Piliavin et al. (1969) Flashcards
What is Piliavin’s Study’s backgroud?
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.
What was determined in the previous study done by Darley & Lantde (1968) ?
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
What was the aim of Piliavin’s study?
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.
What was the Kitty Genovese incident?
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.
What were the 4 situational variables being investigated in Piliavin’s study?
- Type of victim (Ill or drunk person)
- Race of victim (same or different race)
- Behaviour of a ‘model’ (if one began to help, would it encourage others?)
- Size of the group of bystanders
What was Piliavins’s research method design? Why do you think so?
Independent groups design. Because the study was repeated on different days with different participants in each condition.
What kind of an experiment was Piliavins’s study?
It was a field experiment
Where did piliavin’s study take place and how long was it?
On a New York subway that rode non stop for 7 and a half minutes
What were Piliavin’s study’s IVs ?
- Type of victim (Drunk/ill)
- Race of victim (Black/White)
- Effect of the model
- Size of the witnessing group (A naturally occurring independant varibale)
What kind of a variable was the size of the witnessing group in Piliavin’s study?
A naturally occurring independent variable
What were the dependent variables in Piliavin’s study?
- 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
What were the Qualitative data recorded in Piliavin’s study?
Any verbal comment made by passengers during each incident
What was the sample size in Piliavin’s study?
Approximately 4450 participants whom 45% black and 55% white
Describe
The sample in Piliavin’s study
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
What was the sampling method used in Piliavin’s study?
Opportunity Sampling
(Not deliberately selected for participation)
Describe
The teams in Piliavin’s study
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
What was the incident created in the subway in Piliavin’s study?
A ‘victim’ staged an ‘emergency’ by collapsing (in the designated ‘critical area’)
After collapsing, what was meant to happen if no one helped the victim?
After collapsing the victim lay on his back on the floor. The model assisted the victim at the end of the journey.
What were the races of the 4 male victims?
3 White and 1 black
Between what ages were the victims?
Between 26 and 35
How were the victims dressed?
They were identically casually dressed
Describe
The 2 victim conditions and how many trials did each condition have in Piliavin’s study?
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
What were the models like in Piliavin’s study?
All white ages between 24 and 29
In Piliavin’s study, How long did the model wait before helping the victim in the early condition?
70 seconds
What were the 2 conditions in Piliavin’s study that was used to measure helping behaviours?
- ‘No help’ condition where no model was there to help the victim
- ‘Helping’ condition where a model was there to help the victim
In Piliavin’s study, How long did the model wait before helping the victim in the late condition?
150 seconds
What were the 4 different types of helping conditions in Piliavin’s study?
- Critical area - early
- Critical area - late
- Adjacent area - early
- Adjacent area - late
Describe the ‘Critical area - early’ condition in Piliavin’s study
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)
Describe the ‘Critical area - late’ condition in Piliavin’s study
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)
Describe the ‘Adjacent area- early’ condition in Piliavins’s study
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
Describe the ‘adjacent area - late’ condition in Piliavin’s study
The model stood in the adjacent area and waited until after the sixth station before helping
What were the results about the models in Piliavin’s study?
- 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
What were the results on helping behaviours in Piliavin’s study?
- 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
What were the quantitative data collected in Piliavin’s study?
Number and type of passengers who helped as well as the time taken to offer assistence
What were the qualitative data collected in Piliavin’s study?
Spontaneous comments made by the passengers
Why were quantitative data collected in Piliavin’s study?
It allowed for comparisons and statistical analysis
Why were qualitative data collected in Piliavin’s study?
It provided some of the thoughts and feeling of the people involved which perhaps provide explanations for why they did or did not help
Name (Piliavin’s study)
An evaluation point which is about reliability
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
Name (Piliavin’s study)
An evaluation point about the sample
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.
Name
An evaluation point about ethics
- Lacked informed consent - no demand characteristics
- was not debriefed
