responses to people in need: piliavin et al and levine et al Flashcards
piliavin method?
field experiment using covert participant observation with event sampling
piliavin sample?
4450 passengers on new york subway
55% white, 45% black
mean of 43 in carriage and 8.5 in critical area
piliavin procedure?
59th-125th street, 7.5 minute run on 8th avenue line
11am-3pm, april-june of 1968
16 university of columbia students in four teams, two observers, a model and a victim
piliavin victim?
age 26-35, dressed in smart casual
drunk: held bottle in brown bag and smelt of alcohol
ill: held black cane
1 black, 3 white
what was observed in piliavin?
race, gender, location of passengers, number of passengers and how quickly help came
also spoke to those next to them and noted spontaneous comments
piliavin model?
five variants (70/150 seconds, critical/adjacent area and no model)
agenda for piliavin trials?
board train, collapse after 70 seconds, record data, disembark and start again
alternate ill and drunk each day
piliavin trial totals?
103 in total
65 ill, 38 drunk
piliavin results?
79% of trials, no model needed
95% of ill victims helped, 50% of drunk, 79% overall
self race helping only minimal and in drunk condition
help arrived in 5 secs for ill condition but 109 secs for drunk
90% of first helpers were male
disproves diffusion of responsibility
piliavin comments?
more comments in drunk condition, especially when no help within 70 secs
‘it is for men to help him’
‘you feel so bad when you don’t know what to do’
piliavin conclusions?
ill helped more than drunk (95% compared to 50%)
men more likely to help than women
self-race helping rare but not non-existent
help more rapid and frequent with more bystanders
more likely to move away, not help and talk about incident if its longer
creation of new model, replace diffusion of responsibility
piliavin et als new model?
arousal cost-reward model
emergencies cause arousal, empathy, proximity and length of the emergency can increase this arousal
arousal reduced by helping, getting help, leaving scene, or deeming victim as unworthy
reponse chosen through cost-benefit analysis
piliavin research method evaluation?
field expt: high ecological validity (natural environment & realistic situation) but low internal (lack of control over extraneous variables)
piliavin data collected evaluation?
quantitative data (numbers, timings of helpers in different situations), allows comparisons outlined in aim to be analysed, objective
qualitative data (comments from passengers), more detailed, explains quantitative data and helps new model be formed
piliavin ethicality evaluation?
psychological harm: yes, distressing situation could create guilt later
informed consent: no, ps unaware of study, covert observation
deceit: yes, faked situation
right to withdraw: no, ps unaware
debrief: no, no opportunity to dehoax
piliavin validity evaluation?
ecological validity: high
scenario and setting believable/real
observation measures ‘actual’ helping behaviours
covert nature lowers demand characteristics
piliavin sampling bias evaluation?
large sample of around 4450 passengers with racial mix of general population of the area
bias against workers, those in school and the disabled with trials taking place between 11am and 3pm and in a non-accessible place
piliavin link to theme?
links to theme of responses to people in need by observing the behaviour of ~4500 passenger on the new york subway’s reaction’s to someone (either a ‘drunk’ victim or a ‘ill’ victim) falling down
piliavin link to area?
assumption: a major influence on people’s behaviour is other people & the society we’ve created
disproving diffusion of responsibility, piliavin found that the more spectators, the quicker help was given, showing the influence of other people on someone’s behaviour
it was also found that women would excuse themselves from helping, ‘it is for men to help’
levine et al method?
field experiment, independent measures design
ivs: helping measures
dv: helping rates
levine sample?
opportunity sample from 23 cities all over the world
cities tended to be the largest in that countries, with populations of over 230,000
levine procedure?
data collected by students and psychologists from each respective country, all college age, male, neatly dressed
standardised, no verbal communication, all practiced and were trained together
levine 1st helping measure?
experimenter walked (15 paces/10 secs) towards a solitary pedestrian passing in the opposite direction
when 10/15 feet away, dropped pen and continued walking
214 men and 210 women approached
helping was counted as alerting or returning pen
levine 2nd helping measure?
walking with limp and leg brace, experimenter dropped pile of magazines and reached for them within 20 ft of pedestrian
253 men and 240 women approached
help counted as offering to help or helping without offering
levine 3rd helping measure?
dark glasses & white cane
just before light turned green, they held out their cane and waited for someone to offer help
281 trials conducted
helping scored if at least experimenter told when light was green
levine abandoned helping measures?
asking for change: calcutta had a shortage of small change and san salvador afraid to exchange with strangers
lost addressed letter: tel aviv afraid to touch letter
levine overall results?
modest degree of interrelationships between helping measures found
cities differed greatly in the amount of help offered
levine correlation results?
population size, economic well being (purchasing power parity), ranking of collectivistic/individualistic nature and pace of life (walking speed)
only economic well being was found to correlate significantly (-0.43)
weak correlations between pace of life and individualistic/collectivistic nature
simpatia countries were more helpful
levine conclusions?
helping strangers is a cross-culturally meaningful characteristic of a place
there are large cross-cultural variations in helping rates
helping across cultures is inversely related to a country’s economic productivity
simpatia cultured countries are more helpful than those without
levine research method evaluation?
field experimental nature increased ecological validity as realistic situations were used in natural settings
however there are issues with controlling extraneous variables, but these were reduced by standardised training and situations
correlational element means that cause and effect cannot be determined
levine data collected evaluation?
all quantitative (helping percentages and correlational variables
comparisons can easily be made and relationships between co-variables can be determined
lack of qualitative data means no insight into the motives of helpers/non-helpers
levine ethicality evaluation?
informed consent: no, covert observation
deceit: yes, situations were not real
right to withdraw: no, covert observation
debrief: no, while distress was unlikely, there was no dehoax
levine validity evaluation?
helping measures have high validity
covert so behaviour not affected by demand characteristics
ecological validity high do to natural setting
situations required help to be ‘true to life’
levine sampling bias evaluation?
around 1200 individuals selected ‘randomly’ meaning that it wasn’t going to suffer from avoiding certain times of day due to foot traffic
reasonable controls to match samples from city to city
levine link to theme?
links to theme of helping those in need by this being what it measured, the helping responses to three different situations (dropped pen, hurt leg, blind man).
it tested these in 23 different countries to compared cross-cultural altruism
levine link to area?
assumption: a major influence on people’s behaviour is other people & the society we’ve created
the community variables that the helping was correlated with were focused on the social nature of that city, for example the population size, individualistic/collectivistic nature, pace of life, economic prosperity
the fact that these variables were chosen shows that piliavin et al thought that they may have an impact on the residents behaviour and the way they socialise with others
piliavin and levine similarities?
both used covert observation to collect their data -> no demand characteristics
both had the person who needed help as a young man -> it is unknown how a woman would be helped
piliavin and levine differences?
piliavin only used one, more dramatic, scenario (with two variations) and levine used three, less dramatic, scenarios (but set out to use five) -> levine has a wider scope of understanding about helping and altruistic behaviour
piliavin collected qualitative data as well as quantitative data and levine only collected quantitative -> levine lacks understanding about people’s motives for helping
levine adding to understanding of the theme?
levine adds to understanding by introducing a cultural element, for example now we know that simpatia countries are more helpful, while piliavin only focused on one city
