SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY RESEARCH METHODS

Intro

• Human beings demonstrate social responsibility in various ways, one of which is through
prosocial behaviour- ac:ons intended to benefit others.
• A specific form of prosocial behaviour is altruism, where an individual helps another purely
out of empathy and without expec:ng personal gain.
• Studying social responsibility used different research methods because each one has its
own strengths and limita:ons.
• This essay will look at 2 research methods, a quasi-experiment and field experiment.
[Link] of RM in study 1

• One way of studying social responsibility is through a quasi-experiment.

• A quasi-experiment is a research design that resembles an experiment in many aspects but
lacks full control over the manipula:on of the independent variable.
• Because the IV is not manipulated by the researcher, cause-effect inferences cannot be
made.
• Confounding variables are limited.
• Subjects are assigned to groups based on non-random criteria because the research is
about some innate difference between the par:cipants themselves.
• The data obtained is usually quan:ta:ve and can be sta:s:cally analysed for significance.
Study 1

• A study conducted by Marsh et. al (2014) is a quasi-experiment.

• To inves:gate the poten:al biological origins of prosocial behaviour (a means of social
responsibility), specifically focusing on extraordinary altruists—individuals who donate a
kidney to a stranger.
• Aim - to determine whether these altruists exhibit larger amygdala volumes and faster
responses to fearful facial expressions compared to a control group.
• RM –
- The independent variable was the group membership which had 2 levels. Level 1 was of
extraordinary altruists and level 2 was control group.
- This grouping is based on a naturally occurring characteris:cs (altruis:c behaviour)
rather than random assignments, hence the IV can’t be manipulated by the researcher,
making it a quasi-experiment.
• Sample –
- 19 altruis:c kidney donors (12 men and 7 women). This group was chosen because
dona:ng a kidney to a stranger represents a significant act of altruism that involves
substan:al personal risk.
- Control group - 20 par:cipants matched for IQ, income, educa:on, psychological
history, and medica:on use, ensuring that differences in the results could be aYributed
to the biological factors under study.
- Par:cipants in both groups were aged between 23 and 56 years old.
 • Procedure –
- First stage: par:cipants completed an emo:on recogni:on task using fMRI, where they
viewed 120 images of faces showing six basic emo:ons at varying intensi:es and
pressed a buYon to iden:fy each emo:on, with their response :mes recorded.
- Second stage: structural MRI scan to measure the size of the amygdala.
- Finally, par:cipants took tests to assess their levels of psychopathy and empathy.
• RM –
- Variables like the 120 images of faces showing 6 basic emo:ons were controlled and
kept constant for all par:cipants, represen:ng standardiza:on of procedure.
- The data collec:on of brain imaging from fMRI and MRI, as well as the tests to assess
empathy and psychopathy provide quan:ta:ve data.
• Results -
- extraordinary altruists had a greater average volume in the right amygdala compared to
the control group.
- The right amygdala, which is associated with processing nega:ve emo:ons and
responding to fear, also showed faster response :mes to fearful facial expressions in
the altruists than in the controls.
• Conclusion -
- These findings contrast with previous research on psychopaths, who exhibit reduced
amygdala volume and responsiveness.
• Link - The study uses a quasi-experiment to conclude that there may be a biological basis
for altruis:c behaviour, highligh:ng the significant role of the amygdala in empathy and
social responsibility.
Study 1 [Link]

• The study's internal validity is strengthened by its quasi-experimental design, which allows
for a clear comparison between altruis:c kidney donors and a matched control group,
helping to isolate biological factors influencing prosocial behaviour.
• Small sample size (19 donors and 20 controls) limits the generalizability of the findings to
broader popula:ons.
• Ecological validity is a concern, as the laboratory sedng and tasks may not reflect real-
world altruism which may have variability in terms of emo:onal state, distrac:ons, social
interac:ons etc, poten:ally affec:ng the applicability of the results.
• The poten:al for demand characteris:cs exists, as par:cipants may alter their responses
based on perceived expecta:ons. Since par:cipants were aware they were part of a study
involving altruis:c behavior, they may have been consciously or unconsciously influenced
to respond more empathe:cally or accurately to emo:onal cues, such as fearful
expressions.
• The study's focus on the amygdala may overlook other brain regions involved in empathy,
limi:ng the understanding of the biological basis of prosocial behaviour.
• The assump:on of causality from amygdala size and responsiveness to altruis:c behaviour
is also a limita:on, as it does not account for other biological or environmental factors that
could influence these behaviours.
[Link] of RM in study 2

• The second method that can be used to explore social responsibility is through field
experiments.
• A field experiment is conducted in real-life sedngs.
• It allows the researcher to manipulate the IV and measure its effect on the DV, helping to
establish a cause-and-effect rela:onship between the IV and DV.
• Since the par:cipants are in a natural sedng many confounding variables cannot be limited
to a great extent.
• The data collected is quan:ta:ve and can be sta:s:cally analyzed for significance.
• Researchers can also make hypotheses regarding the study.
Study 2

• One study that uses a field experiment to demonstrate social responsibility is conducted by
Piliavin et al. (1969).
• To inves:gate the arousal: cost-reward model which suggests that witnessing someone in
distress triggers an uncomfortable emo:onal arousal. Recognizing this discomfort, we then
weigh the poten:al costs and rewards of helping.
• Aim - to inves:gate whether perceived rewards and costs influence helping behavior
• Opportunity sample of passengers on a New York subway which is a real-life sedng
• Procedure –
- The researchers observed their responses in a subway car where a “vic:m” (actually an
assistant) would collapse on the floor.
- The independent variables were the appearance of the “vic:m” and the group size.
- In half of the trials, the “vic:m” appeared as an alcoholic, smelling of alcohol and
carrying a whiskey boYle, while in the other half, the “vic:m” appeared as a disabled
individual using a cane.
- Researchers recorded several dependent variables: how ojen and how quickly help was
offered, the gender of the helper, whether passengers moved away from the vic:m,
and verbal comments made, thus collec:ng both quan:ta:ve and qualita:ve data.
- There were over 100 trials in total.
• RM –
- Since the study was conducted in a real subway car represen:ng a naturalis:c sedng,
the researchers couldn’t limit confounding variables to a large extent like individual
differences of the par:cipants on the subway such as emo:onal state, distrac:ons, etc.
- The researchers could change the appearance of the vic:m, thus manipula:ng the
independent variable, allowing them to determine causal rela:onships between the
independent and dependant variable.
- The data collected was quan:ta:ve thus it can be sta:s:cally analyzed for significance.
• Results –
- Someone spontaneously helped around 80% of the :me; this occurred in 62 of the 65
trials when the “vic:m” used a cane, and in 19 of the 38 trials when the “vic:m”
appeared drunk.
- In instances where someone helped, mul:ple helpers ojen got involved.
 - It took longer for people to assist the drunk “vic:m” compared to the disabled
“vic:m.”
• Conclusion –
- These findings suggest that people took more :me to weigh the costs and benefits
when the man appeared drunk rather than disabled.
- The drunk “vic:m” received less help, as people likely perceived greater costs—helping
someone intoxicated could involve disgust, embarrassment, or even poten:al harm if
the drunk individual reacted aggressively.
- The cost of not helping was lower in this case, as society might excuse bystanders from
aiding a drunk person, who may be seen as par:ally responsible for their situa:on.
- As a result, with higher perceived costs (like risk of injury or lost :me) and fewer
rewards, bystanders were less likely to help the intoxicated “vic:m.”
- This study supports the Arousal Cost-Reward model, as showing prosocial behavior is
dependent on the cost and reward analysis in the situa:on.
• Link - This study uses a field experiment to examine prosocial behaviour
Study 2 [Link]

• This study has high ecological validity, as it was conducted in a natural sedng—a real-life
subway situa:on—making the reac:ons of par:cipants more realis:c.
• Par:cipants were unaware of being observed or that the incident was staged, so they were
unlikely to exhibit demand characteris:cs, thus limi:ng biases that could affect findings
• Generalizability is limited by sampling bias of choosing only Americans, as responses could
vary across cultures with different individualis:c or collec:vis:c tendencies.
• Ethical concerns: Par:cipants were deceived, as they did not give consent to par:cipate
and were unaware that the “vic:m” was part of a staged event. Since some passengers lej
the subway without being informed about the study, it was impossible to fully
debrief. Undue stress and harm can be caused as the passengers may experience distress
and anxiety especially when they choose not to help.
Conclusion – Discuss

• Both field and quasi-experiments play crucial roles in understanding social responsibility by
providing unique insights into real-world behaviour.
• While field-experiments offer valuable causal evidence and show ecological validity to a
large extent due to the natural sedngs, Quasi experiments allow for the study of naturally
occurring variables, offering a broader perspec:ve and providing unique insights into
complex real-world phenomena.
• However both field experiments and quasi-experiments have issues with limi:ng
confounding variables such as personal differences, emo:ons, distrac:ons etc.
• Both approaches, exemplified by studies such as Piliavin et al and Marsh et. al. Provide a
holis:c and comprehensive understanding of Social Responsibility
• Despite their limita:ons, combining these methods allows researchers to gain a more
comprehensive understanding of the factors that drive social responsibility, bridging the
gap between controlled experimenta:on and real-life applica:on.
Conclusion – Evaluate

• In conclusion, both field and quasi-experiments play crucial roles in understanding social
responsibility by providing unique insights into real-world behaviour.
• Field experiments offer valuable causal evidence and highlight situa:onal factors
influencing prosocial behaviour.
• They also have high ecological validity as they take place in natural sedngs ensuring that
they reflect real-life ac:ons and scenarios of par:cipants.
• This method allows demand characteris:cs to be reduced as par:cipants are ojen
unaware that they are part of an experiment, hence they don’t alter their behaviour.
• However, this also raises ethical concerns such as lack of informed consent and the
poten:al of causing undue stress and harm.
• Further lack of control over extraneous variables can limit the internal validity of the study.
• Since the experiment is done in a natural environment, it limits the possibility of replica:ng
the study, hence reducing reliability.
• On the other hand, quasi-experiments allow for the study of naturally occurring variables,
offering a broader perspec:ve.
• They are well-suited for longitudinal studies to provide valuable insights about changes
over :me.
• However, the lack of random assignment reduces the ability to limit over confounding
variables.
• Despite their limita:ons, combining these methods allows researchers to gain a more
comprehensive understanding of the factors that drive social responsibility, bridging the
gap between controlled experimenta:on and real-life applica:on.