Pillavian

Question 1

Outline 2 aims of study

Answer 1

• to investigate helping behavior And if it was affected by group size
• investigate if helping behavior was affected by race of victim
• to investigate if helping behavior was affected by modeling helping behaviour

Question 2

Discuss 2 strengths

Answer 2

Strengths
- setting in subway = real situation (eco validity)
- setting on train and natural —> no one aware situation was staged = little chance of guessing aim and demand characteristics as behavior natural (VALID)
- data collection - Q and Q = informative about how much helping there was/wasn’t AND why

Question 3

Discuss 2 weaknesses

Answer 3

• positioning of ppl in carriages - uncontrolled = not noticed the incident/ignored as reading etc
• ppt in train didn’t know they were participating in study = deception + no informed consent could be taken prior without them guessing the aim = UNETHICAL
• ppt may have been distressed by events on train = No protection against physiological harm

Question 4

Suggest how ethical issues raised in Pillavian relate to (debriefing + informed consent)

Answer 4

Debriefing
- ppt didn’t know they were taking part in study - difficult
- 4450 ppt witnessed events very difficult to plan a debrief so psychological harm may be caused

Informed consent
- no permission could be given to take part + exposed to potentially threatening situation
- exposed to situation causing psychological harm without permission

Question 5

Describe one assumption of the social approach

Answer 5

Behaviour,cognition and emotions can be influenced by groups/social contexts

Question 6

Describe what is meant by diffusion of responsibility

Answer 6

• when a person is less likely to take responsibility for their actions when others are present
• idea that responsibility is shared
• e.g kitty genovese where no one called cops as they believed someone else would help her

Question 7

Outline how one result from this study DOES NOT support the concept of DOR

Answer 7

• ppl in groups of 7+ consistently faster at responding than those in groups of 3 by 80s
• correlation should be neg as when group size increases helping decreases (if DOR happening)
• speed of helping should decrease w increased group size DOES NOT DEMONSTRATE ROR

Question 8

Outline what model was expected to do in critical area

Answer 8

• model stands in critical area
• they wait until passing 4th station before helping the victim
• approx. 70s after collpase

Question 9

Describe one quantities result of behaviour of ppt in critical area

Answer 9

• on 5% of trails w a white victim ppl left critical area compared to 9% for black victims
• early models more likely to prompt other helpers more than late models

Question 10

Outline the debate about individual vs situational explanations in psychology

Answer 10

• individual side = behaviour from factors within the person e.g personality
• situational side= behaviour from factor in external environment e.g home life

Question 11

Mia believes the Piliavin et al. study supports the individual + Brett believes it supports the situational side of the debate.

Outline why you think either Brett or Mia is correct, using evidence from the study.

Answer 11

Situational
- when no model was present, every trial w cane/ill victim someone came to help = suggest the situation of seeing ill victim trigged helping behavior
- ppl did leave critical area when no help provided = situation too distressing so left to decrease arousal

Individual
- when no model present, every trial w cane/ill victim someone came to help = suggest certain type of personality who is willing to help ill victim

Question 12

RESULTS

Answer 12

• 95% ill victim helped —> 5 sec median time between helping + collapse
• 50% drunk victim helped ->109s median time between helping + collapse
• 78% spontaneous helping + 90% helpers male

Question 13

Explain what psychologist have learned about bystander behaviour

Answer 13

• if no model present 100% of passengers came to help victim w/ CANE ( regardless of race)
• shows ppl are willing to help someone who is perceived as ill
• thus ppl more likely to help others who look like the need help (problem not self inflicted)

Question 14

Outline roles of male confederates in study

Answer 14

• male confederates acted as if they were drunk/ill in critical area
• confederates (victims) had to collapse/fall over
• 1 male acted as model +helped victim
• model positioned in adjacent OR critical area

Question 15

Outline what model in adjacent area was to do

Answer 15

• model stood in middle of adjacent car
• waited untill passing 4th station/70s
• then began helping victim

Question 16

2 similarities between victims

Answer 16

• all males
• Eisenhower jackets same
• old slacks worn
• no tie

Question 17

Diffrence between victims

Answer 17

• ILL vs DRUNK
  -cane Vs bottle carried
• race/age

Question 18

2 IV

Answer 18

• condition of victim like ill vs drunk
• early or late model e.g 70/150s aft collapse

Question 19

Describe result about helping of white vs black person

Answer 19

WHITE:
- highest frequency of helping by white helpers in cane condition (34x)
- 68% helpers were white
- 1 instance of black ppt helping white drunk victim
BLACK:
- more drunk victims helped by black helpers than white helpers
- only 2 white helpers helped black victim w/ cane
- black ill victim helped more oftem than black victims

Question 20

Describe one medtjological strength

Answer 20

• study has high eco validity as setting as real life subway carriage
• study has mundane realism as ‘task’ of seeing person collapse does happen IRL
• standerdized procedure = models only helped aft 70s so study canbe replicated/tested for reliability

Question 21

Describe what was recorded by female observers in study

Answer 21

• race/sex/location of passengers in critical/adjacent
• counted total number of people who helped victim
• race/sex/location of helper recorded
• latnecy for 1st helper to arrive if no model present
  -spontanous comments from passengers

Question 22

Why was experiment conducted between 2 stations used

Answer 22

• lasted for 7.5 mins
• aid replicability + standerdized

Question 23

1 results abt helping victim w/ no model

Answer 23

• when victim was black + drunk help given on 73% of trials but when victim was white + drunk help was 100% given

Question 24

2 characteristics of sample used in study

Answer 24

• males + females
• 45% black + 55% white
• unsolicitaed travellers on subway in NYC
• travelling between 11am - 3pm on weekday in april/jun
• opportunity sampling

Question 25

1 result on sex of spontansous first helpers

Answer 25

• more males were spontanous 1st helpers COMPARED to females

Question 26

Explain why study links to social approach

Answer 26

• one asumption of social apporach is behaviour is infliuenced by other individuals
• clearty shown here as fewer ppl helped when model had alr offered help compared to no model present

Question 27

Explain how one result from the study by Piliavin et al. supports the individual explanation of helping behaviour

Answer 27

• The observers recorded comments from people about their helping or nonhelping behaviour.
• e.g ‘I wish I could help him but I am not strong enough’ or ‘It’s for men to help’.
• individual beliefs about the incident
  + can help to explain helping/non-helping behaviour.

Question 28

Explain how one result from the study by Piliavin et al. supports the
situational explanation of helping behaviour

Answer 28

• only on 73% of trials black drunk victim helped
• 100% help offered to white ill victim w/ no model present
• condition of victim/race stopped some people from helping.

Question 29

State how victim condition chose

Answer 29

• told to alternate

Question 30

2 diffrences between models used in study

Answer 30

• adjacent vs critical area
• early vs late

Question 31

no model condition when help given

Answer 31

• The rate of helping higher in white drunk victim compared o black drunk victim
• ill victim was more likely to be helped compared to the drunk victim