Piliavin

Social Approach

studies altruism and bystander effect/diffusion of responsibility, which are both social principles

bystander effect / diffusion of responsibility

(psychology)

as the group size increases, the amount of helping behavior decreases

plural ignorance

(psychology)

the tendency for people in a group to mislead each other about an emergency situation

Kitty Genovese - 1964

(background)

murdered in 1964 while 38 witnesses stood by and did nothing, despite her crying for help and the attack lasting for 35 minutes

Darley and Latané - 1968

(background)

conducted 3 different experiments to test helping behavior: lady in distress, epileptic seizure, and smoke-filled room

Piliavin - 1969

(background)

believes that Darley and Latane’s study left out a critical piece - danger, because participants assume that no one would be permanently harmed in a lab setting

Aim

to study bystander behavior / diffusion of responsibility in the real world where you have a clear view of the victim

Hypothesis #1

The larger the group, the less likely it is that help will be given

Hypothesis #2

Seeing one person help would encourage others to help

Hypothesis #3

A drunk person will receive less help than an ill person

Hypothesis #4

People would help people that are of the same race

IV #1

victim conditions:

drunk or ill

Black or White

IV #2

model conditions:

critical or adjacent

IV #3

number of bystanders

DV

helping behavior (picking the person up)

* number of people who picked up victim
* speed of helping
* race, sex, and location of helpers

Method

* Field study conducted between April 15th and June 26th, 1968 (more subway riders due to better weather), at 11 am to 3 pm on weekdays (avoids rush hour traffic and drinking early on weekends is common in NYC)
* 2 subway cars; Car A is Critical, Car B is Adjacent
* Train journey is 7.5 minutes and makes no stops between 59th and 125th Street
* Data is collected as a naturalistic structured observation
* Independent measures - participants can only watch the fall once otherwise they may get suspicious

Apparatus

* 2 subway “cars”, each with 13 seats
* All victims, regardless of condition, will be wearing an Eisenhower jacket, old slacks, and no tie
* Drunk victims will have an alcohol bottle disguised by brown paper bag and will smell of alcohol
* Ill victims will have a cane

Participants

4,450 men and women obtained via opportunity sample from subway in New York City; all unaware they were part of an experiment; 45% Black and 55% White; average of 43 people per trip and average of 8 people immediately critical

Experimenters

all are graduates at Columbia University, likely receiving some sort of credit ; teams of 4 (model, victim, 2 observers) that don’t change to keep teamwork and cohesion between the members

Victims

4 males, 3 White and 1 Black, aged 26 to 35 years

Models

4 white males aged 26 to 29 years modeling helping behavior

Observers

8 females (chosen because women blend in and men were the ones expected to help)

Control #1

The same 7.5 minute journey is used every time

Control #2

The victim will always fall at the same location at the same time

Control #3

The victim will always be wearing the same thing

Control #4

The observers will always sit in the same spots

Step 1

(procedure)

All 4 members of the team enter the subway and assume their positions

Step 2

(procedure)

When the train leaves the station, 70 seconds later, the victim staggers and falls onto their back, staring at the ceiling

Step 3

(procedure)

In the critical car, if no one helps the victim, the model will either help after 70 seconds (early) or after 150 seconds (late). In the adjacent car, the same occurs

Step 4

(procedure)

Observer 1 records the sex, location, and race of all passengers, total number of passengers, how many people are sitting/standing, and number of people that went to help in the Critical Car

Step 5

(procedure)

Observer 2 will get the same demographics as Observer 1 but for the Adjacent Car, plus the time it takes the first helper to help (not the model)

Step 6

(procedure)

There will be 103 total trials, about 6 to 8 each day

quantitative data

frequency of helping (speed and number of helpers)

demographics (race and sex)

qualitative data

verbal comments of passengers

spontaneous help

help occurred before model interference

Finding #1

The ill victim received spontaneous help on 62/65 trials, and the drunk victim received it in 19/38 trials. The median time that the ill victim was helped in was 5 seconds, and 109 seconds for the drunk victim

*When it comes to helping, the reason why you need help is taken into consideration. If* *it’s your fault you need help (high* *responsibility), you’re less likely to receive* *help, and if it’s not your fault (low responsibility), you’re more likely to receive* *help*

Finding #2

Spontaneous help occurred in 81 trials, and in 61% of those, more than 1 person helped the victim. There was no difference between race and drunk or ill. 78% of spontaneous helpers were facing the victim

*Once first help happens, more people are willing to help. If you see the situation happen in front of you, it’s easier to provide assistance spontaneously*

Finding #3

60% of first helpers were in the critical area and were male. Of all people helping, 90% were male, and 64% of the first helpers were white

*Based on the racial composition of the subway cars, the difference of white and black helpers is insignificant*

Finding #4

When the victim was white, 68% of first helpers were white and 32% were black. When the victim was black, the races of helpers were 50% white and 50% black.

*There’s a slight tendency toward same race helping*

Finding #5

In the ill condition, there was no difference between black and white helpers. In the drunk condition, same-race helping was more prevalent

*When it comes to same race helping, the condition of the victim made a difference*

Finding #6

Out of all those trials, 34 people left the critical area when the victim fell. Most people left and more comments were made when the victim was drunk

*Help in the ill condition occurred quickly and there wasn’t time for passengers to make comments, and in the drunk condition, passengers made comments to justify not helping*

Finding #7

In a train car full of people, when one person helped, more people came and helped

*The bystander effect/diffusion of responsibility was disproven*

Conclusion #1

The ill victim is more likely to get help than the drunk victim

Conclusion #2

When your audience is mixed gender, it is more likely that men will help

Conclusion #3

Same-race helping is more likely to happen when responsibility is high than low

Conclusion #4

There is no strong relationship between number of people and speed of helping

Conclusion #5

The longer the emergency occurs without help, the less of an impact the model has, and the more likely they are to leave the area

Emergency Situations - Arousal

* when an emergency situation occurs in front of someone, it creates an internal state of arousal of fear/panic, sympathy, or empathy
* the closer to and longer the emergency, the bigger the arousal

Emergency Situations - Cost Reward Matrix

* helping someone could mean putting yourself in danger, but you would receive approval (i.e. “thank you”) as a reward
* not helping someone could create a sense of guilt, but you would enjoy the comfort of safety

Ethics

Confidentiality was maintained. Informed consent was not obtained, and participants were deceived in the use of the stooge. Debriefing did not occur, and protection from harm was violated in that passengers may have been distressed by watching someone collapse

Strength #1

The use of a field study increases ecological validity

Strength #2

The task of helping someone, who fell down has high mundane realism

Strength #3

The collection of both quantitative and qualitative data allows for statistical comparison and explanation behind the findings

Strength #4

Demand characteristics could not have interfered with participants/ behavior

Strength #5

The sample is diverse and very large, allowing for generalization

Weakness #1

The use of independent measures brings about participant variables such as personality

Weakness #2

Because the observers were observing different things, there is no inter-scorer reliability

Individual v. Situational

(issues & debates)

The responsibility of the victim and the environment support situational, and personality of the participant supports individual

Application

(issues & debates)

* to educate children about breaking stereotypes and to help in different ways
* to educate people on bystander effect
* to teach people to prevent emergency situations by saying something when they see something