Piliavin Flashcards
(15 cards)
What is the aim of the study by Piliavian?
Researchers aimed to study bystander behaviour in a natural setting.
They also wanted to investigate the effect of four situational variables on helping behaviour or
‘Good Samaritanism’:
-the type of victim
-the race of the victim
-the behaviour of a ‘model’
-the size of the group of bystanders.
what was the research method of Piliavian?
Research method: Field experiment. This means it took place in a realistic environment, inthis case, the New York City subway.
What was the Research Design ?
independent groups design, as the trials were repeated on different days andinvolved different participants in cach condition.
What were the independent variables ? and the dependent variables?
Variables:
IV: four independent variables
They were operationalised as:
·the type of victim: the levels were ‘drunk’ or ill’ victim
·the race of the victim: the levels were black or white victim
· the behaviour ofa ‘model’: the levels were a model who was either close to or distant fromthe victim helped, either early or late in the event
·the size of the group of bystanders: this level was the naturally occurring number ofpassengers present in the subway carriage.
DV:the level of bystander helping.
·Quantitative data: operationalised as the time taken for the first passenger to help, as well asthe total number of passengers who helped. The race, gender, and location in the carriage ofeach helper were also recorded.
Qualitative data: was recorded in the form of verbal remarks made by passengers during each incident .
What about the sample?
Sample:
>Participants were passengers travelling on an undergroundservice between Harlem and the Bronx weekdays between11 a.m.and 3 p.m.
>’unsolicited’ sample as an opportunity sample as they werenot deliberately selected for participation.
The total estimated number of participants was 4450 people,
>45% were black and 55% were white
The mean number of passengers per carriage was 43,and themean number of people in the critical area (where the incident took place) was 8.5.
what about the procedure?
Procedure:
Four teams of studentresearchers carried out thestudy, following a standard procedure.
On each trial,two male andtwofemale studentsboarded the train usingdifferent doors.
The female confederates sat in the area adjacent to the immediate ‘critical’ area where theincident took place,
They observed the passengers and recorded data during each trial.
Observe:1 recorded the number of people in the car and the race, sex and location
of every passenger in the critical area. She also noted how many people assisted the victim,as well as their race,sex and location.
Observer 2:recorded the race, sex and location of passengers in the adjacent area,
as well as the time taken to assist after the collapse. Both observers noted comments made by passengers and also tried to elicit them.
>The male confederates took the roles of the victim and the model.
What were the controls?
Controls:
The victim always:
· fell 70 seconds into the ride.
· remained still on the floor looking upwards
· dressed in casual clothes (jacket, trousers and no tie)
In the drunk condition, the victim always held a brown bag and smelled like alcoholIn the ill condition, the victim always held a black cane.
What was the role of the victim?
THE ROLE OF THE VICTIM:
>The victim stood at the pole in the centre of the critical area,and the model remained standing throughout the trial.
Each trial used the same route, because it included a 7.5-minute gap between two stations. At approximately 70 secondsinto the journey, the ‘victim’ staggered forward and collapsed.
He remained lying on the floor looking upwards.
If he received no help, the model would help him to his feet at the next stop..
Even though this is a field experiment, there was considerable standardisation betweentrials and controls that ensured there were few differences between different conditions.
For example, the ‘victim’ was always identically dressed and behaved in the same way forall trials.
The victim was played by different males during the study, but all were made to look similar.
They were aged 26 to 35 years; three were white and one was black.
They were dressed in identical,casual clothing (jacket, old trousers, no tie).
On 38 out of 103 trials the victim smelled of alcohol and carried a bottle of alcohol wrappedin a brown bag.
On the remaining 65 trials they appeared sober and carried a black cane. In all other waysthey behaved identically.
What was the role of the model?
THE ROLE OF THE MODEL:
The models were all white males aged 24 to 29 years of age
Dressed informally
When helping, the model raised the victim to the sitting positionand stayed with him until the train reached the next stop.
Trials were split into the following conditions:
Critical/early: model stood in critical area and waited 70seconds to help victim
Critical/late: model stood in critical area and waited 150seconds to help victim
>Adjacent/early: model stood in adjacent area and waited 70 seconds to help victim
Adjacent/late: model stood in adjacent area and waited 150 seconds to help victim
No model condition: the model did not help the victim until after the trial was over and the train had reached the next stop.
What were the results?
Results:
Most of the helpers were male >Nearly 80% of victims received spontaneous help (i.e. helped before the model intervenedor in a no-model condition), and in around 60% of cases more than one person helped.
20% of participants left the critical area when someone collapsed
Type of victim:
Participants were more likely to help the victim with the cane than the drunk victim (the canevictim received help in 62/65 trials; the drunk victim received help in 19/38 trials).
In the cane trials,spontaneous helping also occurred earlier than in the drunktrials.Forexample, in all but three of the cane trials that were also model trials, helping occurred beforethe model could give assistance.
Race:
>Both black and white cane victims were equally likely to receive help.
However, there was some minor evidence of same-race helping in the drunk condition, withparticipants being more willing to offr help to those of their own race.
In the drunk condition, black victims were found to receive less help overall. Although theseresults were non-significant, they would have supported research suggesting people are morelikely to help those similar to themselves, as they feel more empathy towards them.
Gender:
More males were spontaneous first helpers compared to females as 90% of spontaneous firsthelpers were male.
Effect of Modelling:
The effect of modelling was difficult to analyse, because most of the helping that occurredwas spontaneous.
However, it appeared that early model intervention at 70 seconds was slightly more likely toresult in helping behaviour than waiting until 150 seconds had passed.
Diffusion of responsibility:
No evidence to support the diffusion of responsibility hypothesis.
In fact,there was some evidence to suggest that when more passengers were present,ratesof helping were also slightly higher.
The hypothetical speed to respond for seven-person groups, as predicted by the diffusion ofresponsibility theory, is slower than for three-person groups.
>This is because in seven-person groups the responsibility should be diffused or sharedbetween more individuals. In fact, natural seven-person groups were faster to respond thanpredicted, and faster to respond than the three-person groups.
This directly opposes the prediction of diffusion of responsibility.
What were the other observations?
Other observations:
There were a higher number of comments made during trials without helping.
There were also more comments made during trials with a drunk victim. Comments made: “It’s for men to help him,” or “I wish I could help him-I’m not strong enough,”“I never saw this kind of thing before-I don’t know where to look,” “ You feel so bad that youdon’t know what to do,”
What is the cost benefit analysis?
Cost-Benefit Analysis:
Piliavin etal. proposed an alternative explanation for their findings, known as the ‘cost-benefit model’.
They suggest that witnessing an emergency raises an individual’s level of arousal. They mayeither become more likely to feel disgust and aversion, or even sympathy and courage.
This heightened arousal level prompts individuals to act, to reduce difficult feelings.
cost-benefit model: involves a decision-making process in which a person weighs
up both te advantages and disadvantages of helping. If it seems beneficial to help.
then the person is more likely to do so; if the risks are too great, they may refrain.
more people present, theless likely an individual would help someone inneed as the individual would have a perceived senseof reduced or shared responsibility. For example, inKitty Genovese’s case, around 38 individuals werewitnesses to the murder however no one reported itbecause they believed someone else would.
What is the conclusion?
Conclusions:
This study found that in a natural setting, many people would offer spontaneous help to astranger, even in a group situation.
This study found no evidence of diffusion of responsibility, but did identify several factorswhich may determine decisions to help:
The type of victim (someone using a cane will be helped more than a drunk person)
the gender of the helper (men are more likely to help than women)
People may be more likely to help members of their race, especially if the victim is drunkand emergency continues, the less likely it is the longer and that anyone will help, and themore likely it is they will find another way of coping with arousal.
What is the psychology being investigated?
Psychology investigated:
Piliavin investigated diffusion of responsibilitywhich occurs when an individual is less likely to actin an emergency where there are others present whoare also able to help. The
more people present, theless likely an individual would help someone inneed as the individual would have a perceived senseof reduced or shared responsibility. For example, inKitty Genovese’s case, around 38 individuals werewitnesses to the murder however no one reported itbecause they believed someone else would.
Piliavian fall under the individual or the situational?
The number of bystanders significantly affected helping behavior:
When alone, 95% of individuals offered help.
When others were present, the likelihood of helping decreased dramatically.
Factors like the victim’s appearance (race, level of distress) also played a role, but situational influences were more impactful overall.
The study concluded that situational factors, such as the diffusion of responsibility effect, play a crucial role in determining whether individuals will help someone in need.
These findings imply that it is often the context or situation that influences whether people decide to assist rather than their personal traits, thus supporting the situational perspective in the helping behavior debate.
Examples & Evidence
An example from the study is that a person who might have helped if alone may hesitate when surrounded by others, reflecting how the situational context can change behavior. This is similar to observing someone in need but deciding not to intervene because others are also present, thinking someone else will help instead.
The research findings showed that 95% of individuals helped when alone, compared to a much lower percentage when others were present, demonstrating the significance of situational factors over personal characteristics.
