comparing pilavin and levine Flashcards
THE TOPIC
Bystander behaviour towards emergency
and more everyday situations
The studies by Piliavin et al. and Levine et al. are both about
social psychology, specifically about bystander behaviour –
the extent to which people will offer help to strangers in need.
However, there were differences in the aims of the two studies.
Piliavin et al. were concerned with helping in an emergency
situation in which someone clearly needed urgent assistance.
On the other hand Levine et al. were concerned with more
everyday situations in which people were faced with non-
emergency situations. In Levine et al.’s study participants
encountered strangers who would clearly benefit from help but
who were not in immediate danger. In addition Levine
et al. were primarily interested in differences between cities
and their populations, whereas Piliavin et al. were more
interested in the nature of the emergency situation.
THE RESEARCH METHOD AND DESIGN
Both field experiments using independent
measures designs
Both studies were experiments carried out in the field. Both
studies were carried out in busy city environments, and both
involved a situation where participants were unaware that they
were taking part in research. In both studies participants were
in familiar natural environments. Another similarity between
the two studies was that both used an independent measures
design. Different participants took part in each condition.
There was however a difference in the independent
variables studied. Piliavin et al. studied the effects of
four independent variables: the victim’s race, the victim’s
responsibility for the situation, the presence of a model, and
the number of bystanders. Levine et al. were interested in the
effect of population differences between cities.
SAMPLE AND SAMPLING
Both used large samples of non-consenting
participants
Both of these studies used very large samples. Piliavin et al.
estimated that around 4550 people were present for their
procedures although of course the majority did not get directly
involved in the situation. For Levine et al., the total sample
size was just under 1200. In both studies participants had not
volunteered to take part in a study, nor were they aware that
they were participating.
The target populations were similar in the two studies,
although Piliavin et al.’s study was located in a single city
whereas Levine et al. were interested in 23 cities. Sampling in
both cases had a systematic element. For Piliavin et al. this
took the form of making sure a good range of train times were
covered. For Levine et al. this meant that the largest city in
each country was chosen and that individual participants
were chosen according to who passed a point in the street at a
particular time.
EXPERIMENTAL MATERIAL AND
MEASUREMENT OF THE DEPENDENT
VARIABLE
Quantitative and qualitative data
The two studies used rates of helping as the main dependent
variable. For Piliavin et al. this meant how many people helped
the victim and how long they took to do so. For Levine et al.
it was the number of people helping or offering help to the
person in need. In both cases, the DV was help offered without
being asked.
Both studies involved collecting quantitative data in the
form of helping rates. However, Piliavin et al. also collected
some qualitative data in the form of passenger comments.
Levine et al.’s data was entirely quantitative.
APPLICATIONS
Helping behaviour in the real world
Both these studies have applications in understanding and
predicting helping behaviour in real life. From Piliavin et al.
we can learn that if we are taken ill in a public place and need
help, we need to make sure people realise that we are ill and
not drunk. Levine et al.’s findings have important implications
in terms of travelling – if we need help, we can expect it a lot
more in some cities than in others.
KEY THEME: RESPONSES TO PEOPLE
IN NEED
Piliavin et al. and Levine et al. used field experiments to
investigate helping behaviour. Both found that overall most
people in need did receive help. However they also found
that key variables affect the likelihood of receiving help.
These include the apparent responsibility of a victim for their
situation and the city in which the emergency takes place.
