piliavin

Question 1

what was the psychology being investigated?

Answer 1

Bystander apathy/ diffusion of responsibility

Question 2

what is ‘diffusion of responsibility’?

Answer 2

when there are multiple people available to help in an emergency an individual may be less likely to take action because they feel a reduced sense of personal responsibility

Question 3

what is ‘bystander apathy’

Answer 3

when a bystander does not show concern for a person in need

Question 4

what were the four variables in the experiment?

Answer 4

the type of victim,
the race of victim,
the behaviour of a ‘model’
the size of group of bystanders

Question 5

what was the research method

Answer 5

field experiment

Question 6

what were the four independent variables

Answer 6

the type of victim, drunk or ill
the race of the victim, black or white
the behaviour of model, close or distant, early or late
the size of group of bystanders

Question 7

what was the dependent variable

Answer 7

the number of bystanders helping

Question 8

how was the dependent variable operationalised?

Answer 8

the time taken for passengers to help, as well as the amount of passengers who helped

Question 9

how was qualitative data recorded

Answer 9

verbal remarks made by passengers

Question 10

what was the sample

Answer 10

ppts travelling between Harlem and the Bronx, on weekdays between 11am and 3pm, estimated 4450 people around 45% black and 55% were white. 43 mean number of passengers per carriage mean number of people in critical area = 8.5

Question 11

what happened in the critical/ early condition

Answer 11

model stood in the critical area and waited 70 seconds to help the victim

Question 12

what was the critical / late condition

Answer 12

model stood in the critical area and waited 150 seconds to help the victim

Question 13

what was the adjacent/ early condition

Answer 13

model stood in the adjacent area and waited 70 seconds to help the victim

Question 14

what was the adjacent/ late condition

Answer 14

model stood in the adjacent area and waited 250 seconds to help the victim

Question 15

how was the victim standardised

Answer 15

he was always dressed the same way and acted the same way

Question 16

describe the models

Answer 16

all white males aged 24 to 29, dressed informally

Question 17

what did the models do to help

Answer 17

raised the victim to standing position, stayed with him until the train reached the next stop

Question 18

describe the victims

Answer 18

men aged 26 to 35 years, made to look similar, three white one black, causal clothing, 38 out of 103 trials they appeared to be drunk and the rest ill with a cane

Question 19

what were the results of this experiment

Answer 19

78 percent of victims received spontaneous help and in 60% of cases more than one person helped, ppts were more likely to help the person with a cane than drunk. 62/65 trials the ill victim received help. The drunk victim received help in 19/38. In the Ill trial, spontaneous help occurred earlier. In all but three cane trials the victim received help before the model. In terms of race, minor evidence of same race helping in the drunk condition. Black victims received less help overall. Majority of helpers were men (90%) women made verbal comments. No evidence for diffusion of responsibility

Question 20

what model did piliavin propose

Answer 20

the cost benefit model.

Question 21

what is the cost benefit model?

Answer 21

a person weighs up the advantages and disadvantages of helping, if it seems beneficial to help then the person is more likely to do so.

Question 22

what did the study find about the duration of the emergency

Answer 22

the longer the emergency continues, the less likely a person is to help, and the more likely it is they will find a way to cope with arousal

Question 23

what were the strengths, summary

Answer 23

good ecological validity, qualitative and quantitative data, ppts unaware and reduced demand characteristics, some standardisation of victim. Large sample

Question 24

what were the weaknesses summary

Answer 24

less control over extraneous variables, weather conditions etc which may affect ppts behaviour. cannot be sure ppts took part in the experiment only once. All from same area, unrepresentative lack of generalisability. There were less drunk trials