1 / 14

Self and Other Obedience Estimates: Biases and Moderators

Self and Other Obedience Estimates: Biases and Moderators. Glenn Geher State University of New York at New Paltz Kathleen P. Bauman (now Kathy Geher!) University of Maine (now SUNY New Paltz!) Sara Elizabeth Kay Hubbard Southern Oregon University Jared Richard Legare Husson College

adara
Télécharger la présentation

Self and Other Obedience Estimates: Biases and Moderators

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Self and Other Obedience Estimates:Biases and Moderators Glenn GeherState University of New York at New Paltz Kathleen P. Bauman (now Kathy Geher!) University of Maine (now SUNY New Paltz!) Sara Elizabeth Kay Hubbard Southern Oregon University Jared Richard Legare Husson College PowerPoint created by: Katherine Savod (SUNY New Paltz) –Kat was the winner of the Experimental Psychology “Make a slideshow for Glenn’s Research” competition (2005) – congrats Kat!

  2. Introduction • Milgram -one’s behavior is defined by the situation he or she is in -studies on obedience and authority • Pietromonaco and Nisbett -influence of situational variables

  3. The Issue • Social psychology’s effect on participant’s behavior while in a study • Allport (1924) and Social Projection • False Uniqueness • Social Psychological biases and social influence research

  4. Study 1 • Fundamental Attribution Error • The self-other bias and the false uniqueness effect • Social Projection • Effects on of social psychological knowledge on these biases

  5. The Research: Study 1 • 111 Participants (85 women, 17 men, 9 no report) • No exposure to Milgram • Questionnaire • Volts: participant versus other students

  6. Procedure: Study 1 • Informed consent • 2 (gender) x 3 (class) x 2 (target: self vs. others) • ANOVA • Correlation analysis

  7. Results: Study 1 • Self-other bias • False-uniqueness effect • Social projection: anchoring and adjusting heuristic

  8. Study 2 • Blind obedience was necessary • “Serve and protect” orientation

  9. The Research: Study 2 • 51 criminal justice students (29 men, 22 women, 3 no report) • Same self-report questionnaire

  10. Procedure: Study 2 • 2 (gender) x 2 (major) x 2 (knowledge) x 2(target: self vs. other) • Mixed ANOVAS • Notable discrepancy between own and others’ voltage estimates? • Correlational analysis for social projection

  11. Voltage Estimate Self Other Class M SD M SD n Criminal Justice 192.06 170.55 230.88 149.88 51 Women 97.50 125.59 170.45 149.61 22 Men 263.79 166.04 276.72 135.21 29 Non-criminal Justice 79.44 114.73 163.55 153.00 62* Women 47.79 72.99 130.81 139.23 43 Men 159.44 156.17 250.83 157.64 18 Total 130.27 156.72 193.94 155.17 113 *Total ns do not necessarily correspond to ns for given genders because not all participants reported gender

  12. Results: Study 2 • Criminal- justice majors ratings versus non- criminal- justice majors • Self-other discrepancy was significantly smaller for majors, than non-majors

  13. Discussion • Knowledge of psychological effects and people’s ability to use such knowledge • Demonstration of self-other biases among different groups • Study 2 replicated study 1, mostly • Strength of social psychological biases is underscored as a result of this study

  14. PowerPoint Presentation by:Katherine Savod

More Related