Piliavin experiment (classic study)

Question 1

Context of what sparked this experiment?

Answer 1

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 was done irl

Question 2

What were the aims of this experiment?

Answer 2

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

Question 3

Independent variables type

Answer 3

Victim conditions
Model conditions

Question 4

What were the victim conditions?

Answer 4

Black or white
Ill (equipped with cane) or drunk (smelt of alcohol, paper bag with alcohol)

Question 5

What were the model conditions?

Answer 5

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

Question 6

How many seconds did the model help in the EARLY condition?

Answer 6

70 seconds after victim fell over

Question 7

How many seconds did the model help in the LATE condition?

Answer 7

150 seconds after victim fell over

Question 8

What were the dependent variable they were measuring

Answer 8

The race and sex of every passenger in both critical and adjacent area
Number of helpers
Race and sex of every helper and what area they came from
The latency it took for helpers to intervene, after victim fell and after model helped
Utterances made by other passengers

Question 9

Sample method

Answer 9

Opportunity sample of anyone who happened to be on the 8th ave subway express train in Ny
Between 11am-3pm weekday

Question 10

Actual sample

Answer 10

Total of 4450 passengers in carriage
Average of 43 per carriage every trial
Racial composition = 45% black, 55% white

Question 11

Why did they choose this specific subway train?

Answer 11

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

Question 12

Step 1

Answer 12

Team of 4 get on the specific subway train:
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

Question 13

Step 2

Answer 13

70 seconds in the victim would stagger forward and collapse in critical area

Question 14

Critical area

Answer 14

Where the victim would fall

Question 15

Adjacent area

Answer 15

Where both observers would be seated, in same carriage but next to the critical area

Question 16

Would the model helper be in critical or adjacent area?

Answer 16

Both since one of the model conditions which was measured as an independent variable was his location

Question 17

Step 4

Answer 17

The model would help, wither 70 seconds after or 150 seconds after
Or not at all if no model

Question 18

Step 5

Answer 18

The 2 observers would record information about the helpers

Question 19

What information would observers record?

Answer 19

Comments made by passengers
One would record: race sex and location of passengers in crit area, no. of helpers
Other recorded:

Question 20

Results and conclusion about victim condition, ill or drunk?

Answer 20

62/65 Ill victims received spontaneous help
The median latency (time to help) for I’ll victims was 5s
19/38 drunk victims received spontaneous help
Median latency for drunk victims was 109s

Question 21

In total how many trials received spontaneous help?

Answer 21

81/103

Question 22

Results and conclusion about victim condition, race?

Answer 22

There was a tendency for passengers of same race to help in drunk trials
However both received same amount of help

Question 23

Results and conclusions on the effect of the model helper?

Answer 23

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
If from critical or adjacent area had no effect

Question 24

Results and conclusions: number of passengers

Answer 24

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

Question 25

Results and conclusions: how many people left the critical area?

Answer 25

In 21/103 trials, 34 people left critical area

Question 26

Results and conclusions: gender

Answer 26

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”

Question 27

What conclusions could be drawn out?

Answer 27

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

Question 28

Was there diffusion of responsibility?

Answer 28

No

Question 29

Why was there no diffusion of responsibility?

Answer 29

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

Question 30

What was the arousal cost reward model?

Answer 30

A model piliavin came up with which suggests why passengers helped in the first place

Question 31

Arousal cost reward model description

Answer 31

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

Question 32

Why would a passenger choose to not help according to arousal cost reward model?

Answer 32

Because the costs outweigh the rewards
For example passenger may feel embarrassment or be in danger if they help

Question 33

Why would a passenger choose to help according to arousal cost reward model?

Answer 33

If rewards outweigh costs
Such as feeling good natured and no more guilt hanging over them

Question 34

Evaluate validity of study

Answer 34

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

Question 35

Evaluate reliability of the study

Answer 35

The sample was representative and large (103 trials) so consistent effect measured
Experiment is fairly replicable
However not all Ps had same experience because not all variables controlled

Question 36

Evaluate sampling method of study

Answer 36

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

Question 37

Evaluate data collection of study

Answer 37

Both quantitative and qualitative data collected
Observer error might mean key detail is missed?
Violation of privacy because participants didn’t know they were being observed

Question 38

Evaluate internal validity specifically of the study

Answer 38

A field experiment means many extraneous variables not controlled, eg what if something else made Ps not help? + includes victims gender

Question 39

Evaluate ethics of the study

Answer 39

Did not gain informed consent
Did not debrief
May have caused distress in passengers