Piliavin et al

Question 1

Pluralistic ignorance

Answer 1

The belief that a situation is a non-emergency because people around you are not reacting as if it’s an emergency

Question 2

Diffusion of responsibility

Answer 2

Occurs in a large crowd. We believe that in an emergency situation someone else will act & that because of that we don’t have to

Question 3

Factorial design

Answer 3

More than 1 IV

Question 4

Context

Answer 4

Referenced to Kitty Genovese case of her getting fatally stabbed in NYC. Although there were 38 witnesses, no one helped. This was due to diffusion of responsibility

Question 5

Aim

Answer 5

. If diffusion of responsibility applies to all situations and factors that may influence helping behaviour
. Test hypothesis ‘if people are responsible for their own plight’

Question 6

Factors affecting helping behaviour

Answer 6

. Race of victim = black/white
. Type of victim = drunk/ill
. Cost-reward calculation
. Race of helper

Question 7

DVs

Answer 7

. Frequency of help
. Time taken to help
.Race/age/sex of helper

Question 8

Method

Answer 8

Field experiment 103 trials over 2 months

Question 9

Procedure

Answer 9

2 conditions to test hypothesis:
1. ‘drunk’ condition: victim smelled of alcohol and carried a bottle
2. ‘cane’ condition: victim was sober and carried a cane
. 70secs in, victim collapsed. If no help was offered role model would step in between 70-150secs. To see if model affected others’ behaviour
. Observers recorded time taken for help, info about race, gender and location of passengers in compartment + noted any comments overheard

Question 10

Sample

Answer 10

Opportunity sample who happened to be on train on working hrs = tot. of 4500 men & women
. More white people than black people
. Each trial lasted 7 1/2 mins: where 2 female observers, 1 male role-model and 1 victim boarded on the train seperately
. 4 diff teams with black v. in one of them

Question 11

Results

Answer 11

. Cane victim received help 95% of the time, whilst drunk victim 50% of the time
. Cane victim helped within 5s and drunk victim within 109s
. Before role model stepped in, 24% help to drunk v. & 91% to cane v.
. Black victim got less help, less quickly, especially in drunk condition
. Neither race more helpful. Slight ‘same race’ effect
. The more passengers near the vitim, the more likely help was given, so no ‘diffusion of responsibility’

Question 12

2 factor model

Answer 12

1. An emergency situation creates a sense of empathy (arousal) in a bystander, increasing one’s sense if identity with the v. or if physically close to the v. This is reduced by helping or by going away or rationalising why you cannot help.
2. Cost-reward calculation. If cost of helping e.g. risk to self is greater than reward for helping e.g. praise from victim, help is less likely

Question 13

Evaluation - method

Answer 13

+ve: . Field experiment, high ecological validity
. Covert observation, no demand characteristics
-ve: field experiment- researcher can’t control variables
. Covert- people may be unaware that they’re participating

Question 14

Sample- evaluation

Answer 14

+ve: opportunistic so more representative
. 4450- large sample more generalised results
-ve: may only include certain age groups e.g elderly
. Large sample so harder to repliacate

Question 15

Ethics

Answer 15

+ve: .no psychological harm
. No authority fig so no pressure

-ve: .no informed consent
. No debriefing after experiment
. Weren’t aware of their right to withdraw

Question 16

Validity

Answer 16

+ve: high ecological validity
-ve: P’s helping behaviour isn’t accurate as they weren’t able to leave the situation due to being in a moving train–> may not reflect their true behaviour

Question 17

Reliability

Answer 17

+ve: opportunistic sample- can be replicated easily
. Some elements were standardised
-ve: some may have seen the experiment due to working hrs
. large sample- harder to replicate