or implied presence of others and the surrounding environment.
Don't worry if psychological studies feel overwhelming to memorize at first. We will break each study down into easy, bite-sized pieces using the same formula: Background & Aim, Sample, Procedure, Results, and Conclusions.
The Core Assumption of the Social Area:
Social psychologists believe that our behavior is primarily shaped by situational factors (the environment and people around us) rather than purely dispositional factors (our individual personality traits or genetics).
In this chapter, we explore three classic and contemporary investigations across two key themes:
1. Responses to people in authority: Milgram (1963)
2. Responses to people in need: Piliavin et al. (1969) and Levine et al. (2001)
Theme 1: Responses to People in Authority
Milgram (1963): Behavioral Study of Obedience
Why do good people do bad things when ordered to?
1. Background & Aim
Following World War II and the horrors of the Holocaust, many people assumed there was something uniquely destructive in the German character—known as the "Germans are different" hypothesis. Stanley Milgram set out to test whether ordinary individuals would obey an authority figure even when ordered to harm an innocent human being.
2. Sample & Setting
• Participants: 40 males, aged 20–50 years old, from New Haven and surrounding areas.
• Sampling Method: Volunteer (self-selected) sample recruited via a local newspaper advertisement.
• Payment: Paid \$4.50 simply for turning up to the laboratory (the payment was not contingent on completing the shocks).
• Setting: A prestigious laboratory at Yale University.
3. Procedure
• Rigged Draw: The naive participant arrived and met a friendly confederate (Mr. Wallace). A rigged draw ensured the real participant was always assigned the role of "Teacher" and the confederate was the "Learner."
• The Setup: The Learner was strapped into an electric chair apparatus in an adjoining room. The Teacher was seated in front of an impressive shock generator in the main laboratory.
• The Shock Generator: Featured 30 toggle switches ranging from 15V (Slight Shock) up to 450V (labeled "XXX").
• The Task: The Teacher read word-pair tasks to the Learner over an intercom. For every incorrect answer, the Teacher was instructed by an Experimenter (dressed in a grey technician's coat) to deliver an electric shock, increasing the voltage by 15V each time.
• The Deception: The shocks were completely fake. However, a sample 45V shock was administered to the Teacher at the beginning to convince them the machine was real.
• Verbal Prods: If the Teacher hesitated or asked to stop, the Experimenter delivered a series of four standardized verbal prods in order:
1. "Please continue" or "Please go on."
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."
4. Key Results
• Quantitative Findings:
- 100% (40/40) of participants obeyed up to 300V.
- 65% (26/40) of participants went all the way to the maximum 450V.
• Qualitative Findings: Participants showed extreme signs of psychological stress and tension during the procedure, including sweating, trembling, groaning, biting their lips, and nervous laughing fits. Three participants experienced full-blown uncontrollable seizures.
5. Conclusions
Milgram concluded that situational factors exert an overwhelmingly powerful influence on human behavior. Ordinary people will perform destructive acts against their moral conscience when ordered to do so by a perceived legitimate authority figure in a prestigious environment.
Key Takeaway for Milgram: Do not confuse obedience with personal cruelty. Milgram's participants did not want to hurt the Learner; they experienced intense inner conflict, showing the sheer power of the situation over personality.
---Theme 2: Responses to People in Need
Piliavin et al. (1969): Good Samaritanism: An Underground Phenomenon?
Will bystanders help a stranger in an emergency when trapped in a subway car?
1. Background & Aim
Following the infamous 1964 murder of Kitty Genovese in New York—where dozens of neighbors allegedly witnessed her attack without intervening—psychologists coined the term Bystander Effect, suggesting that the presence of other people leads to a diffusion of responsibility. Piliavin et al. wanted to investigate bystander behavior in a naturalistic, high-stakes setting.
2. Sample & Setting
• Participants: An estimated 4,450 unsolicited passengers traveling on the New York Subway (8th Avenue line) between 11:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m.
• Setting: A non-stop, 7.5-minute journey between 59th Street and 125th Street stations (a closed environment where bystanders could not physically leave).
3. Procedure
• Research Teams: Four teams of four Columbia University students (two male actors and two female observers).
• The Victim Conditions: The male victim stood near a pole in the critical area and collapsed 70 seconds into the journey. Two conditions were tested:
1. "Ill" Victim: Carried a black cane.
2. "Drunk" Victim: Smelled of alcohol and carried a bottle wrapped in a brown paper bag.
• The Model Conditions: A male model sat in the carriage to offer assistance after either 70 seconds or 150 seconds if no member of the public stepped forward.
4. Key Results
• Cane vs. Drunk: The "Ill" (cane) victim received spontaneous help in 95% of trials (62/65), with a median response time of 5 seconds. The "Drunk" victim received spontaneous help in 50% of trials (19/38), with a median response time of 109 seconds.
• Race Effect: Help for the ill victim was equal across races. However, for the drunk victim, there was a slight same-race helping effect (white bystanders were more likely to help a white drunk victim).
• Diffusion of Responsibility: Not found! In fact, larger groups responded slightly faster than smaller groups.
• Gender of Helper: Spontaneous first helpers were overwhelmingly male (90%).
5. The Arousal: Cost-Reward Model
Piliavin proposed that witnessing an emergency triggers an unpleasant physiological state of emotional arousal. People choose how to respond by weighing up the costs and rewards:
• Cost of helping: Danger, physical effort, embarrassment.
• Cost of not helping: Guilt, self-blame, social disapproval.
• Reward of helping: Praise, feeling good, reducing emotional distress.
Why was the drunk helped less? The perceived cost of helping a drunk person (disgust, potential aggression) is higher than helping a person with a cane.
Key Takeaway for Piliavin: Unlike laboratory studies showing bystander apathy, Piliavin showed that when bystanders are in a confined setting where they cannot escape, direct help is very high, especially when the victim's need is seen as uncontrollable (the cane condition).
---Levine et al. (2001): Cross-Cultural Differences in Helping Strangers
Does the city you live in determine how likely you are to help a stranger?
1. Background & Aim
Levine et al. wanted to investigate whether helping behavior toward strangers varies across different cultures around the world and identify which community characteristics predict altruism.
2. Sample & Setting
• Locations: 23 large cities across the world (e.g., Rio de Janeiro, San Jose, Madrid, New York, Kuala Lumpur).
• Participants: Large opportunity samples of pedestrians walking in city centers during business hours on clear summer days.
3. Procedure (Three Helping Scenarios)
In each city, local male experimenters tested pedestrians in three standardized situations:
1. Dropped Pen: The experimenter walked past a pedestrian and accidentally dropped a pen from his pocket, continuing to walk.
2. Hurt Leg: Walking with a heavy limp and wearing a visible leg brace, the experimenter accidentally dropped a pile of magazines and struggled to reach them.
3. Blind Person: Dressed in dark glasses and carrying a white cane, the experimenter stepped up to a road crossing just before the light turned green and waited for help to cross.
4. Four Community Variables Measured
For each city, Levine gathered data on four specific factors:
• Population size
• Economic well-being: Measured by Purchasing Power Parity (PPP)
• Cultural values: Individualism vs. Collectivism rating, plus the cultural tradition of Simpatia (a Spanish/Latin American cultural value emphasizing social warmth, friendliness, and harmony)
• Pace of life: Measured by average pedestrian walking speed over a distance of 60 feet
5. Key Results
• Most Helpful Cities: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil (93%); San Jose, Costa Rica (91%).
• Least Helpful Cities: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia (40%); New York, USA (44%).
• Economic Correlation: Economic well-being (PPP) was the single strongest and only statistically significant predictor of helping behavior. There was a significant negative correlation—cities with lower economic wealth had significantly higher rates of helping.
• Cultural Values: Countries with a tradition of Simpatia (e.g., Brazil, Costa Rica, Spain, Mexico, El Salvador) were significantly more helpful on average (82.87%) compared to non-simpatia cultures (65.87%).
• Other Variables: Population size and pace of life showed no statistically significant relationship with helping rates.
6. Conclusions
Helping behavior towards strangers varies greatly across international cities. A city's economic resources (lower PPP) and cultural norms of interpersonal warmth (simpatia) are strong predictors of spontaneous helping.
Key Takeaway for Levine: Helping is not universal; it is shaped by cultural and economic environments. Counter-intuitively, less wealthy cities show greater everyday helpfulness.
---Summary Comparison: The Three Core Social Studies
Milgram (1963)
• Key Theme: Responses to people in authority
• Method: Controlled laboratory experiment / observation at Yale University
• Key Finding: 65% of participants delivered the full 450V shock due to situational pressure from an authority figure.
Piliavin et al. (1969)
• Key Theme: Responses to people in need
• Method: Field experiment on the New York Subway
• Key Finding: 95% helped the ill victim vs. 50% for the drunk victim; diffusion of responsibility was not observed in a confined setting.
Levine et al. (2001)
• Key Theme: Responses to people in need
• Method: Cross-cultural field experiment across 23 international cities
• Key Finding: Helping rates ranged from 93% (Rio) to 40% (Kuala Lumpur); lower economic well-being (PPP) and Simpatia cultures were linked to higher helping.
Common Exam Pitfalls & Tips
• The "Lethal Shock" Mistake: Never state in your exam that Milgram's shocks were "lethal" or that anyone was killed. The shock machine was completely fake, and the switches were marked from 15V up to 450V (labeled "XXX").
• Situational vs. Dispositional: Always frame your answers around the Social Area perspective. For example, Milgram's participants obeyed because of the situation (prestigious university, researcher's prods, incremental voltage steps), not because they were naturally aggressive.
• Levine's Correlations: Students frequently guess that collectivist cultures were significantly more helpful. Remember: Economic well-being (PPP) was the only variable with a statistically significant correlation (a negative correlation).
• Sample Biases: Notice the demographic limits! Milgram used an androcentric (all-male) American sample, while Piliavin tested a general commuter population, and Levine tested broad pedestrian samples across 23 cities.
• Ethics vs. Ecological Validity: In your evaluations, notice the classic trade-off: Milgram had high control but low ecological validity and major ethical concerns (deception, distress). Piliavin and Levine had high ecological validity (field experiments) but lacked informed consent and debriefing opportunities.