Piliavin et al. (1969)

Question 1

Background of Pilivin

Answer 1

Kitty Genovese was murdered and no one came to help.
Darley and Latane = woman fell of chair, epileptic seizure and smoke room. Likely to be a good samaritan if they see someone in a prosocial manner.

Question 2

Theory of Bystander Behaviour

Answer 2

-Bystander apathy = what people do.
-Diffusion of responsibility = less likely to take responsibility.
-Pluralistic ignorance = privately reject the norm.
-Cost benefit = arousal/ benefit for individual
-Attribution = explain cause of behaviour
-Altruistic behaviour = opposite of selfishness.

Question 3

Aim of Piliavin

Answer 3

To test bystander behaviour/ apathy in a real life setting.
-Type of victim.
-Race of victim.
- Effect of modelling on helping behaviour.
-Effect on group size.

Question 4

Method of Piliavin

Answer 4

Field experiment using observational techniques.
Independent measures design.
Snap shot study that produced quantitive and qualitative data.

Question 5

IV’s of Piliavin

Answer 5

Type of victim - drunk/cane
Race of victim - black/white
Impact of modelling = modelled/didnt model
Group size

Question 6

DV’s of Piliavin

Answer 6

Number of people who helped.
Time taken to help.

sub DV = Gender, race, location, whether people who moved away and comments made.

Question 7

Sample of Piliavin

Answer 7

Opportunity sampling.
Estimated 4450 travellers (45% black and 55% white)
Average per carriage = 43

Question 8

Procedure of Piliavin (background)

Answer 8

-16 researcher in teams of 4 (2m/2f). Males were model or victim and females were observers. Victims were dressed casually (3w + 1b).
-103 trials between 1am-3pm from April 15-26 June 1968. Used trains between 59th and 125th street.

Question 9

Procedure of Piliavin (inside train)

Answer 9

-Bordered train using different doors.
-Varied location of critical area.
-Female confederates sat outside the critical area.
-Male model stood and victim stood next to pole.

Question 10

Model condition (critical area/adjacent)

Answer 10

-Critical area - early (70s) and late(150s).
-Adjacent area - early (70s) and late (150s).

Question 11

Findings of Piliavin (type of victim)

Answer 11

-Can victim = 95%
-Drunk victim = 50%
-60% of victims = 2 or more helpers
-34 left critical area when collapsed (drunk).
-more quicker in cane than drunk/.

Question 12

Findings of Piliavin (race of victim)

Answer 12

-Black victim = less help and less quickly
-Same race = white more likely to help white and v/v
-Males more helpful than females.

Question 13

Findings of Piliavin (modelling early or late)

Answer 13

-Early model had more affect than ate model.
-Small amount of data as people helped before the model.

Question 14

Findings of Piliavin (number of passengers)

Answer 14

-More passengers in critical area, there was more help given.
-Reverse of Latane and Harley as there was no diffusion of responsibility.
Because the number of people counterbalanced diffusion effect and people could see victim.

Question 15

Comments made by passengers in Piliavin

Answer 15

-“For men to help him.”
-“I don’t know where to look.”
-“You feel so bad you don’t know what to do.”

Question 16

Conclusions of Piliavin

Answer 16

-Drunk were less likely to get help than cane.
-men were more likely to help male victim.
-No diffusion of responsibility was found.
-Same race helping occurred more with drunk victim.
-Contradicts Latin and Darley.

Question 17

How does Piliavin link to social area ?

Answer 17

Social approach as it was seeking to investigate impact of other people on helping behaviour. It did this on a subway carriage and a model was always there to demonstrate helping behaviour if this was necessary.

Question 18

What was the level of data in Piliavin ?

Answer 18

Interval