Piliavin et al. (1969)

Question 1

What is Piliavin’s Study’s backgroud?

Answer 1

In 1964, a New York citizen, Kitty Genovese was followed, assaulted and murdered by an assailant near her home. At the time there were 38 individuals living near by being either eye or ear witnesses who failed to prevent the murder. This triggered an intrest in understnding the behaviour of the bystanders.

Question 2

What was determined in the previous study done by Darley & Lantde (1968) ?

Answer 2

A person is less likely to take action in an emergency where there are others who are also able to help. As ones perceived sense of responsibility is diffused/reduced

Question 3

What was the aim of Piliavin’s study?

Answer 3

It was aimed to study the bystander behaviour in a natural setting. They also wanted to investigate the effect of four situational variables on helping behaviours.

Question 4

What was the Kitty Genovese incident?

Answer 4

Kitty Genovese was followed, assulted and then murdered by an assailant near her home. One witness had called down to warn off her attacker as Miss Genovese screamed that she was being stabbed. Her attacker was sacred off but returned to continue the assult. At the time there were 38 individuals living near by being either eye or ear witnesses who failed to prevent the murder.

Question 5

What were the 4 situational variables being investigated in Piliavin’s study?

Answer 5

1. Type of victim (Ill or drunk person)
2. Race of victim (same or different race)
3. Behaviour of a ‘model’ (if one began to help, would it encourage others?)
4. Size of the group of bystanders

Question 6

What was Piliavins’s research method design? Why do you think so?

Answer 6

Independent groups design. Because the study was repeated on different days with different participants in each condition.

Question 7

What kind of an experiment was Piliavins’s study?

Answer 7

It was a field experiment

Question 8

Where did piliavin’s study take place and how long was it?

Answer 8

On a New York subway that rode non stop for 7 and a half minutes

Question 9

What were Piliavin’s study’s IVs ?

Answer 9

1. Type of victim (Drunk/ill)
2. Race of victim (Black/White)
3. Effect of the model
4. Size of the witnessing group (A naturally occurring independant varibale)

Question 10

What kind of a variable was the size of the witnessing group in Piliavin’s study?

Answer 10

A naturally occurring independent variable

Question 11

What were the dependent variables in Piliavin’s study?

Answer 11

• Number of bystanders
• Frequency of witness help
• Latency (time) to help
• Race of helper
• Sex of helper
• Number of helpers
• Movement out of the critical area

Question 12

What were the Qualitative data recorded in Piliavin’s study?

Answer 12

Any verbal comment made by passengers during each incident

Question 13

What was the sample size in Piliavin’s study?

Answer 13

Approximately 4450 participants whom 45% black and 55% white

Question 14

Describe

The sample in Piliavin’s study

Answer 14

Approximately 4450 individuals whom of which 45% were black and 55% were white. Travelling between Harlem and the Bronx weekdays between 11AM and 3PM. The mean number of participants per carriage was 43 and the mean number of people in the critical area was 8.5

Question 15

What was the sampling method used in Piliavin’s study?

Answer 15

Opportunity Sampling
(Not deliberately selected for participation)

Question 16

Describe

The teams in Piliavin’s study

Answer 16

Teams of 4 university students were there. 2 males and 2 females. 1 male was the victim and 1 male was the model while the females were observers

Question 17

What was the incident created in the subway in Piliavin’s study?

Answer 17

A ‘victim’ staged an ‘emergency’ by collapsing (in the designated ‘critical area’)

Question 18

After collapsing, what was meant to happen if no one helped the victim?

Answer 18

After collapsing the victim lay on his back on the floor. The model assisted the victim at the end of the journey.

Question 19

What were the races of the 4 male victims?

Answer 19

3 White and 1 black

Question 20

Between what ages were the victims?

Answer 20

Between 26 and 35

Question 21

How were the victims dressed?

Answer 21

They were identically casually dressed

Question 22

Describe

The 2 victim conditions and how many trials did each condition have in Piliavin’s study?

Answer 22

In the drunk condition, 38 trials took place and the victim smelled like alcohol and carriend alcohol in a brown bag.
In the ill condition, 65 trials took place and the victim appeared sober and carried a crane

Question 23

What were the models like in Piliavin’s study?

Answer 23

All white ages between 24 and 29

Question 24

In Piliavin’s study, How long did the model wait before helping the victim in the early condition?

Answer 24

70 seconds

Question 25

What were the 2 conditions in Piliavin’s study that was used to measure helping behaviours?

Answer 25

1. ‘No help’ condition where no model was there to help the victim
2. ‘Helping’ condition where a model was there to help the victim

Question 26

In Piliavin’s study, How long did the model wait before helping the victim in the late condition?

Answer 26

150 seconds

Question 27

What were the 4 different types of helping conditions in Piliavin’s study?

Answer 27

1. Critical area - early
2. Critical area - late
3. Adjacent area - early
4. Adjacent area - late

Question 28

Describe the ‘Critical area - early’ condition in Piliavin’s study

Answer 28

The model stood in the critical area and waited until after the train passed the fourth station, and then helped the victim( Approx. 70 secs after collapse)

Question 29

Describe the ‘Critical area - late’ condition in Piliavin’s study

Answer 29

The model stood in the criticl area and waited until after the train passes the sixth station before helping the victim. (approx. 150 secs after collapse)

Question 30

Describe the ‘Adjacent area- early’ condition in Piliavins’s study

Answer 30

The model stood a little further away, adjacent to the critical area and waited until after the train passed the fourth station, then helped the victim

Question 31

Describe the ‘adjacent area - late’ condition in Piliavin’s study

Answer 31

The model stood in the adjacent area and waited until after the sixth station before helping

Question 32

What were the results about the models in Piliavin’s study?

Answer 32

• Models were rarely needed. The public ussually helped quickly on their own
• The longer no help is offered, the less important modelling becomes and the more likely someone is to leave the area, more so with drunk victims

Question 33

What were the results on helping behaviours in Piliavin’s study?

Answer 33

• Apparently ill victims are more likely to be helped than apparently drunk ones (62/65 trials compared to 19/38) and are more likely to be helped quickly
• Males are more likely to help than females (60% of traveller were males but 90% of first helpers were males)
• Race has little effect on helping although drunk victim is less likely to recieve opposite race help
• The speed of helping doesnt decrease with increasing group size

Question 34

What were the quantitative data collected in Piliavin’s study?

Answer 34

Number and type of passengers who helped as well as the time taken to offer assistence

Question 35

What were the qualitative data collected in Piliavin’s study?

Answer 35

Spontaneous comments made by the passengers

Question 36

Why were quantitative data collected in Piliavin’s study?

Answer 36

It allowed for comparisons and statistical analysis

Question 37

Why were qualitative data collected in Piliavin’s study?

Answer 37

It provided some of the thoughts and feeling of the people involved which perhaps provide explanations for why they did or did not help

Question 38

Name (Piliavin’s study)

An evaluation point which is about reliability

Answer 38

The reliability of this study was increased by the fact that there were two independent researchers observing and recording data. So they were able to measure inter-rater reliability

However, its hard to replicate therefore reduces reliability

Strength

Question 39

Name (Piliavin’s study)

An evaluation point about the sample

Answer 39

It was a field experiment therefore high ecological validty. A strength of the sample is it is fairly big and therefore would be representative of people who used the subway in NYC.

Question 40

Name

An evaluation point about ethics

Answer 40

• Lacked informed consent - no demand characteristics
• was not debriefed