SOCIAL APPROACH- Piliavin Et Al (GOOD SAMARITAN

Question 1

What is bystander intervention

Answer 1

This is during emergency situations whereby the witness will go out of their way to help the victim of a situation

Question 2

What is Bystander Apathy

Answer 2

-During an emergency situation, a witness will not help the victim due to presence of others

Question 3

What is diffusion of responsibility

Answer 3

The more the number of witnesses present in an emergency, the less likely help is given because of the burden being shared amongst the witnesses hence less help will be given

Question 4

What was the background of Piliavins study

Answer 4

• The killing of Kitty Genovese which took place in public yet none of the 38 witnesses intervened or called for help
• Darley and Latane investigated several studies such as “the smoke- filled room” experiment.
• the findings showed that as the group size increased, the helping decreased

Question 5

Which other 2 variables was piliavin trying to also study

Answer 5

-the behaviour of the ‘model’
-the size of the group of bystanders

Question 6

There were 4 aims;

Answer 6

1-investigating the TYPE and RACE of victim on the speed, frequency and race of helper
2-investigation of the impact of modeling in an emergency situation
3-examine the relationship between the size of the group and frequency and speed of the helper
4- Investigate bystander behaviour in a natural setting

Question 7

What was the IV of the study

Answer 7

• The race of the victim
• The modelling conditions
• The number of bystanders
• group size (naturally. occupying)

Question 8

What were the dependant variables in the study
*5

Answer 8

-Speed
-frequency
-Race
-Gender
-comments
- number of people leaving critical area and adjacent area

Question 9

Where did this study take place

Answer 9

IND New York City Subway from 59th street to 125th street in 7.5 mins
between 11am and 3pm

Question 10

This was a longitudinal study as it ran from

Answer 10

April 15th- June 26th

Question 11

how many participant took part and which percentage of the participants were black and white

Answer 11

there were 4450 men and women
-45% were black
55% were white

Question 12

which sample method was carried out

Answer 12

Opportunity sampling as they were not deliberately selected

Question 13

which area did the incident take place

Answer 13

CRITICAL AREA

Question 14

This is considered a field experiment, what are the disadvantages of using this

Answer 14

• ethical issues
• harder to control variables (low reliability)
• hard to establish a cause and effect

Question 15

how many trials were taken and from what timings

Answer 15

103 trials (2 months)
- 11AM - 3PM

Question 16

where were the female observers during the situation

Answer 16

they sat outside the critical area

Question 17

describe the features of the victims

Answer 17

-ages 26-35 years old
-were all male
-eisenhower jackets
-no tie
- old trousers
-3 white and 1 black
-all identically dressed
-On 38 trials, they smelled like liquor and had a liquor bottle
-on the 65th trial, it was the handicapped victim with a black cane

Question 18

Describe the features of the models

Answer 18

• Ages ranged 24-29
• All dressed casual clothing
• 4 models in total and one per trial
• job would be to wait 70-150s after collapse

Question 19

what took place in the Adjacent area late

Answer 19

The model stood on the adjacent area and waited until passing the 6th station (150s after collapse )

Question 20

how were the teams divided and what happened on day 4

Answer 20

There were 4 teams;
team 1- white victim ~ cane
team2-white ~ cane
team 3- black ~drunk
team 4- white ~drunk
Each were to alternate the conditions each day
On day 4, the experimenter did not do as instructed as team 2 complained feeling uncomfortable playing a drunk victim

Question 21

what did the first female observer observe:

Answer 21

-race
-sex
-location of every helper in the critical area alone
- total number of people in the car
- total number of people who went to help

Question 22

what is a problem with having only one observer to observe all of this

Answer 22

-human error
-may not be completely reliable results

Question 23

what did the second female observer observe:

Answer 23

-race
-sex
-location in adjacent area alone
-latency of the 1st helper to help immediately after collapse
-Latency of 1st helper after model had intervened

Question 24

what did both observers note down

Answer 24

Comments made
the number of people living the critical area

Question 25

how many trials were there for each condition

Answer 25

38 trials for the drunk
65 trials for the handicapped

Question 26

Give 3 result shown

Answer 26

• the handicapped was given more help than the drunk
• 62/65 trials where the handicapped received help before the model arrived while it was 19/38 trials for the drunk victim
• Early models were likely to prompt additional help than late models
• 90% of men were most likely to help than women did
• there was a tendency of same race helping in the drunk condition compared to the handicapped
• 34% people left the critical area during the drunk victim in comparison to the handicapped victim
• 60% of helpers in the critical area were male
• less help was offered after 70s than there was before 70s
• more comments were made during the drunk trials than the cane trials
• 55% were white helpers and 45% were black
• median time for drunk condition was 109 seconds
• median time for ill condition was 5 seconds

Question 27

What were the final 3 conclusions from the study

Answer 27

-People are more likely to help those of the same race especially if the victim is drunk
-Men are more likely to help than women
-People are more likely to assist the ‘ill’ rather than a drunk victim
-The longer it takes for a victim to receive help the less likely they will receive it and the more likely they will find another way of coping with arousal
- people reduce arousal by either helping, fetching help or leaving the scene

Question 28

what are some ways participants showed arousal of the situation

Answer 28

• Through making comments
• walking away

Question 29

Give strengths to the study
*3

Answer 29

• High ecological validity
• There was representation of a range of ethnicities and genders due to the 4500 individuals present
• quantitative data collection increased objectivity
• standardised: controls of victims and time to help

Question 30

Give weaknesses of the study
*4

Answer 30

• Demand characteristics as the trials could have been repeated in the same route hence participants may have been exposed to another trial
• Less control over extraneous variables e.g time delay
• all participants were from New York which would be un-generalisable to a greater generation
• Ethical issues
• Lack of inter - observer reliability, observers cannot cross check their observation
• lacked standardization not a fixed number of trials (6-8 trials per day)

Question 31

What were the ethical issues shown

Answer 31

• No informed consent
• Psychological harm as they may have felt the guilt of not helping
• deception as they lied about the victims condition
• Lack of debriefing- passengers immediately left the train once the journey stopped
• No right to withdraw

Question 32

what are ways in which Piliavin can be applicable

Answer 32

-Shows that people can help those of the same sex/ race
-People are able to help in situations they can’t just walk past
-shows that people are able to receive help if they do not risk disgusting or embarrassing them
- programmes can be developed for young people to develop their reactions to emergency situations and understanding the cost benefit matrix

Question 33

what are the methodological strengths of the study

Answer 33

-Mundane realism / Ecological validity
-Generalisability
-replicability in total 103 trials
- collected both quantitative and qualitative data

Question 34

Describe the cost-reward matrix

Answer 34

• there are 4 conditions that would explain the behaviour of participants
  > reward of helping- praise
  > reward of not helping -harm
  >Cost of helping- harm
  >Cost of not helping-guilty

Question 35

Individual VS Situational

Answer 35

• SITUATIONAL- The 2 situations was a drunk and ill person.
  62/65 for the ill person and 19/38 for the drunk
• INDIVIDUAL-The females admitted that they are not strong enough to help (90% of helpers were male)

Question 36

State a point for Nurture

Answer 36

NURTURE- past experiences with drunk victims may affect if you help or not while an ill victim is unlikely to do that

Question 37

describe the experimental design of the study

Answer 37

Independent measures design:
There 4 trials:
- drunk black
- drunk white
- ill black
- ill white

Question 38

outline the procedure from when they got into the car

Answer 38

• the two observers and confederates entered from a separate door
• the observers took separate seats while the victim stood at the critical area
• the model varied between the critical and adjacent area depending on which condition they were in.
• 70s after leaving the station, the male vicim staggered forward and collapsed on the floor while looking up and faced the ceiling until he was helped

Question 39

state the controls of the study

Answer 39

• same 7.5 min journey for all trials
• victims wore same clothes and both fell 70s later
• each team member started in the same place e.g observer 1 begun in the adjacent area near the exit

Question 40

results for model condition (late)

Answer 40

DRUNK VICTIM: 4 Critical late
3 adjacent late
ILL VICTIM: 0 Critical late
0 adjacent late
TOTAL: 7 HELPERS

Question 41

results for model condition (early)

Answer 41

DRUNK VICTIM: 4 Critical area
5 adjacent area
ILL VICTIM: 2 Critical area
1 adjacent area
TOTAL: 12 HELPERS