pilivan (subway samaritans)

what is bystander empathy?

phenomenon where observers of an emergency do not intervene

what is diffusion of responsibility?

people are less likely to help if others are present as they feel like whole group is equally as responsible thus they are less personally responsible

what is the background of piliavan?

• murder of Kitty Genovese (38 heard her cries for help and didnt help)

• bystander behavior

what is the aim of piliavin?

• study bystander behavior outside lab in realistic setting where ptps have clear view of victim

• to see whether helping behavior was effected by the 4 factors (race, victim, size of group, modelled help)

research method?

field exp and observation

experimental design?

independent groups

what are some DV’s

• time taken for help

• amount of people who helped

• sex and race of helper

• verbal remarks made

sample?

• 44500 ppl

• 45% black and 55% white

sampling technique?

opportunity sampling

name 3 ethical issues

• no informed consent

• ppt’s were deceived and were not debriefed after

• psychological harm, as they may of felt hurt/guilt by victims condition/distressing situation

what is the advantage of no informed consent

ppt’s didnt know they were taking part of study therefore could not have shown demand characteristics and their behavior was genuine therefore increasing ecological validity

1 strength in reliability?

high reliability: victims wore same clothes and collapse took place in same ‘critical area’ and timing; therefore, the, the procedure could be repeated to test reliability of results

1 weakness of validity?

confounding variables: only 1 black victim used in this condition of the study therefore we can not conclude behavior towards victim was due to race and not other factors therefore the findings for IV for race lack validity

1 weakness for validity?

lack of controls: location and activity of ppl in carriage was not controlled, therefore ppl could have been distracted so reason for not helping was not a conscious choice, therefore validity of findings is lowered and study cannot be easily replicated

strength of qualitative data?

allowed for further insight for bystanders justification for not helping therefore allows for more meaningful conclusions to to be made

strength of quantitative data?

allows researchers make valid comparisons in helping behavior between drunk and cane conditions (e.g. time taken to help) therefore, findings are free from researcher bias or interpretation

strength of generalizability?

large sample = high generalizability and findings can be applied to cities outside NYC due to large sample

percentage of victims with canes helped?

95% and 100% when there was no model

percentage of drunk victims helped?

50%

percentage of drunk white victims helped?

100%

percentage of drunk black victims helped?

73% (frequently by more black than white ppl)

When was help shown the quickest?

by large groups (shows there’s no diffusion of responsibility)

who helped more males or females?

90% males

on what percentage of trials was help given?

60%

percentage of helpers that were white?

64%

what time of model intervention was more likely to lead to help 70s or 150s

70s

how long was each trial

7.5 min

what did piliavin conclude?

• the findings did not support the diffusion of responsibility hypothesis in a real world setting

• people help ill victims more often the drunk

what was recorded by female observers?

1 recorded :

• no. of ppl who came to help victim

• race/sex/location of each helper in critical area

• no. of passengers in critical area

• race/sex/location of passenger in critical area

both recorded:

• remarks made by passengers

• spontaneous comments from passengers

one similarity and one difference between piliavin and one other study in the social approach?

• similarity: both milgrim and piliavin have ethical issues of deception - In the study by Milgram, participants believed they were giving real electric shocks to a complete stranger who could not remember word pairs. In the study by Piliavin, the participants were led to believe that the drunk or ill victim was actually in need of help

• difference : milgrim debriefed ppt’s while piliavin didnt - milgrim reconciled with ppt and ensured them that no harm was done while piliavin didnt debrief after as no informed consent was given anyway, so he may have left ppt’s with psychological harm.

list a few comments made by bystanders?

• ‘‘its for men to help him’’

• ‘‘i wish i could help him - im not strong enough’’

• ‘‘ you feel so bad you dont know what to do’’

• ‘‘i never saw this kind of thing before - i dont know where to look’’

1 methodological strength

ecological validity : because setting was real life subway setting

what does the model do in the ‘adjacent area - late’ condition

• stood adjacent to critical area

• wait 150s

• then help victim

what does the model do in the ‘critical area - early’ condition?

• stand in critical area

• help after 70s

what does the model do in the ‘critical area - late’ condition?

• stand in critical area

• help after 150s

what does the model do in the ‘adjacent area - early’ condition?

• stood adjacent to critical area

• helped after 70s

how does piliavin support the individual side?

when no model present - every trial with cane/ill victim someone came to help suggesting there is a certain type of person willing to help an ill person

how does piliavin support the situational side?

when no model present - every trial with cane/ill victim someone came to help suggesting the situation of seeing an ill victim triggered helping behavior.

Outline how one result from this study does not support the concept of diffusion of responsibility.

The (small) correlation between group size and helping behaviour was positive (rather than negative) People in groups of seven or more were consistently faster at responding than those in groups of 3