pilivans subway study

Question 1

Aim

Answer 1

to investigate the bystander effect in a natural setting
or
to investigate whether train passengers were more likely to help someone who appeared to be ill, rather than one who appeared to be drunk

Question 2

Procedure

Answer 2

4 researchers: 2 observers, 1 model and 1 victim.
103 trials (journeys) conducted
Victim stood in centre of critical area of subway - next to pole - in either the drunk or disabled condition. 70 secs after, the victim staged a collaspe and remained on the ground until help arrived. The observers noted down what the audience did and how long it tok help to arrive. The model would help the victim after a further 70 or 150 secs if no one came to help.

Question 3

Results

Answer 3

In disabled condition, 95% helped at some point, whereas in drunk condition, only 50% helped at some point.
Help came quicker to the disabled, 87% were helped in the first 70 secs. Only 17% helped the drunk within 70 secs.

Question 4

Cost: reward model of emotional arousal

Answer 4

Things that increase arousal:
1. empathy
2. being close to the emergency
3. the length of time the emergency continues
People reduce arousal:
1. by helping
2. going to get help
3. leaving the scene
4. believing the victim doesn’t deserve help

Question 5

what is the arousal:cost-reward model

Answer 5

an egoistic theory proposed by Piliavin et al (1981) that claims that seeing a person in need leads to the arousal of unpleasent feelings, and observers are motivated to elimate that aversive state, often by helping the victim.

Question 6

conclusion

Answer 6

pilivan propses the arousal:cost-reward model, a way of predicting helping behaviour in emergency situations. Arousal is reduced by helping (directly/indirectly), leaving the scene of the emergency or rejecting the victim as undeserving of help.

Question 7

Evaluation - reliability

Answer 7

reasonable reliability - standardised measure of 7.5 mins between stops. The victim fell in same position after 70 secs.
HOWEVER, more cane trials than drunk trials and more white victims that black victims. Victims and models were all male so results cannot be generalised to females or a mixed group.

Question 8

Evaluation - Application

Answer 8

Good application - educate people about bystander intervention. Help in understanding mob mentality in emergency situations. Helps people understand how situations can get worse through the diffusion of responsibility.

Question 9

Evaluation - ethics

Answer 9

Slightly unethical. Participants did not give fully informed consent and it was not possible for them to withdraw or to be debriefed.
Also, seeing a victim collaspe may have been stressful for the participants, they may have felt guilty if they didn’t help, leading to psychological harm.
However, less demand characteristics due to them not knowing.