Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Social appraoch > piliavin - 1969 > Flashcards

piliavin - 1969 Flashcards

1
Q

What is the background of the study?

A
  • Kitty Genovese
  • The story of the Good Samaritan
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

What is the story of the Good Samaritan?

A

A bible story depicting a Samaritan helping a beaten, robbed, and left for dead Jewish man who was ignored by a Priest and a Levite - even though Samaritans and Jews are historical enemies

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

What is an overview of Kitty’s story?

A

She was attacked outside an apartment building multiple times and was subsequently killed without anyone who lived in the apartments calling the police or doing anything beyond shouting out their window & turning on lights

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

What is bystander apathy?

A

A lack of concern in helping others as a bystander to an event

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

What are some key facts of bystander apathy?

A
  • have to be aware of the event
  • has to be other people there
  • victim & watcher
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

What is a bystander?

A

someone who is near and not helping

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

What are examples of bystander apathy?

A
  • Kitty Genovese (people in flats that weren’t helping)
  • The smoke study - when other people were present
  • Headphone study - when there were other people connected to the headphones
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

What are not examples of bystander apathy?

A
  • Kitty - the man who shouted from his window
  • people helping based on how they are dressed - professionally
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

What is diffusion of responsibility?

A

When there are other people who you can share responsibility with and placing more responsibility on others

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

What is pluralistic ignorance?

A

When people are misled by the behaviour of others in an emergency situation

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

What is an example of pluralistic ignorance?

A

If others are calm and unreactive it suggests there is no emergency

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

What are some reasons that people would help a stranger visibly struggling?

A
  • other people are
  • pity
  • they would want someone to help them if the situation was turned
  • sympathy
  • want to be a good Samaritan
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

What are some reasons why people would not help someone visibly struggling?

A
  • nobody else is
  • no time
  • they assume someone else will
  • self-inflicted pain (no sympathy - believe it is their fault they are in that position)
  • fear
  • safety issue
  • unpredictable behaviour
  • do not want to get involved
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

What are the context points of the study?

A
  • civil rights movement
  • patriarchy
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

What is the aim of the study?

A

To find out why some people help, if different people help, the conditions that make helping more likely, why people turn a ‘blind eye’ in a real life emergency situation

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

What is the sample of the study?

A
  • approx. 4500 men and women
  • 45% black 55% white
  • New York subway users on weekdays 11 am-3 pm
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

What is a strength of the sample?

A
  • large sample makes results more representative and therefore generalisable
  • POPULATION VALIDITY
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

What are the weaknesses of the sample?

A
  • only in New York - cultural bias
  • ETHNOCENTRIC
  • only a certain type of person uses the subway during the times measured
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

What was the method used?

A

field experiment

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

What are the strengths of the method?

A
  • reduced chance of demand characteristics
  • high in ecological validity as it is less artificial
  • MUNDANE REALISM (natural environment)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

What is a weakness of the method?

A

cannot control any extraneous variables - makes harder to establish causality

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

What is the setting?

A
  • A and D trains
  • 8th avenue NY subway
  • 59th street (Bronx) and 125th street (Harlem)
  • journey lased 7 1/2 mins
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

What were the 4 IVs?

A
  • Type of victim (drunk or ill)
  • Race of victim (black or white)
  • Effect of a model (after 70 or 150 seconds)
  • Size of witness group
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

What were the 6 DVs?

A
  1. frequency of help
  2. speed of help
  3. race of helper
  4. sex of helper
  5. movement out of critical area
  6. verbal comments by bystanders
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

Who were the 4 confederates?

A
  • 2 female
  • 2 male
  • females were observing passenger behaviours (DVs)
  • 1 male victim
  • 1 male model
26
Q

How many teams of researchers were there?

A

4

27
Q

How was the procedure standardised?

A
  • all victims and models were male
  • dressed alike
  • acted identically in both conditions (drunk or ill)
28
Q

What are key characteristics about the ‘victims’?

A
  • 3 white, 1 black
  • male
  • general studies students
  • aged 26-35
  • either smelled of liquor & carried a liquor bottle wrapped in a brown bag or appeared sober with a black cane
29
Q

What are key characteristics about the ‘models’?

A
  • white males
  • aged 24-29
30
Q

What were the 4 model conditions?

A
  1. critical early (70 s)
  2. critical late (150s)
  3. adjacent early (70s)
  4. adjacent late (150s)
31
Q

What were the model conditions for?

A

Shows when the model will step in to help the victim if nobody has already and which part of the subway they were stood in

32
Q

What did the female observers record?

A

the DVs e.g., race, sex, and location of passengers and amount of people who helped

33
Q

What type of data was collected?

A

Quantitative and Qualitative

34
Q

What is an example of quantitative data collected in the study?

A
  • amount of people in carriage
  • race, sex, and location of helpers
  • latency of help
35
Q

What is an example of qualitative data collected in this study?

A

verbal comments from passengers

36
Q

What are the strengths of this type of data?

A
  • mostly quan. = easy to compare and analyse
  • objective
  • having some qual. provides insight as to why some people won’t help
37
Q

What are the weaknesses of this type of data?

A
  • mainly quan. was collected so we don’t get explanations of why people helped (only why some women did not)
38
Q

What is an outline of what the victim did?

A
  • stood near the pole in the critical area
  • after 70 seconds staggered forwards and collapsed
  • remained sat upright until received help
39
Q

How long was the journey?

A

7 1/2 minutes

40
Q

How many trials ran each day?

A

6-8 (all of which used the same victim condition)

41
Q

How many total trials were there?

A

103 - 65 cane (ill) & 38 drunk

42
Q

What is the factor which may cause inconsistent results in this study?

A

more cane (ill) trials were ran than drunk trials as some students did not like playing a drunk

43
Q

What is a strength about the procedure?

A

standardised (more reliable results )

44
Q

What is a weakness about the procedure?

A

gender bias - only males acted as victims (androcentric results)

45
Q

What are the key results?

A
  • the cane victim received spontaneous help 95% of the time (62/65)
  • the drunk victim received spontaneous help 50% of the time (19/38)
  • 90% of first helpers were male
  • help was offered quicker to the cane victim compared to the drunk victim
46
Q

What do the results suggest?

A

that if a person is suffering due to self-inflicted reasons they are less likely to be offered help

47
Q

What are the key findings?

A
  • slight tendency for same race helping (especially in the drunk condition)
  • no diffusion of responsibility was found
  • more comments were made by passengers in the drunk condition
48
Q

What are some examples of comments made by passengers in the drunk conditon?

A

1- “It’s for men to help him”
2- “I wish I could help him - I’m not strong enough”

49
Q

What was the movement of passengers like from the critical area?

A
  • 21/103 total trains resulted in 34 people leaving the critical area
  • more movement in the drunk victim condition
50
Q

What is the key explanation for this study?

A

The Arousal Cost-Reward Model

51
Q

What does the AC-RM suggest?

A

It suggests that in an emergency situation bystanders become emotionally aroused

52
Q

What are the types of emotion arousal?

A

empathy, sympathy, fear, disgust

53
Q

What do people often do with this emotional arousal?

A

weigh up a cost-benefit analysis

54
Q

What factors raise arousal levels when witnessing an emergency situation?

A
  • having empathy
  • proximity
  • length of time that has gone by
55
Q

What factors lower arousal levels when witnessing an emergency situation?

A
  • walking away (going from critical to adjacent)
  • helping
  • getting help
56
Q

What is an example of cost-benefit analysis?

A

cost of helping = get hurt, time-consuming, inconvenient
benefit/rewards of helping= praise

57
Q

What are the conclusions for this study?

A
  • if an individual appears ill they are more likely to get help than someone who appears drunk
  • same race helping is more likely (particularly in drunk)
  • captive audiences are more likely to help as escape is not possible
58
Q

What are some ethical issues in this study?

A
  • no informed consent
  • deception
  • no debrief
59
Q

Does Piliavin side with the situational or individual side of the debate?

A

Situational

60
Q

What is a weakness of the situational debate?

A
  • ignores individual differences
  • reductionist
  • deterministic

Social appraoch (5 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions