Core study 3- Piliavin (S) Flashcards
Help in emergency situations
Background
Who’s murder kickstarted the inspiration for Piliavin’s research and what happened?
Kitty Genovese- she was brutally stabbed, 38 witnesses were present but none chose to intervene/ get help
Background
What were the dispositional factors?
-based off behaviour
-fear
-gender
Background
What were the situational factors?
based off influence
-other people
-time
Background
What is bystander apathy?
the likelihood of helping decreases when passive bystanders are present in an emergency situation
Background
What is diffusion of responsibility?
responsibility of helping is shared when ina group among all bystanders- each person feels individually less responsible, so in the end, no one helps
Background
What is cost- benefit model/ analysis?
When a person weighs up rewards of helping/ intervening
whether helping is actually worth it
Background
What is empathy?
We put ourselves in the position of somebody else and imagine what they feel like
Aim
What was the main aim of the study?
To investigate bystander behaviour outside of labatory environment/ conditions (in a field type environment)
Aims
What four variables did they want to see if they were affected by bystander behaviour?
-victims’ responsibility
-race of the victim
-effect of modelling helping behaviour
-size of the group
Method
What were the dependent variables?
recorded by 2 female observers
-frequency of help
-speed of help
-race of helper
-sex of helper
-movement out of critical area
-verbal bystander comments
Sample
What did the sample consist of?
quantity, gender, location
-4,450 participants
-men and women
-from New York Subway inbetween working hours
Procedure
What is the critical area?
The area in which victim collapses in
Procedure
What is the adjacent area?
The area next to where victim collapses
Procedure
Who did the 4 teams of the 4 researchers consist of?
sex, race, quantity
-2 female observers
-1 male model (all white)
-1 male victim (3 black, 1 white, dressed alike)
Procedure
How did the two victims differentiate from each other to create conditions?
- They either smelled of alcohol and appeared drunk
- Or carried a cane (ill)
They acted identically in both conditions
Procedure
What were the 4 model conditions?
-critical early (70 secs)
-critical late (150 secs)
-adjacent early (70 secs)
-adjacent late (150 secs)
Procedure
How did the victim carry out the investigation?
Victim collapsed after about 70 seconds and remianed on the floor until he recieved help
The model helped if no help was given by time the train had stopped
Procedure
Why was the study ecologically valid in terms of what the team did?
They all disembarked and waited seperately until other passengers had left the station at the stop.
Procedure
What did observer 1 observe?
Critical area?
-Race, sex, location of every rider seated or standing in ciritcal area
-Race, sex, location of every helper that came to victim’s assistance
-Recorded verbal comments made by bystanders/ passengers
Procedure
What did observer 2 observe?
Adjacent area?
Race, sex, location of people in adjacent area
-latency of first helper’s arrival after programmed model had arrived
-Recorded verbal comments made my bystanders/ passengers
Results
What was the result of help for a drunk person vs an ill person?
Spontaneous help: ill- 95%, drunk- 50%
Modelled help: ill- 100%, drunk- 81%
Help was offered quickly to cane victim
Result
What was the result of race and helping behaviours?
Cane/ ill: both black and white victims= equally likely to be helped
Drunk: black victims less likely to be helped
Result
What was the result of effect of modelling in terms of the time intervals (seconds)?
Model intervening after 70 seconds was more likely to lead to help from other passengers than after 150 seconds
Results
How did number of bystanders affect helping behaviours?
No evidence of diffusion of responsibilty
Conclusions
What was concluded about help for ill people in comparison to drunk people in general?
Ill people more likely to recieve help than drunk people
Conclusions
What was concluded about genders and helping?
Men are more likely to help men than women are
Evidence of same-sex helping
Conclusions
What was concluded about race and helping?
Same-race helping was evident (black individuals were more likely to help black people in need/ vice versa for white people)
Conclusions
What was concluded about the cost-reward analysis?
Cost-reward analysis is often conducted efore deciding whether to help or not
