Piliavin Flashcards
(25 cards)
What was the aim of Piliavin et al.’s (1969) Subway Study?
To investigate the factors that influence helping behavior in an emergency situation, including the victim’s characteristics, the presence of a model, and the number of bystanders
What psychological phenomenon were Piliavin et al. (1969) exploring?
They aimed to test ideas related to bystander apathy and diffusion of responsibility, as highlighted by the famous Kitty Genovese case
What was Piliavin et al.’s main hypothesis?
That helping behavior would be influenced by factors such as the victim’s race, whether they appeared drunk or ill, the presence of a model, and the number of observers
What was the theoretical basis of Piliavin et al.’s study?
The study was grounded in the cost-reward model of helping, which suggests people weigh the costs and benefits before deciding to help
What research method did Piliavin et al. (1969) use?
A field experiment conducted on an NYC subway train, which allowed observation of natural behavior in a real-life setting
Who were the participants in Piliavin et al.’s (1969) study?
Approximately 4,500 passengers were unknowingly observed, most of whom were unsolicited participants riding the train
How were the trials structured in Piliavin et al. (1969)?
On each trial, a ‘victim’ collapsed in the subway car, and observers recorded whether and how bystanders intervened
What were the four victim conditions in Piliavin et al. (1969)?
Black drunk
Black ill (with cane)
White drunk
White ill (with cane)
What role did the model play in Piliavin et al.’s (1969) experiment?
A model helper (confederate) would sometimes intervene after 70 or 150 seconds, to observe whether that influenced bystander behavior
What was the setting and duration of Piliavin et al.’s study?
The study took place over three months (April–June) on a specific subway route with no stops for around 7.5 minutes
What data was collected in Piliavin et al.’s (1969) study?
Observers recorded:
Time taken to help
Number of helpers
Gender and race of helpers
Verbal and non-verbal reactions
What was the most significant finding in Piliavin et al.’s (1969) study?
The ‘ill’ victim was helped significantly more (95% of trials) than the ‘drunk’ victim (50% of trials)
How did race influence helping in Piliavin et al. (1969)?
Same-race helping was more common in the drunk condition, suggesting some in-group bias when helping required more risk
What did Piliavin et al. find about diffusion of responsibility?
Unlike previous lab studies, diffusion of responsibility was not found—people were more likely to help as group size increased, possibly due to realism and proximity
How quickly did people help in Piliavin et al.’s (1969) study?
79% of victims received help within 70 seconds, often from multiple helpers
How did the presence of a model influence helping behavior?
The earlier the model helped, the more likely it was that others would follow and help too - indicating social modeling
What was observed about gender differences in helping?
90% of helpers were male, showing that men were more likely to help in public emergencies
What did Piliavin et al. (1969) conclude about helping behavior?
Helping behavior is influenced by cost-benefit analysis: people are more likely to help when the cost of helping is low and the cost of not helping is high (e.g. guilt or public judgment)
What model did Piliavin et al. propose based on their findings?
The Arousal: Cost-Reward Model—helping behavior is motivated by emotional arousal, and decisions are based on assessing the personal cost vs reward of helping
What is a strength of using a field experiment in Piliavin et al. (1969)?
The high ecological validity due to the real-life setting, with participants unaware they were being observed
How does Piliavin et al.’s (1969) study avoid demand characteristics?
Because it was a covert observation in a natural setting, participants behaved naturally, increasing validity
How did Piliavin et al. (1969) improve upon lab-based studies of bystander behavior?
Unlike artificial lab studies Piliavin et al. used real emergencies, showing people do help under realistic conditions
What is one ethical issue in Piliavin et al.’s (1969) study?
Participants were deceived and couldn’t give informed consent, raising ethical concerns, especially if they felt guilt or distress afterward
Why is generalisability a limitation in Piliavin et al. (1969)?
The study was conducted in New York City on a specific subway route, which may not reflect helping behavior in other cultures or settings
