Piliavin et Al (Subway Samaritans) Flashcards
AIM:
The researchers aimed to study bystander apathy and diffusion of responsibility in a natural setting. Piliavin et al. also wanted to investigate the effect of four variables on helping behaviour or being a ‘Good Samaritan’:
🔹the type of victim
🔹the race of the victim
🔹the behaviour of a ‘model’
🔹the size of the group of bystanders.
BACKGROUND:
🔹A young woman by the name of Kitty Genovese was attacked late at night by a black man near her apartment compound.
🔹38 people witnessed this incident but no one took any immediate action.
🔹When interviewed later by police, most of the witnesses reported saying they assumed someone else might have already taken action and called the police.
🔹This lead to the theory of diffusion of responsibility being developed which suggests that in an emergency situation, when there is a large number of people present, each person will diffuse or pass their responsibility of helping on to one another, and hence, there is a less likely chance for the victim to receive immediate help.
🔹Conversely, the smaller the group size, the greater the chance of help being received.
🔹Two researchers by the name of Darley and Latane decided to test the diffusion of responsibility hypothesis in a lab environment.
🔹They conducted two studies in controlled environments and proved the theory of the diffusion of responsibility.
🔹However, they did not test the theory in an ecologically valid or natural setting.
SAMPLE:
🔹We might consider this an opportunity sample as passengers were not deliberately selected for participation.
🔹The total estimated number of participants was 4450 people, of whom around 45% were black and 55% were white.
🔹The mean number of passengers per carriage was 43, and the mean number of people in the critical area (where the incident took place) was 8.5.
PROCEDURE: 1
Four teams of student researchers carried out the study using a standard procedure. On each trial, two male and two female students boarded the train using different doors. The female confederates sat in the area adjacent to the immediate ‘critical’ area where the incident took place. They observed the passengers and recorded data during each trial. The male confederates took the roles of the victim and the model. The victim stood at the pole in the centre of the critical area, and the model remained standing throughout the trial.
PROCEDURE: 2
Each trial used the same route that included a 7.5-minute gap between two stations. At approximately 70 seconds into the journey, the ‘victim’ staggered forward and collapsed. He remained lying on the floor looking upwards. If he received no help, the model would help him to his feet at the next stop.
The victim was played by different males during the study, but all were made to look similar. They were aged 26 to 35 years; three were white and one was black. They were dressed in identical, casual clothing (jacket, old trousers, no tie). On 38 out of 103 trials the victim smelled of alcohol and carried a bottle of alcohol wrapped in a brown bag. On the remaining 65 trials they appeared sober and carried a black cane. In all other ways they behaved identically.
PROCEDURE:3
The models were all white males aged 24 to 29 years of age, who were also dressed informally. When helping. the model raised the victim to the sitting position and stayed with him until the train reached the next stop.
Trials were split into the following conditions:
🔹Critical / early: model stood in critical area and waited 70 seconds to help victim
🔹Critical/late: model stood in critical area and waited 150 seconds to help victim
🔹Adjacent / early: model stood in adjacent area and waited 70 seconds to help victim
🔹Adjacent / late: model stood in adjacent area and waited 150 seconds to help victim
🔹No model condition: the model did not help the victim until after the trial was over and the train had reached the next stop.
RESEARCH METHOD:
This study was a field experiment. This means it took place in a realistic environment; in this case, the New York subway system.
EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN:
study used an independent groups design, as the trials were repeated on different days and involved different participants in each condition.
There were four independent variables (IVs) that corresponded to the factors outlined in the aims of the study. These were operationalised as:
🔹the type of victim: the levels were ‘drunk’ or ‘ill’ victim
🔹the race of the victim: the levels were black or white victim
🔹the behaviour of a ‘model’: the levels were a model who was either close to or distant from the victim helped, either early or late in the event
🔹the size of the group of bystanders: this level was the naturally occurring number of passengers present in the subway carriage.
The dependent variable (DV) was the level of bystander helping. In quantitative terms, this was operationalized as the time taken for the first passenger to help, as well as the total number of passengers who helped. The race, gender and location in the carriage of each helper were also recorded. Qualitative data was recorded in the form of verbal remarks made by passengers during each incident.
RESULTS: 1
🔹Overall, the frequency of helping recorded in this study was much higher than had previously been reported in laboratory studies. 78% percent of victims received spontaneous help and in 60% of cases more than one person helped.
🔹There were key differences in levels of helping between different conditions of the study. In terms of the type of victim, participants were more likely to help the victim with the cane than the drunk victim (the cane victim received help in 62/65 trials; the drunk victim received help in 19/38 trials).
🔹In the cane trials, spontaneous helping also occurred earlier than in the drunk trials. The median time taken to help the ill/cane victim was 5 seconds. The median time taken to help the drunk victim was 109 seconds.
🔹In terms of race, both black and white cane victims were equally likely to receive help. However, there was some minor evidence of same-race helping in the drunk condition, with participants being more willing to offer help to those of their own race. Although these results were not at statistically significant levels, they support research suggesting people are more likely to help those similar to themselves.
RESULTS: 2
🔹The result relating to the variable of sex was that the majority of helpers (90%) were male.
🔹Female passengers made comments such as, ‘It’s for men to help him’, or ‘I wish I could help him-I’m not strong enough.’ This may suggest a difference between men and women in terms of bystander helping behaviour, or it may be a result of the victim always being played by a male.
🔹Surprisingly and in contrast to previous research, this study found no evidence to support the diffusion of responsibility hypothesis. In fact, there was some evidence to suggest that when more passengers were present, rates of helping were actually slightly higher.
🔹Hypothetical 3 people groups were compared with hypothetical 7 people groups and it was assumed that there would be more and faster helping in 3 people groups than 7 people groups (negative correlation between group size and frequency of helping). However, actual 3 people groups had less frequency of helping compared to actual 7 people groups as people were more likely to help in the latter (positive correlation between group size and frequency of helping). This directly opposes the prediction of diffusion of responsibility.
🔹It appeared that early model intervention at 70 seconds was slightly more likely to result in helping behaviour than waiting until 150 seconds had passed.
CONCLUSION:
🔵 This study found that in a natural setting, many people would offer spontaneous help to a stranger, even in a group situation. This study found no evidence of diffusion of responsibility, but did identify several factors which influence an individual’s decision to help:
🔹the type of victim (someone using a cane will be helped more than a drunk person)
🔹the gender of the helper (men are more likely to help than women)
🔹the similarity of the victim to the helper (people may be more likely to help members of their own race, especially if the victim is drunk)
🔹the duration of the emergency (the longer an emergency continues, the less likely it is that anyone will help, and the more likely it is they will find another way of coping with arousal).
🔵 Pillivian et al proposed a model of response to an emergency situation as an alternative to the diffusion of responsibility hypothesis to explain the findings of his study. This is termed the “cost-benefit model”.
“The cost-benefit model can explain the findings that a higher number of comments were made during trials without helping and that more comments were made during trials with a drunk victim. Observers also noted that in around 20% of trials, passengers actively moved away from the critical area where the incident was taking place. So, although less helping occurred due to disgust, the arousal of the participants prompted them to comment or move away instead.”
Cost-Benefit Model – According to this, the participants experienced an unpleasant arousal when the victim collapsed, and in an attempt to reduce that arousal, they would either help, get someone else to help, or walk away from the situation. Each person according to Pilliavin, before making a decision, went through the following four possibilities in their minds:
🔹Cost of helping – e.g. getting harmed.
🔹Cost of not helping – e.g. guilt 🔹Reward of helping – e.g. praise 🔹Reward of not helping – e.g. not getting harmed
EVALUATION: (Strengths)
🔷 High ecological validity -
The study was conducted in a naturalistic setting, the New York subways system, which increases the ecological validity of the findings.This means that behaviours observed are likely to reflect real-world helping behaviour.
🔷 High generalizability -
Around 4450 individuals participated in the study, which includes a mix of ethnicities and genders. This large sample therefore is likely to be more representative than a smaller sample or single trial of the experiment, which increases the generalizability of the findings.
EVALUATION: (Weaknesses)
🔷 Methodological issues (demand characteristics) -
The experimenters cannot be sure that participants only took part in the experiment once. If someone participated twice, they would suspect that the emergency was a set-up and this might have led them more or less likely to offer help, creating demand characteristics.
🔷 Low Reliability -
The study has low reliability since it took place in a natural setting and hence it’s difficult to control all variables such as the number of people on the train or possible train delays. This would make it more difficult to standardize or replicate.
EVALUATION: (Ethical issues)
🔹This study raised serious ethical issues.
🔹First, participants did not give informed consent to take part in the research, nor were they debriefed after the study had finished.
🔹Participants were deceived during the study, as they believed the victim had genuinely collapsed and needed help.
🔹They might have suffered serious psychological distress as a result of the study, guilt at not helping or concern about the well-being of the victim.
