Piliavin et al: Subway Samaritan

Question 1

Bystander apathy

Answer 1

When people do not help a victim when others are present

More people = less help

Question 2

Diffusion of responsibility

An explanation of?

Answer 2

An explanation as to why bystander apathy occurs

Individuals are less likely to offer help if others are around because the responsibility is shifted

Question 3

Research questions (4)

Answer 3

• Would helping behaviour be influenced by if he was perceived as being ill or drunk? (type of victim)
• Would helping behaviour be influenced by if he was white or black? (race of victim)
• Is helping behaviour able to be encouraged if witnesses saw someone modelling helping behaviour in front of them? (example of helping behaviur)
• Is there a relationship between helping behaviour and the number of people witnessing the emergency? (number of witnesses)

Question 4

Research method

Where was it conducted?

Answer 4

Field experiment

New York subway

Question 5

Independent variables
Victims conditions?
Model conditions?

Dependent variables

Answer 5

Victim conditions
Drunk or ill/cane
White or black

Models conditions
Early or late
Adjacent or critical

Dependent variables
Frequency of help
Speed of help
Race of helper
Verbal comments
Movement out of area (critical or adjacent)

Question 6

Procedure
Which days and times was the experiment conducted?
Location?
period in between stop and destination?
How many members were there in a team? roles?
Where did the victim always stand? How many seconds into the journey would the victims collapse?
Where were the observers sat?

Answer 6

Experiment conducted during week days between 11 am to 3 pm

New York subway- no stops in between and a 7 1/2 minute period
4 teams of students: 2 males playing either drunk or ill victim and 2 female students being the observers
70 seconds into the journey the victim always stood next to a pole at the end of a carriage and would stagger and collapse lying till he was helped
Observers sat in the adjacent area

Question 7

Controls

Answer 7

All of the victims were males
location of where the victim and observer sat on the train
same journey

Question 8

What features may have not stayed consistent throughout conditions?

Answer 8

Number of passengers

gender mix

Question 9

Sample
How many passengers in total?
% of black and white passengers?
sampling method?

Answer 9

Sample
passengers on the train- 4,450 passengers men and women
45% black and 55% white

Sampling method = opportunity (those who were on the train during weekdays between 11 am and 3 pm)

Question 10

Quantitative results (4)

Answer 10

Cane victim received spontaneous help on 62/65 trails (5 seconds)

Drink victim received help on 19/38 trials (109 seconds)

90% of spontaneous helpers were males

There was a slight race bias on the drunk trials

Question 11

Qualitative results

Answer 11

Comments made by female passengers
‘ I wish I could help him - I’m not strong enough’
‘It’s for men to help him’

Question 12

Conclusions
Which victim is more likely to receive help?
Which gender is more likely to help?
Bias?
What led to greater help? What concept was not observed?

Answer 12

• Ill victim more likely to receive help compared to drunk victim
• Men are more likely to help compared to women
• Race bias on drunk victim
• More witnesses led to greater help = no diffusion of responsibility

Question 13

Ethnocentrism
What is likely to be similar about participants (what nationality)
What does this mean?

How can the study be argued as not being ethnocentric?
What is New York City?
Evidence for this from the study?
What does this mean?

Answer 13

Participants likely to have lived in the same or similar culture = findings only applicable to Americans in responses to emergency

Not ethnocentric
New York = mutlicultural city and mix being 45% black and 55% white in the study means that there was a varied cultural mix (not all white)

Question 14

Reliability
Internal
External

Answer 14

Internal reliability
Controlled- same observers, timings of collapses and objective of measures being recorded

External reliability
103 trials = large number of trials
Approximately 4,450 participants

Question 15

Validity

Answer 15

Internal
Significant differences between drunk and ill suggests that results were valid which i supported by the comments recorded.
However some passengers may have seen the experiment before and changed their behaviour

External population validity
Large sample size and ethnic mix
However conducing the experiment during weekdays between 11 am and 3 pm the investigation may have missed individuals such as students and people with disabilities.

External ecological validity
realistic event
However the occurrence being in an enclosed space is questionable