Social Flashcards
(19 cards)
What was the background to Pivillian’s study?
Kitty Genovese case, 28 year old women was killed, 38 bystanders.
Bystander apathy, ambiguity of situation, pluralistic ignorance, diffusion of responsibilty.
What was Pillivian’s aim?
To stage an emergency on the New York subway to test bystander apathy intervention in a natural setting.
What was the method?
Field exp, participant observation
IV- victim responsibility, race, presence of model, number of bystanders.
DV- time taken, total number who helped, gender, race, position
p Who was the sample?
4450 train passengers in NYC
45% black, 55% white
April 15th- June 26th 1968 weekends 11-3
Brief procedure summary P?
16 researchers 4x4, 1 male black in each
Victim was ALWAYS male, victim 1 smelled of liquor, victim 2 had a black cane.
Models ALWAYS white, 4 model conditions- critical area (early/late), adjacent area (early/late)
Observers ALWAYS female, recorded DV, noted race, sex, location of riders, total number of individuals who came to help.
Victim stood near a pole in the CRITICAL AREA after 70 seconds staggered forward and collapsed until he received help, if no help was received the model would pick them up, 6-8 trials occurred daily.
P Key results?
Spontaneous help- cane 95%, drunk 5%
Help index- cane 100%, drunk 81%
Time- cane quicker, median 5s vs drunk 10s
Gender- 90% males helped first
Race- slight tendency for same race to help
No diffusion of responsibility
Key conclusions p?
An individual who appears ill is more likely to receive help than those drunk, men are more likely to help a male victim, people are more likely to help same race.
Cost -reward analysis, we are more likely to help if rewards outweigh the costs, eg gender costs.
P Ethics evaluation?
Broken- protection of ps, informed consent, deception, right to withdraw
Kept- Confidentiality/ privacy
P Evaluation points?
Ethnocentrism
+ NYC is made up of many cultures
- Single city
Validity
+ Population, 4450 sample
+ Internal, some controls eg track chosen,
same times of day, dressed the same,
same place
+ Ecological, scenario fairly realistic
- Population, not representative of
children, elderly eg.
- Internal, possible EV’s eg carriage size
- Ecological- unusual way in which the
victim collapsed, dramatic
Reliability-
+ 103 trials consistent
+ Standardised behaviour
- Some IV’s had less trials, hard to establish
constant effects
What was the background to Levine’s study?
Certain factors effecting helping behaviour, population size, economic factors, cultural and cognitive factors,
Simpatia- Concern for wellbeing of others, often related to Latin American, Spanish cultures.
What was the aim of Levine’s study?
Examine the tendency of people in the largest city of 23 countries to help a stranger in non-emergency situations.
L What was the method?
Quasi, field experiment
IV- 23 countries
DV- % of responses to helping behaviour
Correlational analysis of 4 community variables.
What was the sample?L
1198 ps, cities in 23 countries
2nd person to cross a line on a pavement
No U16, elderly or disabled
What were the 3 scenarios?
Dropped pen
Hurt leg, dropping magazines
Blind man trying to cross the road
What were the community variables?
Population size- United Nations demographic yearbook
Economic indicator- PPP
Cultural values
Walking speed- pace of life, 35M 35W were times
l Main results?
Consistency across helping behaviour generally stable
Variation between cities, EG Rio de Janerio 93%, Stockholm 72%
Simpatia countries EG Rio De Janerio were more helpful compared to non simpatia
Economic indicator had a statistically significant relationship
L Main conclusions?
Helping behaviour in non-emergency situations is not universal but varies.
Sig differences in Simpatia and non Simpatia countries.
Ethics?
Broken- no informed consent, deception, right to withdraw
Kept- Confidentiality, protection from harm
L Evaluation of study?
Ethnocentrism-
+ culture variation
+ situations are not ethnocentric
- 1 African country (Malawi)
- Focus on America, Europe and Asia
Validity-
+ Population- large sample 1198, 23 countries
+Ecological- settings true to real life, field study
+ Internal- plenty of controls eg all male
- Internal, correlational analysis, no cause and effect, public may have spotted many trials occurring.
