Studied by 0 people
Looks like no one added any tags here yet for you.
What is a bystander?
Anyone who is present at an incident but not directly involved.
Give some details about Latane and Darley
-Proposed that the key issue in deciding whether to help or not is whether we see it as our personal responsibility.
-One reason why groups of people don't help individuals in need, is that responsibility is equally shared amongst those in the group, so each individual only has a small amount.
-Diffusion of responsibility (more people present, less likely they are to help).
What were these variables?
-The victim's responsibility for being in a situation where they needed help.
-The race of the victim.
-The effect of modelling helping behaviour.
-The size of the group.
What was the design?
-Field experiment carried out on NY subway.
-Materials= black cane, liquor bottle wrapped in brown paper bag.
What was the design p2?
IV:
-Victim responsibility operalitionalised as carrying cane/bottle.
-Race: black/white
-Presence of a model: confederate, distance, time before helping.
-Number of bystanders.
DV:
-Time taken for first passenger to help.
-Total number of passengers who helped.
Give some details about the sample
-Opportunity sample.
-Estimated around 4550 passengers travelled in the trains targeted by researchers.
-Regarded as unsolicited participants.
-Average of around 43 in each carriage, model average of 8 in critical area.
-Racial mix of passengers was estimated at 45% black and 55% white.
Give some details about the procedure
-Experimenters worked in teams of four: two female to record results and two males playing victim and model.
-A particular stretch of the track was targeted which where there was a 7.5 minute gap between two stations.
-After 70 seconds of boarding the train the victim would stagger and fall.
-Lay on floor with eyes open, not moving until helped.
What were the model conditions used during the procedure?
-Stood in critical area and helped after 70 seconds.
-Stood in critical area and helped after 150 seconds.
-Stood in adjacent area and helped after 70 seconds.
-Stood in adjacent area and helped after 150 seconds.
What results were found regarding ill vs drunk conditions?
Cane= 95% of time without intervention of model. Drunk= 45% of time.
People took longer to help drunk than ill:
-Over 70s in 83% of drunk trials compared to 17% of cane trials.
What were the results regarding the race of victim?
Cane= equally likely to be helped.
Drunk= black victims were less likely to receive help.
-Race effect: people more likely to help drunk of same race to themselves.
What results were found regarding the number of bystanders?
No evidence for diffusion of responsibility.
What were the conclusions from Piliavin's study?
Diffusion of responsibility and bystander effect did not effect helping behaviour. Instead Piliavin proposes the arousal: cost reward model.
Give some details about the arousal: cost reward model
-Perceiving an emergency raises arousal levels which can be interpreted as either sympathy, fear or disgust.
-Closer and longer situation continues- increased.
-Levels greatest when they can emphasise.
-Behaviour of bystander aims to reduce arousal level.
What 4 behaviours can the bystander carry out to reduce arousal levels?
-Helping directly.
-Leaving to find help.
-Leaving the area.
-Dismissing the victim as unworthy of help.
Which of these options chosen depends on the costs and benefits of helping and not helping.
Research method: Strength
Field experiment
-natural environment/realistic situation.
-Increases validity.
Research method: weakness
-Difficult to control extraneous variables.
-Number and nature of ppts boarding the train was unpredictable.
-Reduces reliability.
Data collected: Strength
-Collected quantitative and qualitative data
-Quan= how many people helped and how long it took to help: make comparisons between conditions.
-Qual= comments people made about victim: helped to explain behaviour.
Ethics: Weakness
-Participants not protected from psychological harm: may have felt anxiety and guilt.
-Did not give consent.
-Ppts were deceived.
-Ppts could not ask to have their data withdrawn.
-Ppts were not debrieved.
Reduces reliability.
Validity: Strength
-Actual helping behaviour recorded rather than estimates of helping.
-Ecological validity is good: task was realistic and in ppt natural environment.
Reliability: Weakness
Natural setting- low internal reliability.
Not all participants had the same experience of the study.
Sample: Weakness
-Taking sample from those travelling between 11-3pm might have left out those at work or education during the day.
-Opportunity sample: unlikely to be representative.
Ethnocentrism: Weakness
-Conducted in a single city
-Findings can't be generalised to other cultural contexts.
Practical applications: Strength
-Many situations in which people require help.
-Understanding when people are likely to actually receive help, can help to save lives.
What is bystander effect
A person is less likely to provide help when there are other bystanders present in the situation.
What was the aim of Piliavin's study?
To investigate the effect of certain variables on helping behaviour.
What were the controls used?
-Collapsed after 70 seconds.
-Between 6-8 trials run per days, between 11 and 3pm.
-Victim took part in blind and drunk condition.
Give some details about the overall results
79% of victims received spontaneous help.
60% of cases where the victim was helped by more than one person.
What were the results regarding the effect of modelling?
The model intervening after 70 seconds was more likely to lead to help from other passengers than after 150 seconds.
