Social Study - Piliavin Et Al

Question 1

When was the study published?

Answer 1

1969

Question 2

What was the background?

Answer 2

Kitty Geneovese - walking home from work but once at her flat, got attacked by 2 (at least) men
“38 respectable, law abiding citizens” watched the attack”
No-one called the police during attack
1 person called police after death

Question 3

What is bystander apathy?

Answer 3

Observer lack of help or interest

Question 4

What is diffusion of responsibility?

Answer 4

Not acting because they believe someone else will

Question 5

Aims and Hypothesis

Answer 5

1. Type of victim (ill or drunk) (ill will get more help)
2. Race of victim (black/white) (same race will help)
3. Number of witnesses (less help with more people)
4. Someone setting an example of helping behaviour (seeing a model helping would encourage others to help)

Question 6

What is the research method?

Answer 6

Field Experiment - experiment took place in a real life setting, on the New York subway

Question 7

Independent variables - what was manipulated?

Answer 7

Victim conditions:
Black or white
Drunk or ill (with cane)
Model Conditions:
Early or late (close in the critical area)
Early or late (in the adjacent area)

Question 8

Dependent variables - what did the observers record?

Answer 8

Time taken for 1st passenger to help, total number of passengers who helped, gender, race, location of help, time for 1sr help after model, others including gender, race, and location within the critical area, spontaneous comments and movement of passengers out of the critical area.

Question 9

Procedure

Answer 9

Express train between 59th and 125th street from 11am-3pm every weekday over a 3 month period
7.5 minute train
70 secs in victim collapsed in critical area
After further 70 secs or 150 secs an informally dressed male would help
Two female observers were sat in the adjacent area recording variables such as sex, race, and location of helpers.

Question 10

Description of confederates

Answer 10

Males, aged 26-35, 3 white 1 black, dressed in Eisenhower jacket old trousers and no tie, 103 trials in total, 38 drunk, 65 ill and carried black cane

Question 11

What was kept the same?

Answer 11

Outfit of victim, length of time, location - same train, gender of victim, same time of day, where the victim fell, timings of victim and model

Question 12

What could not be kept the same?

Answer 12

Number of people on train, race, gender, or age of all people involved, same carriage?, delayed train, if the same people got on, no space to fall or can’t see all, another emergency

Question 13

Describe the sample

Answer 13

Approximately 4450 passengers (both men and women) over 3 month period
45% black and 55% white
Mean number of passengers per carriage was 43

Question 14

What sampling method was used?

Answer 14

Opportunity - people didn’t know about the study
Passengers who happened to be in the New York subway taking the express train from 8th and 125th street between 11m and 3pm on a weekday

Question 15

What were the quantitative results?

Answer 15

Ill victim received helped 95% of the time (62/65 trials)
Drunk victim received help 50% of the time (19/38 trials)
90% of first helpers were male
34 people left the critical area

Question 16

What were the qualitative results?

Answer 16

Race did not effect results
Black victims received slightly less help (not significant)
Models were rarely needed
Number of bystanders made no difference
Took median time of 5 secs to help an ill victim
Took median time of 109 secs to help a drunk victim
“It’s for men to help”
“You feel bad when you don’t know what to do”

Question 17

What were the conclusions?

Answer 17

Men are more likely to help
More likely to help the ill than the drunk
Race makes no difference
No diffusion of responsibility

Question 18

Explanation of findings

Answer 18

Passengers were trapped on train
Was less effort for passengers to help
Was clear what the problem was

Question 19

On what grounds can Piliavin’s research of accused of being ethnocentric?

Answer 19

Only in once country - USA

Question 20

How/why might Piliavin’s study by defended as not being ethnocentric?

Answer 20

Focussed on races
Many different cultures for both residents and visitors

Question 21

What ethical guidelines were broken?

Answer 21

Debrief - no debrief- weren’t aware they were being studied
Right to withdraw - cannot leave train - no consent for data
Protection from harm - no harm intentionally caused by falling man - distressed by people falling over
Consent - no consent
Deception - guy was not ill/drunk

Question 22

What ethical guidelines were upheld?

Answer 22

Confidentiality - no way of knowing people
Right to withdraw - Passengers were able to leave the critical area and the train after 7.5 mins.

Question 23

Internal Reliability - Was the procedure standardised and replicable?

Answer 23

Was replicated every weekday from 11am-3pm
Was not standardised - was different every train journey - due to a lot of trials, some may be similar

Question 24

External Reliability - Were enough trials run to confirm consistent results?

Answer 24

Although they didn’t do equal drunk and ill trials
Could see the overall results
103 trials

Question 25

External Reliability - Was the sample large enough to confirm a consistent effect?

Answer 25

Yes - had lots of people who were different
But people could do in different areas to get other culture’s results
4456

Question 26

Internal (contract) Validity - Was it an accurate measure of ‘response to people in need’? Could there be anything else being measured apart from this?

Answer 26

Yes - because based on real situation
People’s reaction who didn’t help eg. said, facial expressions
High amount of controls
Thought it was real
Extraneous variables

Question 27

External (population) Validity - Can the sample be generalised from?

Answer 27

No because it didn’t include all cultures
Only in one place
BUT it did have a variety of cultures of both residents and visitors

Question 28

External (ecological) Validity? - Do the results reflect how people would respond to someone in need of help in a real life situation?

Answer 28

Dramatic fall, drunk 11am - 26-35 year old - not realistic