Compenent 2: Piliavin et al (Social)

Question 1

What is the arousal cost reward model?

Answer 1

If the araousal is negative people are much less likely to help than if the arousal is positive.

Question 2

What is the bystander effect?

Answer 2

The more people present, the less action will be taken.

Question 3

What is the diffusion of responsibility?

Answer 3

Th emore peopl epresent during an emergency situation, the less likely help will be given as people deflect their personal responsibility. Their personal responsibility is diffused/shared among the group.

Question 4

What is pluralistic ignorance?

Answer 4

The more people there are, the more ignorant we become.

Question 5

What was the aim of Piliavin et al.s study into Subway Samaratism?

Answer 5

To investigate helping behaviour on the New York Subway.

Question 6

What was the research method in Piliavin et al.s study?

Answer 6

Field experiment and observation

Question 7

What were the IVs and DVs of Piliavin et al.s study?

Answer 7

IVs - type of victim (drunk/carrying a black cane), race of victime (black/white), effect of a model (after 70 or 150 seconds from the critical or adjacent area) or no model at all and the size of the witnessing group.
DVs- frequency of help, speed of help, race of helper, sex of helper, movement out of critical area and verbal comments made by bystanders.

Question 8

Describe the sample of Piliavin et al.s study.

Answer 8

About 4450 men and women who used the New York subway on weekdays betwen 11am and 3pm between April 15th and June 26th 1968.

Question 9

What was the sampling method of Piliavin et al.s study?

Answer 9

Opportunity sampling

Question 10

How many trials were there during Piliavin et al.s study?

Answer 10

103 snapshot studies.

Question 11

Describe the procedure of Piliavin et al.s study?

Answer 11

1. The study was conducted on on an 8th avenue subway train on an uninterupted run lasting 7.5 minutes with 103 trails in total.
2. There were 4 teams of 4 researchers, 2 female and 2 male. One male acted as the victim and one male as a model with both female researchers as the observers.
3. The victims (3 black, 1 white) were all male, genral studies students aged 26-35 years old and dressed alike.They either carried a liquor bottle wrapped in a brown papr bag or appeared sober and carried a cane. 65/103 were the cane condition.
4. The models (all white) were males aged 24-29 and there were 4 model conditions: critical area - early, critical area - late, adjacent area - early and adjacent area - late.
5. The observers recorded the DVs. On each trial, one observer recoded the race, sex and location of every rider (seated or standing) in the critical area. They also counted the number of individuals who came to the victims assistence. The second observer recorded the race, sex and location of everyone in the adjacent area. She also recorded the latency of the helper’s arrival after the victim had fell and on appropraite trials, the latency of help after the model’s arrival. Both observers recorded any comments made by riders and attempted to ellicit comments from thos near them.
6. The victim stood by a pole in the critical area, after about 70 seconds, he staggered forward and collapsed. Until recieving help, he remained on the floor looking at the ceiling. If he recieved no help, he would remain there until the end of the ride and then the model would help him to his feet.
7. At the stop, the team disembarked and waited separately unti all passengers had left. Then, they changed platforms and repeated the process in the opposite direction.

Question 12

What were the results of Piliavin et al.s study?

Answer 12

1. Comment made by a female passenger “I’m not strong enough to help, this is a mans job”
2. The cane victim recieved spontaneous help 95% of the time (62/65) trials compared to the drunk victim who was helped 50% of the time (19/38 trials)
3. Overall, there was 100% help for the cane victim and 81% of help for the drunk victim.
4. There was no diffusion of responsibility and response time was fatser when there was a larger group.
5. There was a slight tendancy for the same race to help.
6. On 49/81 (60%) of trails where help was given, there were 2 or more helpers.

Question 13

What are the conclusions of Piliavin et al’s study?

Answer 13

1. Individuals who appear ill are more likely to recieve help than those who appear drunk.
2. With mixed groups of both men and women, men are more likely than women to help another man.
3. When escape is not possible and bystanders are face to face witha victim, help is more likely to be given.
4. There is no strong relationship between the number of bystanders and speed of help when an incident is visible.