Pilivan's study Flashcards Preview

Psychology > Pilivan's study > Flashcards

Flashcards in Pilivan's study Deck (40)
Loading flashcards...
1
Q

Who was Kitty Genovese?

A

A 28 year old woman who was murdered in New York in 1964 as she was walking home.

2
Q

What was concerning about Kitty genovese’s murder?

A

The attack lasted approximately 35 minutes and there were roughly 38 witnesses, however, none of them went to help and none of them called the police.

3
Q

Why do you think nobody helped Kitty Genovese?

A

Personal safety - they might have been afraid for their own lives
They thought someone else would call or help.

4
Q

What is altruism?

A

doing something for someone else without getting anything for yourself

5
Q

What are extrinsic rewards?

A

External, physical rewards (e.g getting money)

6
Q

What are Intrinsic rewards?

A

Internal, emotional rewards (e.g feeling good about yourself)

7
Q

What bystander apathy?

A

When people fail to act and help someone in need when others are present

8
Q

What is diffusion of responsibility?

A

Bystanders do not take responsibility to help victim when there are other bystanders present as each feels as if someone else can help.

9
Q

What were the four research questions in Piliavin’s study?

A

Would it make a difference if the victim was perceived as drunk or ill?
Would it make a difference if the victim was black or white?
Would it make a difference to the behaviour of those witnessing the emergency if someone ‘modelled’ helping behaviour in front of them?
Would there be a relationship between levels of helping behaviour and the number of people witnessing the emergency?

10
Q

What research method is Piliavin’s study? How do you know?

A

It is a field experiment because there is are independent and dependent variables and it takes place in a natural environment.

11
Q

What were the independent variables in Piliavin’s study?

A

Victim: white vs black, drunk vs ill
Model: critical area vs adjacent area, early (helped after 70 seconds) vs Late (helped after 150 seconds)

12
Q

What were the dependent variables in Piliavin’s study?

A

Recorded comments made spontaneously by nearby passengers
Observer 1: Race, sex, location of people in critical area, total number of people in carriage and total number of people who helped the victim
Observer 2: Race, sex and locations of people in adjacent area and the length of time (latency) it took for the first helpers’ arrival.

13
Q

When and where did Piliavin’s study take place?

A

New York 8th avenue independent subway between 11am and 3pm on weekdays between 15th April 1968 and 26th June 1968

14
Q

How many trials were in Piliavin’s study?

A

103

15
Q

What happened in Piliavin’s study?

A

Approximately 70 seconds into the train journey, the victim would stagger forward and collapse, until he received help, he would remain on the floor. In some trials, a model would come in after 70 or 150 seconds to help the victim.

16
Q

Describe the model in Piliavin’s study

A

he was always a white male between 24-29. He was not always dressed the same

17
Q

Describe the victim in Piliavin’s study

A

He was always male and always wore the same clothes

18
Q

How many participants were in Piliavin’s study? and what percentage of them were white and black?

A

4,450, 55% white, 45% black

19
Q

What features of Piliavin’s procedure were kept the same? (controls)

A

The timings
the actors
the order of the experiment

20
Q

What features of the procedure may not have been the same in all of Piliavin’s trials?

A

The script
The number of passengers in the carriage
the number of ill trials vs drunk trials

21
Q

How many of Piliavin’s trials had the victim acting drunk vs ill? what was the reason for this difference?

A

65 ill and 38 drunk

Because one of the teams didn’t like doing the drunk trials so did ill ones instead.

22
Q

Describe the quantitative results of Piliavin’s study

A

help was given to the ill person on 95% of the trials (62/65), but only on 50% of the trials for the drunk person.
across 21 of the trials, 39 people actually left the critical area when the victim collapsed
ON average, it took people 5 seconds to help the ill victim and 109 seconds to help the drunk victim

23
Q

What were the qualitative results of Piliavin’s study?

A

Comments from passengers
e.g women said “its for men to help”
“you feel bad when you don’t know what to do”

24
Q

What reasons did Piliavin give for why there was no diffusion of responsibility?

A

Passengers were trapped in a confined space so there was no one else coming to help
there were reduced costs to helping i.e you are sat on the train anyway
Unlike the situation with Kitty Genovese, it was clear that there was a problem

25
Q

What model did Piliavin come up with to explain the results of the study?

A

The arousal cost-reward model

26
Q

Explain the arousal cost-reward model

A

The bystander experiences arousal, then they weigh up the costs of helping or not helping to decide whether or not to help.

27
Q

What are the costs of helping/not helping according to Piliavin?

A

helping: effort, harm, embarrassment

Not helping: disapproval, blame, guilt, judgement

28
Q

What are the rewards/benefits to helping/not helping according to Piliavin?

A

helping: praise from others, feeling good about yourself

not helping: being able to continue your other activities, less effort

29
Q

On what grounds could Piliavin’s study be considered ethnocentric?

A

It was only done in new York so only consisted on New Yorkers, and although there were lots of participants, we do not know where they were from

30
Q

Why might Piliavin’s study be not ethnocentric?

A

New York is very culturally and nationally diverse, so many people were probably from foreign countries, meaning it isn’t ethnocentric

31
Q

What ethical guidelines did Piliavin uphold? How?

A

Confidentiality - because they didn’t know anyone’ names or personal details, the entire study was totally confidential.
Competence - they all did know what they were doing and Piliavin was a social scientist.

32
Q

Did Piliavin’s study have internal reliability?

A

No, the script changed, they acted differently in each trial and there was an uneven number of ill to drunk trials.

33
Q

Did Piliavin’s study have external reliability? (trials)

A

There were consistent effects for the ill trials, so yes (95% of trials showed help given), but on the drunk trials there wasn’t so overall no.

34
Q

Did Piliavin’s study have external reliability? (participants/sample)

A

Yes because there were 4450 participants officially which showed a consistent effect, however, it could be argued that there were in fact fewer participants as not everyone in the carriage could have helped one person.

35
Q

Did Piliavin’s study have internal (construct) validity?

A

Not really as there were no interviews conducted so we have no way of knowing if the study was actually measuring responses to people in need.

36
Q

Did Piliavin’s study have external (population) validity?

A

yes because New York is a very culturally diverse city with lots of tourists so would represent a number of people, but still it was only conducted in New York so we don’t really know.

37
Q

Did Piliavin’s study have external (ecological) validity?

A

Yes because it was a real life situation as it took place in a natural setting and the participants weren’t aware that they were taking part in a study.

38
Q

How did Piliavin’s study break informed consent guidelines?

A

The participants weren’t aware that they were part of a study and they weren’t debriefed so they couldn’t give informed consent.

39
Q

how did Piliavin’s study break withdrawal guidelines?

A

As the participants didn’t know that they were in a study, they weren’t able to withdraw.

40
Q

How did Piliavin’s study break competence guidelines?

A

They admitted that it wasn’t the same each time and one group of students didn’t like playing the drunk victim so just ran ill trials, throwing off the results.