Piliavin & Levine Flashcards
Piliavin Aim
To investigate bystander behaviour in a real-life setting and see whether helping behaviour was affected by: Victims responsibility (ill/drunk) Victims race Effect of modelling on helping Size of group
Piliavin Participants
4,550 travelled on trains, 43 in each carriage. 45% black, 55% white.
Piliavin Procedure
-field experiment on New York subway.
-male experimenter faked a collapse on train - specific stretch was targeted where there was a 7.5 min gap between stops.
-experimenters worked in 4s: 2 males playing victim and helper, 2 females recording results.
-70sec after the train left, victim was stumble & fall.
DV:
-time taken for first person to help.
-total number of helpers.
Piliavin Results
79% received spontaneous help.
95% ill
50% drunk
In cane condition, victims were equally likely to be helped regardless of race but in drunk, white people were helped more.
Diffusion of responsibility
The larger the group of people, the less responsibility each person has in a situation which means help is more unlikely.
This did not occur with piliavin, the opposite happened: when there were more people, help was more likely.
Piliavin Conclusion
An ill person is more likely to receive help than a drunk person.
Men are more likely to help than women.
People are more likely to help someone of their ethnic group.
Larger groups = help is more likely.
Piliavin positives
Large sample size.
High ecological validity as it was carried out in natural environment.
Piliavin negatives
Ethnocentric: carried out in a single city and assumes findings would be the same in a range of different cultural contexts.
Sample was only taken of those travelling between 11am and 3pm - underrepresented.
Unethical as people did not give consent to take part (field exp) - people observing the collapse felt anxiety, people were deceived as collapse was not real and they were not debriefed.
Levine Aim
To examine tendency of people in the largest city of 23 countries to help a stranger in a non-emergency situation.
Levine Participants
1,198 from 23 countries:
Austria, mexico, Kuala Lumpur, Madrid, Australia, US, Copenhagen, Rio de Janeiro.
They were picked for being the second person to cross a line on a pavement.
Levine Procedure
- cross-cultural study carried out in a field.
- quasi experiment.
- all experimenters were male to minimise extraneous variables.
- 3 non-emergency situations:
1) dropped pen and didn’t notice
2) hurt leg and dropped magazines
3) blind person crossing road
Levine Results
93% helped in Rio de Janeiro
40% helped in Kuala Lumpur
Mexico = 92% for blind, 55% for dropped pen
Levine Conclusions
Helping behaviour in nonemergency situations is not universal and varies between cities.
Large variations in help in different cultural contexts.
Poorer cities tend to help more - countries with simpatia and low economic prosperity.
Levine positives
Large sample size
Participants were chosen at random which means greater representativeness.
High practical application as it shows where (of travelling around) we would be likely to receive help when we need it.
Levine negatives
Unethical- deception (actions weren’t real), no informed consent, no debrief.
Internal reliability poor as it was carried out in natural setting.
