thiriet moradi siddiqui sheppard and creaven 2013
Download
Skip this Video
Download Presentation
Thiriet , Moradi , Siddiqui, Sheppard and Creaven (2013)

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 12

Thiriet , Moradi , Siddiqui, Sheppard and Creaven (2013) - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 63 Views
  • Uploaded on

Experiment into obedience. Thiriet , Moradi , Siddiqui, Sheppard and Creaven (2013). Aim. To investigate obedience towards ridiculous/bizarre direct instructions via signs. Procedure . A sign was placed on a bathroom door. Participants were observed by multiple researchers and cameras.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' Thiriet , Moradi , Siddiqui, Sheppard and Creaven (2013)' - matt


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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
thiriet moradi siddiqui sheppard and creaven 2013

Experiment into obedience

Thiriet, Moradi, Siddiqui, Sheppard and Creaven (2013)

slide2
Aim

To investigate obedience towards ridiculous/bizarre direct instructions via signs.

procedure
Procedure
  • A sign was placed on a bathroom door.
  • Participants were observed by multiple researchers and cameras.
slide7

Why do we have so many year 8s?

discuss sampling why we have so many year 8s? representative? uniquly obedient?

handwritten signs
Handwritten signs
  • Second condition to our experiment
  • A hand-written sign was used on the same bathroom
discussion
Discussion
  • Difference between gender?
  • Difference between the official printed sign and our handwritten sign? Similar to uniform effect found in Bushman & Bickman.
  • What motives did our participants have?
  • Extraneous variables; however our design eliminates these.
methodological and ethical issues
Methodological and Ethical issues

Methodological issues:

  • Observer bias
  • Did close door influence more than sign?
  • Students in groups effect their actions, this could be due to conformity and not obedience.

Ethical Issues:

  • Couldn’t gain informative consent from the participants - this would have changed their actions.
  • The participants may have doubted their intelligence.
ad