Paper 2 - Piliavin et al on Subway Samaritan Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
1
Q

What is the background of this study ?

A

Since the murder of Kitty Genovese, psychologists have conducted many studies in order to find an explanation for the bystander behaviour. Much of previous research was conducted in lab environments which lacked ecological validity so some research also needed to be conducted in the field to provide confirmation in a more natural setting.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

What are the aims of this study ?

A

To investigate bystander behaviour on a subway train and to see how the type of victim (drunk or ill, white or black, cane or no cane) affects the bystander effect. It also aims to investigate the impact of modelling and group size.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

What is the sample of this study ?

A

Opportunity sampling of passengers on the new York subway on a weekday travelling north between 11am and 3pm,over the course of 3 months. Overall, there was 4,450 passengers in total, 45% black, 55% white.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Explain the confederates in this study.

A

The confederates played the roles of the victims and the models. They were students from Columbia university ages 24-35.
4 teams of 4 people, consisting of a male victim, a male model and 2 female observers. One male victim was black

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Explain what happened in each trial.

A

There was 103 separate trials, after 70 seconds the victim staggered forwards and collapsed on his back. If no help was happening, the model would help the victim up at either 70seconds or 150 seconds. The train didn’t stop for 7.5mins.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Explain the victims and what their conditions were.

A

4 male victims were being dressed identically, each victim participated in a drunk trial and a cane trial. IN 38 trials the victim was drunk, in 65 trials the victim was ill carrying a cane.
In the drunk condition the victim smelt of alcohol and was carrying a bottle in a brown paper bag.
In the cane condition, the victim appeared sober and was using a black cane.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

What did the female observers measure ?

A

Race, sex and location of everyone in the carriage
The total number of people on the train.
Total number of people who helped
Race, sex and location of every helper
Time when help was first offered.
Any verbal comments.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

What results were found between the drunk condition and the cane condition ?

A

A person who is using a cane is more likely to receive help than one who is drunk: 95% vs 50%.
Help is more quickly offered for a person with a cane: 87% of victims with a cane were helped before the model intervened and only 178% of drunk victims were helped before the model helped.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

What results were found between the race and gender conditions ?

A

The black victim received help slower than the white victim.
90% of first helpers were male, when 60% of the train passengers were male.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

What results were found between the model conditions ?

A

The model intervening at 70seconds had slightly more effect than the model who intervened at 150seconds.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

What results were found about group size ?

A

‘Diffusion of responsibility was nor found ion this study, helping was greater in groups of 7 then groups of 3.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

What qualitative results were recorded ?

A

One passenger said ‘ it’s for men to help him’
Another said ‘you feel so bad when you don’t know what to do’.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

What type of study is this ?

A

A field experiment

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

What were the main conclusions drawn from this study ?

A

A cost-reward model can predict when help will be forthcoming in an emergency situation where escape is not possible
The emergency situation creates heightened arousal, the decision on to help is motivated by a selfish desire to get rid of unpleasant emotions.
Avion will depend on whether the reward of helping is greater than the cost of not helping.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Evaluate the research methods used

A

Strengths- It was conducted in a natural environment of the new York subway where people were unaware of being studied.
Weaknesses- Extraneous variables are difficult to control in a field experiment. There may have been other factors that influence the likelihood of helping, e.g. anxiety, stress and age.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Evaluate the sampling bias in this study

A

Strengths: It is a large sample collected over3 months, and therefore contained a wide cross section of people so the results can be generalised to a larger population.
Weaknesses: The sample still has unique characteristics, all people are used to an urban environment and pressures of a busy city, such as homelessness and street performers. This may affect the validity of the results.

17
Q

Evaluate the ethnocentrism in this study

A

The target population is an individualist culture, where people are mainly concerned with personal interests rather than the communities interests. Non western cultures are collectivists so they might show greater willingness to help people in an emergency situation.

18
Q

Evaluate the reliability of this study

A

There were standardised procedures in place for each trial so that the data would be compared from one trial to another trial and across different teams.
This might have enhanced reliability of the study, however, we can’t be sure that each team of students did it in exactly the same way.
The reliability of observations wasn’t checked and may be unreliable as only one person made each set of observations - low inter-rater reliability.

19
Q

Evaluate the type pf data collected

A

The majority of the data collected was quantitative - this means that data is easy to compare. However, this oversimplifies factors that appear to affect behaviour. This may lead to simplistic account of the bystander affect.
Qualitative data was also collected, for example the comments from people sitting on the carriage. Such data provides a more personal insight into why people don’t or do help.

20
Q

Evaluate the ethics in this study

A

One problem with conducting research in the field is that its is much more difficult to obtain informed consent from pps, as soon as you ask people for informed consent you alter them to the fact that their behaviour will be studied and then research loses its naturalness.
There was no right to withdraw and participants were not debriefed.
Psychological harm
participants may have been distressed by seeinng someone collapse on the subway . They may have gine home and tol others about it, suggestsing lasting impact.
Distess may have been made worse for those pps who did not decide to help causing regret and anxiety
Particpants felt a conflict between offering help or not, causing stress.

21
Q

what debates and perspectives does this study support

A

behaviourist perspective - a helpful model had a positive effect on bystander behaviour.
freewill - We chose wether to help people in an emergency or not but this decision is determined by several factors (determinism)

22
Q

how is this study useful

A

because it helps to understand how people react to emergencies and what factors affect their decision to help
It highlights factors that affect bystander intervention, which could be useful when encouraging people to help in future emergencies. As a result of the study, Piliavin created a theory to explain bystander intervention: the arousal-cost reward model.