Pilliavin Flashcards
key theme
responses to people in need
Altruism
behaviour intended to help others having no benefit to ourselves
Background
The case of Kitty Genovese:
-she was stabbed early morning on her way home from work (5am ish)
-neighbours heard her cries, several saw the attack
-one neighbour shouted at attacker making them leave
-attacker returned 10 mins later and followed her blood trail to her apartment, he raped, robbed and killed her there.
-total time of attack was around 30 min.
-38 witnesses and no one helped. (bystander effect)
Bystander effect (why people don’t help)
a phenomenon where people are less likely to help in emergency situation when others are present.
Pluralistic ignorance (explanation for bystander effect)
where we rely on the actions of others to guide our own behaviour.
If other people fail to react and act as though nothing is wrong then we are also less likely to help.
Diffusion of responsibility (explanation for bystander effect)
The tendency for multiple bystanders to be less likely to help in an emergency than if they were alone.
In such cases the responsibility for action is diffused (shared) among all of bystanders present, people therefore feel less personal responsibility to help.
Latane & Darley-5 steps to helping behaviour
- we must notice event
- we must interpret the event as an emergency
- we must assume personal responsibility
- we must choose a way to help
- we must implement the decision to help
The cost-benefit theory
when confronted with an ‘emergency’ we balance the possible costs against possible benefits of helping and not helping.
Main aim
To investigate in a natural setting, factors that may influence bystander behaviour.
Aims (4 areas)
- Is the type of victim significant?- drunk/ill
- To consider the impact of modelling.
- To see if victims race is significant.
- To consider the effect of group size
Method
Field experiment (natural environment)
New York subway
On trains between 59th and 125th street.
how many ‘experimental trails’ took place?
103
journey time
no stops, 7 and 1/2 mins
what time?
between 11:00am and 3:00pm over period of 2 months
Sample
4,450 men & women
Unsolicited ps (didn’t know they were taking part)
45% black, 55% white
mean number of people present: 43
mean number of people in ‘critical area’: 8
Independent variables
-type of victim (drunk or ill)
-race of victim (black or white)
-presence of model (early or late)
-number of bystanders (varied naturally)
Dependent variables
-2 female observers used, posed as passengers
-time taken for passenger to help
-total number of passengers who helped
-gender, race, location of every helper
-time taken for first passenger to help after model had assisted.
victim conditions
4 victims aged 26-35
one was black
all dressed identical, each participated in both drunk and ill trials.
drunk victim
on 38 trials- victim smelt of alcohol and carried bottle wrapped in brown bag.
cane victim (ill)
on 65 trials- victim appeared sober and carried a cane.
model conditions- early model/critical area
model stood in critical area and helped after 70 seconds.
model conditions- early model/ adjacent area
model stood in adjacent area and offered help after 70 seconds.
model conditions- late model/ critical area
model stood in critical area and helped after 150 seconds.
model conditions- late model/ adjacent area
model stood in adjacent area and helped after 150 seconds
Results- amount of help offered (cane victim)
-ill victim was helped 62/65 times (95%)
-in 3 trials model stepped in after 70s (help was no longer spontaneous)
Results- amount of help offered (drunk victim)
-drunk victim was helped 19/38 times (50%)
-49/81 (60%) victim was helped by 2 or more people
-21/103 (20%) 34 people left critical area after victim collapsed.
Results- time taken to help
took people longer to help in drunk condition.
average 5 seconds for ill victim
+109 seconds for drunk victim
Results- gender
90% of first helpers were male
Results- race
black victims received less help, less quick
(especially drunk condition)
slight ‘same race’ effect in drunk condition, whites were more likely to help whites.
Results- group size
-more passengers present, more likely help was given (diffusion of responsibility)
Results- spontaneous comments (qualitative data)
-observers spoke to person next to them & noted their comments/ actions.
-more comments on drunk & no model/late model trials
-many women commented on how they couldn’t help, it was for men to help
emotional arousal
this study explains helping behaviour in situations where escape is not possible and where bystanders face to face with their victims.
The observation of an emergency creates EMOTIONAL AROUSAL in the bystander.
conclusions & explanations
The arousal state is higher if:
- more than one can empathise with victim.
*closer one is to the emergency
*longer emergency continues without help being given
conclusions & explanations
Arousal can be reduced by:
*helping directly
*going to get help
*leaving the scene
*reject victim as undeserving
*bystander responses are determined by weighing up costs & rewards of helping or not helping
emergency situation= heightened arousal, further increased by:
*empathy
*proximity
*duration of emergency
the model suggests
helping is motivated by a selfish desire to get rid of oneself of an ‘unpleasant’ emotional state rather than being a positive ‘altruistic’ model of helping
why was there NO diffusion of responsibility?
*ps could see victim, so were able to see what needed to be done.
*ps were in an enclosed environment-couldn’t escape
*proximity of other passengers made ps feel morally obliged to help
*there were more potential helpers
*costs of helping were low because few risks were involved with others around to help as well.