Piliavin experiment (classic study) Flashcards
Context of what sparked this experiment?
Kitty Genovese was stabbed to death in New York in front of many onlookers in their home, however not one intervened
Sparked experiments to see how others respond to people in need but all done in lab so this one was done irl to increase ecological validity
What were the aims of this experiment?
To see if these factors affected bystanders willingness to help someone in need:
-Drunk or ill victim
-Race or victim
-Model helper helping
-Number of witnesses around to incident
Independent variables types
Victim conditions
Model conditions
What were the victim conditions?
Black or white actor
Ill (equipped with cane) or drunk (smelt of alcohol, paper bag with alcohol)
What were the model conditions?
Dependent on the area and how quick they responded:
In critical area + early
in critical area + late
In adj area + early
In adj area + late
Or there was NO MODEL
How many seconds did the model help in the EARLY condition?
70 seconds after victim fell over
How many seconds did the model help in the LATE condition?
150 seconds after victim fell over
What were the dependent variable they were measuring
How many out of the The total number of passengers on the train actually intervened (race + sex of them)
The latency it took for helpers to intervene, after victim fell and after model helped
Utterances made by other passengers
Sample method
Opportunity sample of anyone who happened to be on the chosen subway in New York
Between 11am-3pm weekday
Actual sample
Total of 4450 passengers overall
Why did they choose this specific subway train?
In a racially diverse area to measure the race of helpers and see if that affected results
Had no stops for 7 1/2 mins so had captive audience
What happened when the experimenter team got on the train and who were they?
2 female observers
1 model male helper
1 male victim (drunk, Ill, black or white)
Observers take head count of number of passengers and racial composition
when did the event happen?
70 seconds in the victim would collapse in critical area
Critical area
Where the victim would fall
Adjacent area
Where both observers would be seated, in same carriage but next to the critical area
Would the model helper be in critical or adjacent area?
Both since one of the model conditions which was measured as an independent variable was his location
When did the model help?
Either 70 seconds (early) after or 150 seconds after (late) depending on condition for model helper
Or not at all if no model
What did the observers do after the event occurred,
record information about the helpers helping or not
What information would observers record?
Comments made by passengers
race sex and location of passengers, no. of helpers, latency of time they help after event
How many ill trials were there?
65
In total how many trials received spontaneous help?
81/103
Results and conclusion about victim condition, race?
There was a tendency for passengers of same race to help in drunk trials
However both received same amount of help
Results and conclusions on the effect of the model helper?
Wasn’t really analysed because there were few trials where enough time passed for model helper to step in
However when they did step in early it triggered more passengers
Location of model helper = no affect
Results and conclusions: number of passengers
If there were 7 or more male passengers in critical area, they received help quicker
And 60% of the time there was more than 1 helper
Results and conclusions: how many people left the critical area?
In 21/103 trials, 34 people left critical area
Results and conclusions: gender
90% of spontaneous helpers were male
Women’s comments caught from observers: ‘it’s for men to help him’
“I wish I could help him but I’m not strong enough”
What conclusions could be drawn out?
Appearing Ill means more likely to get help than drunk
Men more likely to help
Longer there is without helping, less impact a model helper has and more people leave critical area
Was there diffusion of responsibility?
No
Why was there no diffusion of responsibility?
Because passengers trapped on train and can’t leave the situation
The situation was clear someone was in need
Arousal cost reward model explains why people chose to help
What was the arousal cost reward model?
A model piliavin came up with which suggests why passengers helped in the first place
Arousal cost reward model description
We experience negative physiological reaction that causes stress = want to remove
We weigh up pros (rewards) we get from helping and cons (costs)
Either help
Or not help
Why would a passenger choose to not help according to arousal cost reward model?
Because the costs outweigh the rewards
For example passenger may feel embarrassment or be in danger if they help
Why would a passenger choose to help according to arousal cost reward model?
If rewards outweigh costs
Such as feeling good natured and no more guilt hanging over them
Evaluate validity of study
High ecological validity because it’s a field experiment
Varying population validity because though it was a diverse area, school children, non train riders, 9-5workers and students not included
Hard to control extraneous variables = interval validity lack
Evaluate external reliability of the study
The sample was representative and large (103 trials) so consistent effect measured: but more ill trials than drunk and also in majority of cases, spontaneous help occurred so model helper affect could not be measured without case of flukes
Evaluate sampling method of study
Opportunity sample ensures no researcher bias, and all people were measured (not hypothetically only volunteers)
The sample isn’t generalisable since it doesn’t account for all members of target population
Evaluate data collection of study
Both quantitative and qualitative data collected
Observer error might mean key detail is missed?
Evaluate internal validity specifically of the study
A field experiment means many extraneous variables not controlled, eg what if something else made Ps not help (other than the manipulated IVs)? Such as business of the carriage
But controls imposed: same way the victim fell by lying up at ceiling, same times of say, same train line
Evaluate ethics of the study
Did not gain informed consent
Did not debrief
May have caused distress in passengers
Passengers could not withdraw their behaviour
Evaluate Internal reliability of this study
Attempts were made to standardise for all trials: same way the victim would fall over
Same dressed victim (cane for ill, paper bad for drunk), same train line, same hours of the day
How many drunk trials occurred?
38
How many drunk trials received spontaneous help?
19
Median latency of help offered: drunk or ill
For ill = 5s
For drunk = 109s
Is this an experiment?
Yes - had an independent variable (model helper conditions, victim conditions) that was manipulated
What type of experiment is this?
Field experiment because it was conducted in real life New York subway setting
Was this a snapshot study?
Yes, carried out over a long period to collect data but did not involve follow up to measure something else 8n participants
Method used to collect data
Observation
How does this fall into the social area?
Investigating impact of bystanders (other passengers nearby) and the perceived social status of the victim in how it affects out helping behaviour (deciding to give help or not)
Link to the key theme: responses to people in need
Found that contrary to theory of diffusion of responsibility, having more passengers on board doesn’t mean less likely to receive help (if there were 7 or more male passengers receives help faster)
