Social - Piliavin (1969):

Question 1

What is the background for Piliavins study?

Answer 1

• Wanted to investigate bystander behaviour
• Murder of Kitty Genovese where 38 witnesses did nothing even though they could see and hear her

Question 2

Define altruism

Answer 2

Doing things simply out of the desire to help

Question 3

Define vicitm blame

Answer 3

Asserts that is it the victims fault if smth happens to them
*when a women is raped by a man saying it is the womens fault for being there / wearing that

Question 4

Define diffusion of responsibility

Answer 4

The more potential helpers present in an emergency situation the less likely a vicitm is to recieve help
More people means each person sees themselves less responsible
1 person = 100% responsible
2 people = 50% responsible
10 people = 10% responsible

Question 5

Define bystander apathy

Answer 5

Describes the behaviour of bystanders in an emergency who explain that they do not help a victim because they believe someone else will help > somebody else will help why should I?
(Kitty Genovese murder 38 witnesses)

Question 6

What is the psychology being investigated? (2 things)

Answer 6

1. Bystander apathy : When ppl in situation where they witness someone needing help and do not help > someone else will help
2. Diffusion of responsibility : Theory that more people present in emergency situation less likely victim is to recieve help > bystanders present percieve the responsibility as being shared out between everyone present in situation

Question 7

What are the 4 independent variables?

Answer 7

1. Condition of victim (ill / drunk) > ill had a cane and drunk smelt of alcohol + bottle wrapped in paper bag
2. Race of victim (black / white)
3. Presence of model (either close / distant) 70 /150
4. Number of bystanders (no. of ppl in carriage)

Question 8

What are the 5 dependent variables?

Answer 8

1. Time taken for help to arrive > before or after modelled help
2. Race of first helper
3. Gender of first helper
4. Location / movements of passengers in critical area
5. Passengers spontaneous comments about collapse

Question 9

Describe the participants (5 things)

Answer 9

• 4450 men and women
• 43 ppl in each carriage
• 8 ppl in critical area
• 45% black + 55% white
• Oppurtunity sampling

Question 10

What was the design and details of the study?

Answer 10

• Field experiment
• 8th avenue line in NYC
• 11am - 3pm
• April 15th - June 26th 1968
• 59th street - 125th street
• 7.5 minute ride (non stop)
• Observations
• Experimental design > independent groups

Question 11

Describe the victims

Answer 11

• Victims were males aged 26 - 35yrs
• 3 white + 1 black
• Dressed identically in Eisenhower jackets, old trousers no tie
• 38 trials victims would smell of alcohol + carried bottle in brown bag
• Remaining 65 trials victim appeared sober > carried black cane

Question 12

Give details about the trials

Answer 12

• 103 trials
• 38 drunk
• 65 ill

Question 13

Describe the models

Answer 13

• 4 males aged 24 - 29
• Identically dressed in casual clothes
• Models of helping behaviour
• When model gives assistance to victim > help into sitting position + stay with them for rest of trial

Question 14

Describe the 4 conditions of the experiment

Answer 14

1. Critical area (EARLY) : Model stood in critical area + helped after 70 secs
2. Critical area (LATE) : Model stood in critical area + helped after 150 secs
3. Adjacent area (EARLY) : Model stood in adjacent area + helped after 70 secs
4. Adjacent area (LATE) : Model stood in adjacent area + helped after 150 secs

Question 15

Describe DV (helping) was measured in terms of
(5 things)

Answer 15

1. Time taken for first passenger to help
2. Total number of passengers who helped
3. Recorded comments
4. Observers noted race, sex, location of every person in critical area
5. Other observer noted down race, sex, location in adjacent area recorded time to help after model was helping

Question 16

Describe the procedure of Piliavin

Answer 16

1. Line choosen bcoz no stops
2. Each trial team of 4 columbia general studies students > boarded train using different doors
3. Male experimenter faked collapse in train between stops in order to see who helped him / who didn’t
4. As train passed first station (approx 70 secs) after departure victim staggered forward and collapsed looking up
5. If victim recieved no help by the time train got to next station the model helped him to stand up

Question 17

Describe the team who boarded the train

Answer 17

• 2 females = observers to record data
• 2 males= 1 victim + 1 model

Question 18

Describe the positions of each person in the experiment

Answer 18

• 2 female observers took seats outside critical area
• Observer 1 in adjacent carriage > near exit door
• Observer 2 in adjacent carriage > far corner
• victim stood near pole
• Model was in designated area

Question 19

Descrive how the 4 IV’s were manipulared in the procedure

Answer 19

1. Victim responsibility >
   Operationalised as carrying cane (ill - low responsibility) OR smelling of alcohol w bottle (drunk - high responsibility)
2. Victim race >
   Operarionalised as black / white
3. Presence of model >
   Operationalised as whether male confederate either close / distant from victim > (helped 70 or 150)
4. Number of bystanders >
   Operationalised as how many people were present in the vicinity

Question 20

What are the 6 controls in this experiment?

Answer 20

1. Same 7.5 minute journey for all trials
2. Victim wore same clothes
3. Victim fell over at the same time (after 70secs) > in same place / same way in every trial
4. Each team member started journey in same place
5. All trials run on same subway
6. Same critical area

Question 21

What are the 6 findings from Piliavin?

Answer 21

1. TYPE OF VICTIM: ill more likely to recieve help than drunk - ill helped 100% of time when there was no model
2. RACE OF VICTIM: Same race helping was higher for drunk victim - drunk black victim was helped 73% of time + more frequently from black helpers
3. MODELLED HELP: Early models were more likely to elicit help than late models
4. GROUP SIZE: Weak positive correlation between group size + helping behaviour > group 7+ faster to respond than grps of 3
5. Men more likely to help than females
6. 20% of ppl moved away from critical area (usually in drunk condition)

Question 22

State 5 conclusions from the study?

Answer 22

1. Drunk less likely to recieve help > personal responsibility matters
2. Men more likely to help
3. Same race helping more likely
4. No strong relationship between no. of bystanders and speed of helping
5. Longer no help the less influence model has (more likely ppl are going to leave)

Question 23

What are the 3 pieces of qualitative data?

Answer 23

1. You feel so bad that you don’t know what to do
2. It’s for the men to help
3. I wish I could help him > I’m not strong enough
   *commnents more likely in the drunk condition

Question 24

What are Piliavins conclusions?

Answer 24

• Piliavin did not find any evidence to support diffusion of responsibility > bcoz more passengers present rates of helping were higher
• Pilliavin proposed > cost benefit model
• Descion making process in which person weighs up both advantages and disadvantages of helping