PILIAVIN (1969) Flashcards
what happened in the kitty genovese case?
- 1964
- 38 people in queens watched a woman get stabbed in kew gardens
- murderer ran off twice but came back and stabbed her again
- no one called the police during the assault , only one called after she died
- kitty heard to have said - “Oh my God! He stabbed me!” she screamed “Please help me! Please help me!”
what was the previous reasearch about bystander apathy?
- darlene + latane 1968
- participants took part in a discussion ‘personal problems’ - took place over an intercom - participants couldn’t actually see person talking)
- during the discussion - one group member would appear to be having an epileptic seizure
- experimenter measured how long it took for participant to help
what were the findings of darley and latane?
85% of participants report seizure when there’s 2 people) themselves and the confederate)
62% when there’s 3 in the group
31% when there’s 4 in thex group
what were the 4 aims of piliavin’s study?
would an ill person get more help than a drunk person?
would people help others of the same race before helping those of others?
if a model person started helping the victim, would that encourage others to also help?
would the number of bystanders who saw the victim influence how much help was given
what type of experiment was piliavin’s study?
field experiment
what were the independent variables?
victim conditions - drunk/ill and black/white
model conditions - intervened early (70 sec after)/intervened later (150 sec after) and intervened from critical area/adjacent area
what did the first observer record?
race, sex, location of every passenger in critical area
total number of individuals in the carriage
total number of people who helped the victim
race, sex, location of every helper
who were the people whose behaviour was studied?
passengers on 8th avenue subway express in NYC
didn’t know they were taking part in the study - no consent, no debrief
- 55% black, 45% white
4,450 approximately people over 3 months (103 trials)
what did the second observer record?
race, sex, location of passengers in adjacent area
latency of first helpers response after victim falls (or after model has helped victim)
quantitative findings
90% of first helpers were men
participants spontaneously helped ill victim 62/65 compared to 19/38 drunk trials
help was offered quicker to ill victims - median of 5 seconds compared to 109 seconds delay for drunk
qualitative findings
slight tendency for helper to help own race in drunk conditions - no real difference
model didn’t have an effect on level of helping (most people helped straight away)
victims helped faster when 7 or more passengers were in the same carriage
“it’s for men to help him”
“I wish I could help - I’m not strong enough”
conclusion
people are more likely to help someone who is ill than someone who seems drunk
women feel less able to help the male victim
no diffusion of responsibility
- in person + in front of them - feel obliged to help
- no knowledge of the study - seems like a real emergency
- can’t avoid as stuck on a train
explanation of findings
piliavin stated when bystanders are faced with a situation a state of arousal is created (guilt, fear, disgust etc) which makes us uncomfortable
we get rid of uncomfortableness by:
- helping person
- leaving situation
what we do depends on costs + rewards of helping or not
costs/rewards of helping
costs:
takes time + effort
risk of harm
embarrassment
may make it worse
rewards:
guilt/arousal gone
person is helped
thanks/praise
sense of self worth
costs/rewards of not helping
costs:
person could be seriously injured
arousal created
blame, fear, guilt, frustration
blame from others
rewards:
safety
continue with activities e.g reading a book, listening to music etc.
