Piliavin

Question 0

Aim.

Answer 0

They wanted to see whether or not helping behaviour was affected by 4 variables: 1. The victims responsibility.

2. The race of the victim.
3. The effect of modelling helping behaviour.
4. The size of the group.

Question 1

Inspiration.

Answer 1

Shocked by the case of Kitty Genovese. Stabbed to death in New York. The attack lasted 30 minutes, and even though many people witnessed her cries for help, no-one helped her.

Question 2

(IV)

The number of…

Answer 2

…bystanders present.

Question 3

(IV)

The presence of…

Answer 3

… a model helper after 70 or 150 seconds.

Question 4

4 IV’s:

Answer 4

1. The race of the victim.
2. The type of victim (drunk/ill).
3. The number of bystanders present.
4. The presence of a model helper (after 70 or 150 seconds).

Question 5

(DV)

The time taken…

Answer 5

for the first passenger to offer to help the confederate.

Question 6

(DV)

The total…

Answer 6

…number of passengers who helped.

Question 7

(DV)

The ……, …. and …….. of….

Answer 7

The gender, location and race of every helper.

Question 8

(DV)

The time taken for the first…

Answer 8

… passenger to offer help after the model helper had assisted.

Question 9

4 DV’s:

Answer 9

1. The total number of passengers who helped.
2. The gender, race and location of every helper.
3. The time taken for the first passenger to offer to help.
4. The time taken for the first passenger to offer to help after the model helper had assisted.

Question 10

Sample:

Answer 10

1. An opportunity sample of 4550 passengers travelling on the train.
2. 43 passengers were on average on each carriage.
3. Average of 8 passengers were in the critical area.
4. 45% were black and 55% were white.

Question 11

(Main Findings)

The confederate who appeared ill was…

Answer 11

…more likely to receive help than the one who appeared drunk.

The cane confederate (ill) received spontaneous help 95% of the time compared to 50% for the confederate who appeared drunk.

Question 12

(Main findings)

The model intervening after…

Answer 12

…70 seconds was more likely to lead to help from other passengers than the one intervening after 150 seconds.

Question 13

(Main findings)

There was no significant relationship between the…

Answer 13

…number of passengers and speed of helping.

The DIFFUSION OF RESPONSIBILITY with a greater number of bystanders was NOT seen for these groups.

Question 14

(Conclusions)

Helping behaviour is determined more by the characteristics of the…

Answer 14

…situations than the characteristics of the individual.

Question 15

(Conclusions)

Specifically bystanders on a train are very likely…

Answer 15

…to help others if they collapse, unless they are drunk.

Question 16

Conclusions:

Answer 16

1. Helping behaviour is determined more by the characteristics of the situations than the characteristics of the individual.
2. Bystander responses are determined by weighing up the costs and the benefits of helping or not helping.
3. Specifically bystanders on a train are very likely to offer help if someone collapses, unless they are drunk.
4. Men are more likely to help than women.

Question 17

Strengths:

Answer 17

1. High Ecological Validity. The study took place in a natural environment of a train and the situation of seeing I’ll or drunk people collapse is a normal one.
2. Collected quantitative data. (Example?)

Question 18

Weaknesses:

Answer 18

1. Ethics: Withdrawel, protection, deception.
2. Unrepresentative sample. The sample method was opportunity sampling of passengers between 11am and 3pm. This may have left those at work or in education underrepresented, thus it is an unrep…