Piliavin et al. (aishah) [done]

Question 1

give at least two previous studies related to bystanders and explain it a bit

Answer 1

1. Darley & latane:
   - in this study bystanders hear an epileptic seizure over earphones
   - conclusion: people less likely to help when other bystanders are present
2. latane and rodin:
   - assistances less likely if a group of people are strangers than who know each other prior to the experiment
3. Bryan & test:
   - people help when they observe others performing helpful act ie be a Good Samaritan

Question 2

whats one major difference in past studies and piliavin

Answer 2

past researchers were done in the lab ie had greater control whereas piliavin was done as a field experiment ie greater reality

Question 3

IV?

Answer 3

• type of victim: drunk or ill
• race of victim: white or black
• behaviour of model: early or late
• size of group of bystanders

Question 4

Aim?

Answer 4

bystander behaviour in natural setting

Question 5

what are the hypothesis’ of this study

Answer 5

1. people more likely to help someone of their own race
2. help more frequently and rapidly to ill victims
3. positive impact by modelling ie someone’s action in a situation will lead others to do the same action
4. diffusion of responsibility ie when group size is large then chances of getting help decreases

Question 6

location?

Answer 6

7 and a half min express run between the 59th Street and 125 Street station of 8th avenue independent (IND) branch of New York Subways, (only A & D train cuz it made no stop between the two streets

Question 7

describe the sample of this study

Answer 7

• 4,450 men and womebn
• taken place on 8th avenue IND in new York city on weekdays between 11am to 3pm, between 15th April to June 26th 1968 –> unsolicited participants
• racial composition of train: 45% black and 55% white
• mean number of people in car: 43
• mean number of people in critical area: 8.5
• 13 seats and some standing area in each section of train

Question 8

when were the train travellers considered as bystanders?

Answer 8

the captive audience became the bystanders after 10 secs

Question 9

Describe the teams of the observers

Answer 9

• 4 teams of Columbia general studies students
• 2 females who sat outside the critical area and recorded as unobtrusively as they can
• 2 males: one victim and one model who were standing
• there were two conditions: drunk and ill, along with white and black victim
• generally, the victim collapsed and remained supine on the floor looking at ceiling until receiving help, if no help was given, the model helped him to get on feet and then disembarked and waited sepereatly until the riders left the station –> then went on the train in the opposite direction
• 6-8 trails on one day of the same victim condition

Question 10

Describe the victim

Answer 10

• 26 to 35 years old
• 3 whites and 1 black
  wearing Eisenhower jacket, old slacks and no tie
• 38 of them smelt of liquor with liquor bottle wrapped tightly in brown bag
• 65: sober with black cane
• other than these, they behaved and dressed identically

Question 11

Desribe the model conditions

Answer 11

• critical/early:
  model standing in the critical area and helping after 70 seconds ie 4th station
• critical/late; model standing in critical area and helping after 150 seconds ie 6th station

– adjacent/early: model standing in the adjacent area and helping after 70 seconds ie 4th station

– adjacent/late: model standing in the adjacent area and helping after 150 seconds ie 6th station

– no model.

Question 12

why were there more cane trails than drunk?

Answer 12

on day 1, team 1 & team 2 were meant to do the cane condition and team 3 & team 4 were meant to do the drunk condition
but on day 4 when team 2 had to do the drunk condition, they did the cone condition because the victim ‘didnt like’ playing drunk

Question 13

why was team 2’s data different from others

Answer 13

perhaps team 2 was being rather careless and the victim might be getting out of the role therefore not getting accurate results which even tend to reduced the relationship found in this study

Question 14

What did observer one observe?

Answer 14

1. race, sex, location of every passenger
2. total number of people in the car
3. total number of people who assisted
4. race sex location of the helper

Question 15

What did observer one observe?

Answer 15

1. race, sex, location of every passenger
2. total number of people in the car
3. total number of people who assisted
4. race sex location of the helper

Question 16

What did the second observer observe

Answer 16

1. race, sex and location of people in the adjacent area
2. latency of the 1st helper’s arrival after the model

Question 16

What did the second observer observe

Answer 16

1. race, sex and location of people in the adjacent area
2. latency of the 1st helper’s arrival after the model

Question 17

What did the observers observe

Answer 17

• they both observed two different set of things
• what they commonly took note of was the comments made by nearby passengers and they attempted to elicit comments from rider sitting next to them

Question 18

conclusion of the study?

Question 19

conclusion of the study?

Answer 19

• an ill person will be more likely to receive help than a drunk one
• men are more likely to help than women
• individuals will be more likely to help victims of their own race
• if individuals do not help in an emergency situation, they will search for coping behaviours to escape guilt, such as making comments

Question 20

Give two results of this study

Answer 20

1] frequency of help was impressive:
- cane victim got spontaneous help: 62 of 65
- drunk victim got spontaneous help: 19 of 38

2] no difference in number of helpers subsequent to the 1st helper of any race or condition, perhaps because it seemed like they were helping the 1st helper rather than the victim and also because victim’s uniformly passive response to individual trying to help reduced other’s fear of possible unpleasantness

Question 21

is there a tendency of same race helping?

Answer 21

there is a SLIGHT tendency of same race to help since:
- to white victims: 68% of white helpers
- to black victims: 50% white helpers
this doesn’t differ from chance expectation

however tendency of same race to helping increases during drunk victim cases perhaps due to empathy, sympathy and trust

Question 22

what was the difference between the critical area and adjacent area in terms of modelling?

Answer 22

no difference lol

Question 23

how many people left the car

Answer 23

no one left the car but people (34) did leave the critical area mostly when the victim was drunk or when no one helped by 70 secs

Question 24

how many people left the car

Answer 24

no one left the car but people did leave the critical area

Question 25

mention some comments made by the people in the car

Answer 25

the comments were all from women, like:
- it is for the men to help him
- I wish I could help him - im not strong enough
I never saw this kind of thing before I dont know where to look
- you feel so bad that you don’t know what to do

Question 26

why do you think was the result of diffusion of responsibility completely different from other studies?

Answer 26

• because the conditions from prev study were quite different from the present study: you could see the victim and other bystanders here but in the other studies you sometimes couldn’t see other bystanders and you were never able to see the victim

Question 27

what happens when there is high arousal

Answer 27

• more empathy
• the closer one is to emergency
• longer without help

Question 28

how could the P’s reduce arousal

Answer 28

• helping directly
• getting help
• leaving the scene
• classifying the victim as undeserving of help

Question 29

why is a caned person more likely to get help than a drunk with respect to cost-reward matrix

Answer 29

for a drunk person
- the cost of helping is high (ex: disgust)
- the cost of not helping is low because ‘he put himself in that situation and he deserves it’

for a caned:
- cost of helping is low (he is hurt so he cant hurt u)
- cost of not helping is high (poor him)

Question 30

explain the cost reward matrix

Answer 30

1) cost of helping:
embarrassment, disgust, possible physical harm etc

2) cost of not helping:
self-blame, perceived censure

3) reward for helping:
praises from self, victim and others

4) reward of not helping:
continuation of other activities

Question 31

what happened to the dog in team 3 after going by the 5th station?

Answer 31

Naomi ate it >.<

Question 32

Describe the BG

Answer 32

The case of Kitty Genovese in 1964 - who had been assaulted near her home
None of the 38 individuals witnessing the case did anything to prevent her murder.
One explanation – diffusion of responsibility was proposed by Darley and Latane (1968)
Additionally, there is evidence that people are more likely to help those who are more similar to themselves.

Question 33

what are the ethical issues of this study?

Answer 33

• Informed consent wasn’t taken as the participants did not know they were part of a study.
• Participants were deceived and could not be debriefed.
• Their right to withdraw was invalidated as it was a field experiment.
• Emotional harm may have taken place as they must have felt hurt about the victim’s condition.

Question 34

strengths of this study?

Answer 34

• This study was a field experiment and hence has a high ecological validity.
• The sample size was large and hence has a high generalizability.
• Behaviour was not artificial as it is in a natural environment and increases validity and had no demand characteristics.
• Both qualitative and quantitative data was acquired.

Question 35

Weaknesses?

Answer 35

The study lacked controls hence had a low reliability, making it hard to replicate.
For this reason, a causal relationship could not be established.

Question 36

What did the observers observe

Answer 36

• they both observed two different set of things
• what they commonly took note of was the comments made by nearby passengers and they attempted to elicit comments from rider sitting next to them

Question 36

What did the second observer observe

Answer 36

1. race, sex and location of people in the adjacent area
2. latency of the 1st helper’s arrival after the model

Question 37

Individual and situational explanation?

Answer 37

SITUAAATIONALLLL