Pro-social Behaviour Flashcards
Piliavin study:
AIM
Piliavin wanted to see if certain characteristics of the victim affected the help received.
Wanted to investigate bystander behaviour in a natural setting
Piliavin study:
METHOD
4 student researchers boarded a NY subway train always at the same stop
There were 103 trials
Piliavin study:
METHOD 2.0
One member of the team acted as the victim
The victim played two different conditions: disabled/drunk
The victim faked a collapse and waited in the floor until someone helped, however, if there was no help a confederate would act as the role model
Piliavin’s study:
METHOD 3.0
Two members of the group took note of everything that happened
One member acted as the victim
One member acted as the role model and if no one helped after 70 secs he would
Piliavin’s study:
METHOD 4.0
38 trials= victim acted drunk
65 trials= victim acted as a disabled
Piliavin’s study:
RESULTS:
At some point: disabled was helped 95% of the time
drunk was helped 50% of the time
Before the role model interfered: disabled was helped 87% of the time
drunk was helped 17% of the time
Piliavin’s study:
CONCLUSION:
Certain characteristics of the victim make a difference to whether they receive help
Social FACTORS
Presence of others
Cost of helping
Presence of others
The more people there are, the less likely it is for someone to help
Cost of helping
If costs are high and rewards are low no help will be received
Supported by piliavin: it may be risky to help someone who is drunk
Dispositional FACTORS
Similarity to victim
Expertise
Similarity to victim
If you identify with the victim: more likely to understand how they’re feeling so you help
Expertise
If you know what to do, it is more likely that you’ll help
Evaluation:
DECEPTION
Evaluation:
Sample
Big sample
Opportunity sample: only people who walk by
Not representative: not everyone travels by metro
