SOCIAL-Piliavin Flashcards
(19 cards)
What was the background to Piliavins study?
Kitty genovese was stabbed to death over the course of 35 mins on march 19th 1964. 38 people were aware, but nobody called the police.
Darley and latane proposed that the reason why nobody reported the murder is because the other witnesses believed someone else would.
What were the four aims of Piliavins study?
Would it make a difference is the victim was perceived to be drunk or ill?
Would it make a difference if the victim was white or black?
Would it make a difference in behaviour if a model showed helping behaviour?
Would there be a relationship between levels of helping behaviour and the number of witnesses?
What does bystander apathy mean?
When people fail to help when others are present
What does diffusion of responsibility mean?
People take less responsibility when lots of people are present as they think someone else will help
What research method did piliavin use?
A field experiment was used. This is because it was conducted in the normal environment to the participants
What were the independent variables?
Victim conditions
Ill or drunk
White or black
Model conditions
Early or late
Critical or adjacent
Size of witness group(uncontrolled)
What were the dependent variables?
-Frequency of help
-Speed of help
-Race of helper
-Sex of helper
-Verbal comments
-Movement of others out of the areas
What was the sample?
Passengers on board the 8th Avenue subway train in NY
4450, 55% white, 45% black.
What was the sampling method used?
Opportunity sampling as piliavin used the people available at the time
What was the procedure?
Conducted from 11-3 on weekdays over three months. Four teams of students, each with a victim and two observers. 70 seconds in to a train ride, a victim would always stagger in the critical area. The observers in the adjacent area would make covert observations on participant reactions. 65 trials the participant was ill, and 38 were drunk. Always dressed the same, some were white, some black, some were helped by a model
What were the quantitative findings of Piliavins study?
-Spontaneous help was given on 62/65 of ill trials, compared to 19/38 drunk trials
-Median of 5 seconds to help the ill, and median of 108 to help the drunk
-90% of helpers were male
What were the qualitative findings of Piliavins sudy?
From women:
“I wish i could help him”
“Im not strong enough”
“Its for men to help”
What did Piliavin conclude?
-The state of the victim affects how likely they are to get help
-Males are more likely to help than women
-There was no diffusion of responsibility, which is contradictory to previous research
How did Piliavin explain the contradictory findings?
-Passengers were trapped on the train and couldnt leave, so it was easier to help them.
-We think about the costs and rewards of helping.
How does this study relate to ethics?
-Participants were deceived and believed that it was real
-There was no debrief
-No informed consent
-Participants may have psychological harm
How does this study relate to reliability?
Large sample size of 4450, so a consistent effect can be established.
The study was very standardised, (eisenhower, bottle in bag), so can be replicated
How does this study relate to validity?
High ecological validity
Study was conducted in a normal environment, and so acted naturally
Population validity
Study only consisted of people who take the NY subway. Not generalisable to anywhere else in the world
Construct validity
Extraneous variables or participant variables like time of day, or if a participant is more inclined to help as they are a doctor etc
Is this study ethnocentric?
It only includes people who take the NY subway, and no where else in the world. Yes
What was kept consistent?
-Same eisenhower jacket
-Bottle in a paper bag
-Same cane
