Piliavin et al, 1969 (Subway)

Question 0

What is the method?

Answer 0

Field experiment.

Question 1

What is the aim of the study?

Answer 1

To investigate the effect of variables on helping behaviour: e.g. If victim is drunk/lame, black/white, in a real life situation.

Question 2

Where did the field experiment take place?

Answer 2

New York subway.

Question 3

What time did the experiment take place?

Answer 3

11am-3pm. (weekdays)

Question 4

How long did the study take place?

Answer 4

2 months.

Question 5

How many participants were in the study and who were they?

Answer 5

4500 passengers on the train.

Question 6

What were the four IVs in the study?

Answer 6

• Victim drunk/lame
• Victim black/white
• Model intervened after 70s, 150s or no model
• Group size

Question 7

What were the three DVs?

Answer 7

• Amount of people who helped the victim.
• Time when help was first offered.
• Race, sex, location of every helper.

Question 9

Describe the procedure.

Answer 9

The team got on the train separately knowing there would be 7 1/2 minutes until the next stop. The female observers took seats in the adjacent area (next to critical area), the model stood in either the critical area or the adjacent area depending on the trail. After 70 seconds the victim collapsed and remained lying on his back until help was offered. The model would either help at 70s, 150s and ask others for help or there was no model. If no help was given from the participants after 7 1/2 mins, the model would help the victim to his feet and the team left the train.

Question 10

Describe the victim.

Answer 10

• Aged 26-35
• One was black, three were white.
• All male, dressed identically.
• 38 trials: drunk (smelled of alcohol and carried a bottle of alcohol)
• 65 trials: sober but was lame and carried a cane.

Question 11

Describe the model.

Answer 11

• Four white models.
• Aged 24-29.
• No model.
• Model helped after 70s.
• Model helped after 150s.

Question 12

How many people were in one compartment on any one trial and how many people were in the “critical area” on average?

Answer 12

• 43 people

- 8.5 people

Question 13

What were the results? (4)

Answer 13

• Cane victim received help 95% of the time (62/65)
• Drunk victim received help 50% of the time (19/38)
• 60% of trials, the victim was given help by 2 or more helpers.
• 20% trials (with and without a model), 24 people left the critical area after the victim collapsed.

Question 14

Results: Time taken (2)

Answer 14

• 17% of drunk victims were helped before model. (Average- 109s)
• 87% of cane victims were helped before model. (Average- 5s)

Question 15

Results: Gender

Answer 15

90% were male helpers.

Question 16

Results: Race

Answer 16

• Black victims received less help especially when drunk.

- Drunk condition: same race effect.

Question 17

Define: Diffusion of responsibility and was it found in the study?

Answer 17

An individual will feel less responsible in an emergency situation when in a group as responsibility is shared.

-No: More passengers, more help was given.

Question 18

Define: Altruism

Answer 18

Helping others without expecting anything in return.

Question 19

Define: Bystander’s effect

Answer 19

People are less likely to help in an emergency if other people are present.

Question 20

Define: Pluralistic Ignorance

Answer 20

In emergency situations we seek clues for how we should react from those around us. If each person who does nothing convinces others that no help is needed.

Question 21

What were the strengths of the method used?

Answer 21

• High EV (field experiment)
• Reduces demand characteristics
• Reduces social desirability bias

Question 22

What were the weaknesses of the method used?

Answer 22

• Consent (didn’t know they took park)
• Deception (victim not really in need of help)
• Debrief
• Protection (witnessing collapsing could be distressing)
• Lack of control
• Uneven number of trials (more cane than drunk and more white victims than black)

Question 23

How representative was the sample of participants?

Answer 23

Large sample but only sampled people who travelled on the subway and at that particular time of day (11AM to 3PM) so its likely to underrepresent certain groups.

Question 24

What type of data was collected?

Answer 24

• Quantitative (time taken to help and number of people who helped)
• Qualitative (comments made by passengers, “I wish I could help him- I’m not strong enough.”

Question 25

What would you change?

Answer 25

Sample: All times of the day, could be done at different subways. Make it more representative and can be generalised. It will take more time and money to improve sample.
Data collected: More qualitative- why they helped. Get more detail about reasons why they helped but it’d be harder to evaluate and analyse as it is qualitative.