Social Area 2- Levine/Piliavin

Question 1

Piliavin Background

Answer 1

-Based off of the case of Kitty Genovese, who was stabbed and killed outside her home, where 38 people witnessed the attack and nobody helped her.
-Wanted to investigate the bystander effect

Question 2

Piliavin aim

Answer 2

Investigate the effect of following variables on helping behaviour:
-Type of victim (drunk or black cane)
-Race of victim (black or white)
-Helping behaviour in the presence of a role model
-Diffusion of responsibility

Question 3

Piliavin method

Answer 3

Field experiment
IV= type of victim, effect of group size, model conditions
DV= Time taken to help, total number of passengers, gender/race/location of helpers

Question 4

Piliavin sample

Answer 4

4,450 passengers- 11am to 3pm on weekdays
45% black
55% white

Question 5

Piliavin Results

Answer 5

81% of passengers helped to drunk victim
100% of passengers helped the sick victim

Question 6

Piliavin conclusion

Answer 6

The drunk victim is helped less often as the cost of helping is seen as greater as it is more likely to cause disgust, or embarrassment or even harm. The cost of not helping is less as nobody will blame someone for not helping a drunk victim as it’s perceived the victim is responsible for their own actions.

Question 7

Levine Background

Answer 7

Many explanations for helping behaviour
- Wealthier areas have decreased rates of helping behaviour
-Simpatia values, Latin- American, priorities the wellbeing of others over yourself.
-Walking speed= Faster walking speed means decreased rate of helping behaviour
-Population. >300,000 in a city means less helping rates.

Question 8

Levine sample

Answer 8

Top 5 most helpful: Brazil, Costa Rica, Malawi, India and Austria
Least helpful: Malaysia, USA, Holland, Bulgaria and Taiwan
Most helpful: Brazil, Rio De Janiero- 97%
Least helpful: Malaysia- 49%

Question 8

Levine aim

Answer 8

To investigate the tendency of people in larger cities in 23 countries around the world to help a stranger in a non-emergency situation and see if helping rates is universal or dependent on the characteristics of the study.

Question 9

Levine method

Answer 9

Quasi experiment
(IV)= Dropped pen, hurt leg, helping a blind person
(DV)= Helping rates of each country, this was established by averaging the rates of all 3 measures

Question 10

Levine conclusion

Answer 10

-Cities which were wealthier and had a faster pace of life were more individualistic
-Poorer cities has higher rates of helping behaviour
-Slight differences in simpatia and non- simpatia countries