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 one was done irl to increase ecological validity

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 types

Answer 3

Victim conditions
Model conditions

Question 4

What were the victim conditions?

Answer 4

Black or white actor
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

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

Question 9

Sample method

Answer 9

Opportunity sample of anyone who happened to be on the chosen subway in New York
Between 11am-3pm weekday

Question 10

Actual sample

Answer 10

Total of 4450 passengers overall

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, either 70 seconds (early) after or 150 seconds after (late)
Or not at all if no model

Question 18

Step 5

Answer 18

The 2 observers would record information about the helpers helping or not

Question 19

What information would observers record?

Answer 19

Comments made by passengers
race sex and location of passengers, no. of helpers, latency of help

Question 20

How many ill trials were there?

Answer 20

65

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
Location of model helper = no affect

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 external reliability of the study

Answer 35

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

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?

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 (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

Question 39

Evaluate ethics of the study

Answer 39

Did not gain informed consent
Did not debrief
May have caused distress in passengers
Passengers could not withdraw their behaviour

Question 40

Evaluate Internal reliability of this study

Answer 40

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

Question 41

How many drunk trials occurred?

Answer 41

38

Question 42

How many drunk trials received spontaneous help?

Answer 42

19

Question 43

Median latency of help offered: drunk or ill

Answer 43

For ill = 5s
For drunk = 109s

Question 44

Is this an experiment?

Answer 44

Yes - had an independent variable (model helper conditions, victim conditions) that was manipulated

Question 45

What type of experiment is this?

Answer 45

Field experiment because it was conducted in real life New York subway setting

Question 46

Was this a snapshot study?

Answer 46

Yes, carried out over a long period to collect data but did not involve follow up to measure something else 8n participants

Question 47

Method used to collect data

Answer 47

Observation

Question 48

How does this fall into the social area?

Answer 48

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)

Question 49

Link to the key theme: responses to people in need

Answer 49

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)