Piliavin et al. (1969) Flashcards
1
Q
Piliavin et al
A
- 1969
2. Good Samaritans: An underground phenomenon?
2
Q
Background to the Piliavin study
A
- Irving Piliavin, Judith Rodin, and Jane Piliavin conducted a field experiment to investigate bystander behaviour
- They were particularly interested in the variables that affect whether people help someone in need
- Their research came about following a murder in Queens, New York
- Kitty Genovese was attacked and fatally wounded by a man who repeatedly returned to stab her as she walked to her apartment block
- Despite her cried for help, onlookers failed to intervene to help her
- Piliavin et al. wanted to investigate why people would fail to be “good samaritans”
3
Q
Aim to the Piliavin study
A
- To investigate helping behaviour in a natural environment and understand the conditions in which people are more likely to help
4
Q
Procedure to the Piliavin study
A
- Almost 4500 men and women passengers travelling on a New York subway between 11am and 3pm because the participants in the covert observation
- Four groups of four students from Columbia University were used to run the trials to observe what would happen when a victim collapsed on the train
- Each student group consisted of two male actors and two female observers. One male acted as the victim and the other male was a model (pretend passenger)
- The “victim” entered the carriage of the train and stood next to the central aisle handrail. The model sat in the same area of the carriage and either sat still or offered to help the victim after a period of time. This became known as the critical area
- Two female students entered the same carriage using different doors and sat in the adjacent seating area to observe and record what the passengers did
- After the first station stop, the victim stumbled forward and collapsed on the floor of the critical area
- The female observers recorded how many people were in both the critical and adjacent areas, their race, sex, who helped, and how long it took them to offer assistance
- Over 103 trials, the victim was either sober and carrying a cane or appeared drunk and carrying a bottle wrapped in a brown paper bag
- The victims also varied as to whether they were white or black. Each victim was instructed to collapse and stare at the ceiling of the carriage until assistance came
- The time it took for assistance to arrive also varied, as the model did not always offer help
- Other times they would offer help after the fourth station stop (70 seconds after) or the sixth station stop (150 second later)
5
Q
Results to the Piliavin study
A
- In 62 out of the 65 trials where the victim was carrying a cane, passengers helped the victim before the model planned to intervene
- This was compared to 19 out of 38 trials where passengers helped the drunk victim before the model planned to intervene
- This meant that in 81 out of 103 trails, the victim was helped before the model was scheduled to help.
- In 60% of these trials more than one passenger came to the aid of the victim
- Men were more likely to be the first ones to help the victim - 90% of the first helpers were male and 64% of the first people were white
- The percentage of first helpers did not defer that much from the race distribution of the carriages (55% white)
- 68% of helpers who came to the aid of a white victim were also white whereas 50% of white passengers came to the aid of the black victim
- There was a tendency for the same race to help the drunk victim
- Other studies have shown that bystander behaviour is influenced by the number of people in a group. People tend to diffuse responsibility onto others if the group is large, feeling that others will help instead. However this effect was not found in this experiment. Speed was faster in groups of seven of more passengers than in groups of three to four passengers
6
Q
Conclusions of Piliavin
A
- People are more likely to help someone perceived as ill compared to someone perceived as drunk. They suggest that this is because the cost of helping an ill person is less in terms of risk to oneself. There is also a perception that drunk people are more responsible for their unfortunate situation
- Men are more likely to help than women. Women may feel that the costs of helping are higher for them. Also that the costs of not helping are less than they are for men as women are not expected to respond in such emergency situations
- There is a small tendency for ‘same race’ helping
- Larger groups are more likely to offer assistance than small groups
- People in this study were less likely to see the situation as ambiguous: clearly the victim needed help.
- The cost of helping in a large group was comparatively low as the victim would be perceived as less harmful. In addition to this, the cost of not helping was high because they could be clearly seen by others as not offering assistance and may have felt guilty.
- Although most helpers acted before the model was scheduled to intervene, the overall findings were that the model’s offer of assistance did not tend to influence other passengers
- The longer the time lapse before the model helped, the greater likelihood that passengers discussed the situation of left the critical area
7
Q
Strengths of Piliavin’s study
A
- The field experiment was conducted on a busy subway. Unlike many lab experiments on bystander behaviour, this study was done in a naturalistic environment on passengers who regularly use the subway to commute. This means that the study has ecological validity as the passengers are behaving naturally and spontaneously.
- As it was a covert investigation, they would not be displaying demand characteristics or doing what they think they are expected to do
8
Q
Weaknesses of Piliavin’s study
A
- The passengers were unaware that they were being observed or taking part in a psychology experiment. This means that they had not given their consent to take part and may not have chosen to do so had they been asked before hand. It is also a weakness that the situation could have caused distress to the participants as they would have been witness to an upsetting situation and could have felt pressure to offer help or guilt for not helping the victim
9
Q
Ecological validity
A
the extent to which the findings still explain the behaviour in different situations
10
Q
demand characteristics
A
when the behaviour of participants changes because they derive cues from the experimenter about the nature of the study and conform to those expectations
11
Q
Field experiment
A
a procedure staged in a naturalistic environment
12
Q
covert observation
A
participants are unaware that they are being observed
