Piliavin Flashcards
Piliavin, Rodin and Piliavin- ‘Good Samaritanism: an underground phenomenon?’
This procedure took place on an express train from 8th Avenue between 59th and 125th street from 11am-3pm on a weekday over a 3 month period.
- 70 secs into the journey the victim would collapse in the critical area and stare at the ceiling until helped.
- After a further 70 or 150 secs an informally dressed white male model (either in the critical or adjacent area) would help the victim.
- Two female observers were sat in the adjacent area recording variables such as sex, race and location of helpers.
- All the victims were male aged 26-35; 3 were white, one was black; all dressed in an Eisenhower jacket, old trousers and no tie; 38 trials- drunk (smelled of alcohol + carried a liquor bottle in a brown paper bag), 65 trials ‘cane/ill’ appeared sober and carried a black cane.
Piliavin background and aims/ hypothesis or research questions.
- In the early hours of 13th March 1964, 38 people watched as Kitty Genovese was stalked and stabbed on 3 separate occasions in Kew Gardens.
- No one telephoned the police during the assault- one witness called after the woman was dead.
- Diffusion of responsibility- not acting because they believe someone else will.
- Bystander Apathy- observer lack of help or interest.
Research questions:
-Type of victim (drunk/ill)
Drunk-less help
-Race of victim (black/white)
People help the people of the same race first.
-Number of witnesses
The larger the group- the less likely the victim will receive help (diffusion of responsibility).
-Someone setting an example of helping behaviour.
Seeing a model helping would encourage others to help.
Piliavin’s research method. Evidence from study to justify this.
Experiment
Independent and dependent variable present.
Takes place in a natural environment- The New York Subway.
Independent and dependent variables of Piliavins experiment.
Independent variables: what was manipulated? Victim conditions- Black or white Drunk or ill Model conditions- Early or late (in the critical area) Early or late (in the adjacent area)
Dependent variable: what did observers record?
Time taken for first passenger to help.
Total number of passengers who helped.
Gender, role and location of help.
Time for first help after model.
Others including gender, race, location of passengers within the critical area, spontaneous comments and movement of passengers out of the critical area.
Piliavin controls
What was the same vs not the same?
Same: positioning of observers and victim.
Same train layout and same train.
70 secs in, the victim would collapse + stare at the ceiling.
All male victims.
Always done on weekdays 11am-3pm.
Clothes of victims and models.
Model helped 70-150 secs later.
Different:
Behaviour of victim (drunk or ill)
Black or white
How many people on the train (more people- less help) observer might not be able to see who helped.
Cancelled or delayed train (normally 7.5 mins).
Repeat passengers won’t help if they see him fall everyday- influence validity because people aren’t behaving naturally.
Piliavin sampling method and sample.
Opportunity sampling because the participants are obtained easily at the time of research.
They use whoever is on the train at the time.
4450 passengers (men and women) over a 3 month period. 45% black and 55% white. Mean number of passengers per carriage was 43.
Piliavin quantitative findings
Ill victims received help 95% of the time (62/65) and drunk received help 50% of the time (19/38).
Took passengers a median time of 5 seconds to help ill victims and took a median time of 109 seconds for drunk to receive help.
90% of the first helpers were male.
34 people left the critical area.
Piliavin qualitative findings.
Race didn’t have a large effect.
Black victim received slightly less help.
Models rarely needed; public helped quickly on their own.
Number of bystanders made no difference to how many people helped.
Observers heard women saying:
‘It’s for men to help’
‘You feel bad when you don’t know what to do’
Piliavin conclusion
The state of victim (Ill or drunk) affects how likely people are to help.
Males more likely to help than females.
Race makes no difference.
No diffusion of responsibility.
Explanation of findings in Piliavin
-passengers were trapped on the train; they couldn’t just keep on walking.
-less effort for passengers to help. They might as well help as they were waiting for the next stop.
-unlike kitty genovese, the problem was clear to the bystanders who were sitting next to the victim.
-the arousal cost reward model:
-costs of helping: effort, harm, embarrassment.
-Rewards of helping: praise from others, feeling good about yourself.
-costs of not helping: disapproval, blame, guilt, judgement.
-Rewards of not helping: being able to continue your other activities, less effort.
The rewards have to outweigh the costs if you are to help.
Piliavin ethnocentrism
Is the study ethnocentric? Give reasons for both.
It only took place in America- centred on one ethnicity.
But almost 50/50 white/black (45% 55%).
The city is well known for attracting many different cultures for both residents and visitors, therefore it can be generalised beyond America.
What ethical guidelines did Piliavin break and keep? How?
Break:
Right to withdraw- the people were stuck on the train for 7.5 mins.
Debriefing- after the experiment, the people left the train to get on with their daily lives.
Deception- they thought it was a real scenario.
Informed consent- the participants were unaware they were part of an experiment so couldn’t give consent to participate (opportunity sampling).
Kept:
Confidentiality- the identities of the people are unknown.
Protection from harm- the victim caused them no physical harm or mental harm. Although they could feel stressed and not helping could cause guilt.
Piliavin internal reliability- standardised and replicable?
The timings of the victim falling was the same for everyone and they were wearing the same things.
However, the situation on the train might’ve been different every time (how busy it was). (Repeat passengers wouldn’t help).
It was a field experiment so wasn’t controlled.
External reliability- enough trials and large enough sample?
Yes, there were enough trials, the procedure done very weekday for 3 months- procedure done 103 times.
Yes the sample was large enough, the sample size was 4450 passengers both male and female and black and white.
Would be able to detect a pattern.
Piliavin internal validity- anything else measured?
No but it was a field experiment so wasn’t in a controlled environment and there may be other influences.
