Piliavin Flashcards

1
Q

Diffusion of responsibility

A

When a large crowd is present we feel less personal responsibility as we diffuse our responsibility onto others. This means we assume others will help and take responsibility. In a smaller crowd we may feel a greater need to intervene and help as there are fewer people to share responsibility with.

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

Pluralistic ignorance

A

we look to others to help us interpret different situations and this then informs how we should respond. If we see others not responding we interpret the situation as a non-emergency. If we see others helping, we are more likely to offer assistance.

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

Give 4 situational factors which influence bystander effect

A
  1. Diffusion of responsibility
  2. Pluralistic ignorance
  3. Noticing the event
  4. Cost of helping
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Noticing the event

A

In a large crowd we pay less attention to what is going on around us. Therefore we are less likely to notice an emergency situation compared to when we are on our own

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

Cost of helping

A

If there is a risk to ourselves we tend not to help as the cost to our safety is too high.

Also we are less likely to help if we do not have the time to stop, as it is great a cost to ourselves again

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

Give 3 individual factors which influence bystander effect

A
  1. Competence
  2. Mood
  3. Similarity
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

competence

A

if we feel we are able to help or have the skills to help, we are more likely to intervene.

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

mood

A

good mood = pay more attention = more likely to recognise if people need help = more likely to help

bad mood = behave more inwardly

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

similarity

A

Identify with the person in need = more likely to help, because we begin to think same thing could happen to us

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

What is the background of the study? (why was it performed)

A
  • wanted to carry out research in field setting, as previous in lab
  • investigate variables affect whether bystander help in an emergency, such as race and type of the victim
  • if could replicate the effect of ‘diffusion of responsibility’ and ‘modelling’ —unlike previous, auditory clue, now also visual clues, to see if these affect
  • The murder of Kitty Genovese triggered interest in the action of bystanders and the nature of ‘diffusion of
    responsibility’. This suggests that bystanders are less likely to come to someone’s aid if group members are
    strangers
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Give 2 previous evidence that investigated bystander effect

A

Kitty Genovese

  • savagely attacked and the man viciously raped and stabbed her near her apartment
  • at least 38 witnesses but showed no sign of assistance. despite scenes of violence and screams were heard

Latane and Darley

  • seizure over headphone
  • less likely to help if they believed there were others also listening to the seizure taking place
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

what is the aim

A

To investigate, under real life conditions the speed and frequency of helping in relation to

  • the TYPE of victim
  • the RACE of victim
  • the presence or absence of MODEL
  • the SIZE of witnessing group
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

What are the hypotheses?

A
  • drunk = less help than ill
  • more help = same race
  • seeing other help = behave in similar way
  • more people = less help
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

What is the IV?

A
  • type of victim
  • race of victim
  • position and speed of response of the model
  • no. of bystander
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

What is the DV?

A

Level of bystander helping, operationalised as

  • time taken for the 1st passenger to help
  • total no. of people who helped
  • gender and race and location of each helper
  • verbal comments by passengers during the incident
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Where & when did they conduct the experiment?

A
  • New York subway express train
  • 7.5 minute
  • weekdays between 11am-3pm during April to June
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Who conducted the study?

A
  • 16 Columbia students
  • 4 teams = 2 males + 2 females
  • males = victim and model
  • females = observer
18
Q

What was the sample?

A
  • opportunity sample
  • 4,450 passengers
  • 45% black, 55% white
  • mean no. per carriage = 43
  • mean no. in critical area = 8.5
19
Q

3 main steps of the procedure

A
  1. OBSERVER
  2. VICTIMS
  3. MODEL
20
Q

Describe the procedure ( observer)

A
  • 2 females
  • recorded spontaneous comments
  • recorded time taken for the 1st passenger to offer help
21
Q

Describe the procedure (victim)

A
  • age 20-26
  • critical area
  • Eisenhower jackets + old socks + no tie
  • drunk/ill (liquor bottle+smell / carried cane) black/white
22
Q

How does the victim fell?

A

Train passes 1st station, victim staggered forward + collapsed, remained at the floor looking at the ceiling

23
Q

Describe the procedure (model)

A
  • 4 white men
  • 24-29
  • unidentical, informal clothing
  • raised victim to a sitting position and stayed with him for the rest of the journey
24
Q

What are the differences in location and time of early/late help

A
  • critical area early, or adjacent area early

- 70s after collapsed, 150s after collapsed

25
Q

Main categories of results (there are 8)

A
  1. level of bystander helping
  2. no. of helpers
  3. gender of helpers
  4. position/speed of model helper
  5. who left
  6. comments
  7. same race helping
  8. diffusion of responsibility
26
Q

Results related to level of bystander effect

A

Drunk trial, spontaneous help = 50%

cane trial, spontaneous help = 95%

27
Q

Results related to no. of helpers

A

60% of trials received help from more than one helper

28
Q

Results related to gender of helper

A

90% of spontaneous 1st helpers were MALE, even only 60% of the people in critical area were male

29
Q

Results related to position/speed of model helper

A

Position = no effecet
early model = significantly more likely to bring about further helping 100%
late model = 43%

30
Q

Results related to ‘who left’

A

highest %, at least 1 person left the critical area was for BLACK/DRUNK trial, with help after 70s

31
Q

Results related to ‘comments’

A

drunk trials + help more than 70s = most comments

32
Q

Results related to ‘same race helping’

A

white victim, 68% of helpers were white
black victim, 50% were white
slight same race helping
Drunk trial = mainly same race, 90% white

33
Q

Results related to ‘diffusion of responsibility’

A

No evidence. Response time faster for groups of 7+ than groups of 1-3
7+ = 97s, 1-3 = 309s

34
Q

What are the conclusions?

A
  • ill>drunk
  • male more likely to help than female
  • mixed racial group = same race helping, especially when drunk than ill
  • Longer emergency continues = more likely to leave, more likely to discuss (most comments in drunk), less impact of model on helping behaviour (43% late model)
35
Q

What else did they conclude about ‘diffusion of responsibility’

A

It does not occur when people cannot leave.

36
Q

2 factors of the cost-reward model

A
  1. emotional arousal

2. cost-reward calculation

37
Q

How will ‘emotional arousal’ be heightened or reduced?

A

Heightened = empathising with, proximity, emergency continues for longer

Reduced = helping or getting help, reject as undeserving

38
Q

Describe the cost-reward model

A

Cost of helping, cost of not helping

reward of helping, reward of not helping

39
Q

Give 2 strengths of the study

A
  • Quantitative and qualitative data
  • 95% help cane, 50% help drunk
  • allows comparison + objective analysis (quan)
  • insight (qua)
  • objective + realistic understanding
  • Field experiment
  • natural setting, not aware of being observed
  • reduce demand characteristics
  • high ecological validity
40
Q

Give 2 weaknesses of the study

A
  • violated ethical guideline
  • unaware of being observed, unable to tell aim, cannot give their consent
  • might suffer psychological distress, believing victim genuinely fell
  • did not control extraneous variables well
  • position of observer, observer’s accuracy = low, view may be blocked (delay in time recorded)
  • might be inaccurate understanding, lacks ecological validity
41
Q

How was the data collected?

A
  • content analysis for the no. of comments
  • by two female researchers
  • also noted spontaneous comments and actions by those around her