Pilliavin

Question 1

What were the aims of Piliavin et al?

Answer 1

To investigate helping behaviour on the new york subway.
To test one theory of the bystander effect against another effect.
To test latine and darleys theory of pluralistic ignorance and diffusion of responsibility.
To investigate under real life conditions the effect on the speed and frequency of helping and the race of the helper.

Question 2

What were the IVs?

Answer 2

The type of victim, race of victim, presence of helping models, size of witnessing group.

Question 3

What were the DVs?

Answer 3

The frequency of help, speed of help, race of helper, sex of helper, movement out of area, verbal comments.

Question 4

What was the sample?

Answer 4

4,450 witnesses.

Question 5

What was the type of sampling used?

Answer 5

Opportunity sampling.

Question 6

What kind of study was used?

Answer 6

Field study.

Question 7

What were the controls?

Answer 7

The performance of the actor, the teams.

Question 8

What was the size of each of the teams and what did they contain?

Answer 8

4 teams, 2 women, 2 males.

Question 9

What did the men in the teams do?

Answer 9

1 acted as the victim, 1 acted as the model.

Question 10

What did the women in the teams do?

Answer 10

They recorded the reactions.

Question 11

Who was used in the teams?

Answer 11

16 general subjects from the uni of Columbia.

Question 12

What was observed?

Answer 12

Race, sex, location of passengers in critical area, total number of passengers in the whole carriage, total number of helpers who assisted the victim, how long it took the helper to arrive.

Question 13

Who were the victims?

Answer 13

3 white, 1 black aged between 26-35.

Question 14

How long did the victim lie on the floor for?

Answer 14

Until the model helped after either 70 seconds or 150 seconds.

Question 15

Where did this take place?

Answer 15

On the New York subway between 59th and 129th street on the 8th avenue line.

Question 16

Why was the selected route chosen?

Answer 16

As it was a non stop journey of 7 1/2 minutes.

Question 17

How many trials were conducted?

Answer 17

104 (6-8 per day) over a period of 2 months.

Question 18

What were the 2 conditions?

Answer 18

Blind and drunk.

Question 19

How many trials were carried out in each condition?

Answer 19

38 drunk and 65 blind.

Question 20

What kind of data was produced?

Answer 20

Quantitative.

Question 21

How many people were helped? (Blind)

Answer 21

62/65 without a model. Average time of 5 seconds.

Question 22

How many people were helped? (Drunk)

Answer 22

19/38. models rarely needed.

Question 23

What was the reaction of some people when help took a long time?

Answer 23

34 people left the area when help took a long time.

Question 24

How was qualitative data produced?

Answer 24

Through comments from women centring around why they weren’t helping.

Question 25

What were the conclusions?

Answer 25

Diffusion of responsibility hypothesis not supported.

Results differ from the research by Latane and Darley.

Question 26

What are some issues with this method?

Answer 26

Participants were not debriefed.
Participants did not have informed consent.
People may have overlapped.
Confounding variables.
Ethics violated.
Difficult to replicate results.

Question 27

What are some advantages of this method?

Answer 27

High ecological validity.
Low demand characteristics.
A lot of detailed data produced.

Question 28

What are some possible improvements?

Answer 28

Use multiple ethnicities.
Use a neutral condition.
Try with women.
Redo it all over NY.
Improve concurrent validity by investigating a range of helping situations.
Vary the trainline.
Do it all in one day (blitz)
Vary the seasons.
Widen the time period.