Piliavin et al 1969 Flashcards
(23 cards)
What event sparked interest in the bystander effect?
Kitty Genovese was murdered in 1964 in Queens surrounded by 38 bystanders.
What is bystander apathy?
The failure to offer help to people in need.
What is diffusion of responsibility?
The tendency for individuals to feel diminished responsibility for their actions when they are surrounded by others who are acting the same way.
What types of victims were studied by Piliavin et al?
Drunk or ill with a cane; Black or white.
What were the independent variables in Piliavin et al’s study?
Model conditions (early/late in the critical area OR early/late in the adjacent area) and victim conditions (white/black OR ill/drunk).
What were the dependent variables in Piliavin et al’s study?
Time taken for the first passenger to help, total number of passengers who helped, gender, race and location of help, and other variables such as spontaneous comments and movement of passengers.
What was the sample size in Piliavin et al’s study?
Approximately 4450 passengers (men and women) over a 3-month period.
What was the racial composition of the sample in Piliavin et al’s study?
45% black and 55% white.
What was the mean number of passengers per carriage in the study?
43.
What sampling method was used in Piliavin et al’s study?
Opportunity sample.
When was the sample taken in Piliavin et al’s study?
Between 11am and 3pm on a weekday.
What was the procedure in Piliavin et al’s study?
Journey was approximately 7.5 minutes; a victim would collapse in the critical area and stare at the ceiling until helped.
What information was recorded by observers in Piliavin et al’s study?
Sex, race, and location of help.
What were the characteristics of the confederates in Piliavin et al’s study?
Males aged 26-35, 3 were white, 1 was black, dressed in Eisenhower jackets, old trousers, shirt and no tie.
What were the control variables in Piliavin et al’s study?
Victims and models as well as their behaviour, seats/location of victim, model and observer, and same stations and times.
What were the uncontrolled variables in Piliavin et al’s study?
Ability to view if the carriage is crowded, another emergency taking place, time of journey if delayed, and repeat passengers.
What were the quantitative findings of Piliavin et al’s study?
Ill victims received help 95% of the time; drunk victims received help 50% of the time; median time to help ill victims was 5 seconds; median time to help drunk victims was 109 seconds; 90% of first helpers were male; 34 people left the critical area.
What were the qualitative findings of Piliavin et al’s study?
Race didn’t have a large effect on who helped; black victims received slightly less help; models were rarely needed; number of bystanders made no difference to how many helped.
What were the conclusions of Piliavin et al’s study?
The state of the victim affects how likely people are to help; males are more likely to help than females; race makes no difference; there was no diffusion of responsibility.
What is the Arousal Cost-Reward Model in Piliavin et al’s study?
Passengers were trapped on the train and couldn’t leave the situation, making it less effort to help.
What apparatus was used in Piliavin et al’s study?
Victim costumes, victim props (alcohol, cane), observer’s notebooks, and watch/stopwatch.
What are the strengths of Piliavin et al’s study?
Diverse population, controlled procedure, natural environment, large sample, high ecological validity, and repeated procedure.
What are the weaknesses of Piliavin et al’s study?
Conducted in one place, participants unaware of study, potential distress from seeing someone fall, unrealistic scenarios, and uncontrolled variables.
