Social- Piliavin Flashcards
Theories of bystander behavior
Bystander apathy-Can be caused by
- Diffusion of responsibility
- Pluralistic ignorance
- Cost-benefit analysis
- Attribution
Aims
To test bystander behavior/ apathy in a real life setting (the New York subway)
To see the effect of the type of victim on helping behavior
To see the effect of modeling on helping behavior
To see the effect of group size (diffusion of responsibility) on helping behavior
Hypothesis
People who are regarded as partly responsible for their troubles would receive less sympathy and consequently less help than people seen as not responsible for their circumstances
Independent Variable
The type of victim
-Drunk or ill
The race of the victim
-Black or white
The type of role model
- Adjacent area or critical area
- Early or late
Dependent Variables
Number of people who helped
Time taken to help
Gender, race and location of helpers
Whether people moved away and any comments they made
results
The ‘cane’ victim received help in 95% of trials (62/ 65 trials) compared to 50% (19/ 38 trials) for the ‘drunk’ (this was the same for both races)
90% of the spontaneous first helpers were male although only 60% of passengers were male.
There was no differences in the number of white/ black helpers except that in the drunk condition people were more likely to help someone of their own race
On 60% of trials the victim was helped by more than one helper
Out of 103 trials 34 passengers left the critical area (mostly in the drunk condition)
Response time was less when there were more people present, contradicting previous research and the diffusion of responsibility hypothesis
The early model (70 seconds) produced significantly more help than a late model (150 seconds)
Many women made comments such as; “It’s for men to help him”, “You feel so bad when you don’t know what to do”
Conclusions
- Someone who appears drunk will get less help than someone who appears ill
- With a male victim and a public helping situation, men are more likely to help
- No diffusion of responsibility was found
- Same race helping occurs more when the victim is drunk
- Piliavin et al explain the results using the ‘Arousal Cost-Reward’ model
The arousal: cost-reward theory
- People feel upset when they see a person in need and are motivated to do something to reduce the unpleasant arousal
- They then weigh the costs of helping vs not helping
- The clearer the need for help, the more likely people are to help
Data Collected
Quantitative:
Number of helpers & speed at which they offered help
Race, gender and location of helpers
If anyone moved out of the critical area
Qualitative
Comments made by passengers during the incident
Strengths
Field experiment
- High ecological validity
- Natural setting and behavior
- Both quantitative and qualitative data collected
Weaknesses
Field experiment
- Less control over variables
- Problems of recording data (especially verbal comments)
- Difficult to replicate
Ethics
Deception? Consent? Invasion of privacy? Lack of debriefing? Protection from psychological harm? Protection from physical harm?
Procedure (1)
16 researchers (2 male/ 2 female in each group) were used in 4 teams.
Males were either the victim or model, females were observers. Always working in same teams and roles.
There were 103 trials between 11am and 3pm from 15th April to 26th June 1968 (3 month period). A and D trains between 59th and 125th streets (7 ½ minute journey)
On each trial, a team (two males and two females), boarded the train using different doors.
Each team varied the location of the experimental compartment from trial to trial.
Procedure (2)
The female confederates sat in the adjacent area to recorded data as discreetly as possible
The male role model and the male victim remained standing
The victim always stood next to a pole in the center of the critical area
As the train passed the first station (approximately 70 seconds after departing) the victim collapsed.
Until receiving help from a passenger, he remained motionless on the floor.
Four victims (one from each team) Males Aged between 26 and 35 3 white, 1 black, All identically dressed in casual clothing
Procedure (3)
38 trials the victim smelled of alcohol & carried a bottle wrapped in a brown bag (drunk condition)
65 trials the victim appeared sober and carried a black cane (cane condition)
The role models (males aged 24 -29) were all casually, but not identically, dressed.
There were four different role model conditions used across both the drunk & cane conditions:
Critical area – early: (model stood in critical area & asked if he needed help after 70 seconds)
Critical area - late: (helped after 150 seconds)
Adjacent area - early: (model stood in adjacent area & asked if he needed help after 70 seconds)
Adjacent area - late: (helped after 150 seconds)
If the victim received no other help by the time the train stopped the role model helped him to his feet.
