SEARCH
You are in browse mode. You must login to use MEMORY

   Log in to start

level: Piliavin (S)

Questions and Answers List

level questions: Piliavin (S)

QuestionAnswer
Aim of the study- Investigating the rates of helping behaviour on many different variables
Diffusion of responsibility- Where the responsibility of a situation is spread among the people present - The more people present, the more the responsibility is spread out - So they feel less personally responsible and less likely to help
Pluralistic ignorance- An individual finds it hard to go against the group who are ignorant to the emergency
Performance Anxiety- The pressure felt when you have the attention of a crowd
Bystander apathy- The more people present, the less likely people are to help
Background- Kitty Genovese in 1964 - Stabbed to death for 30 minutes in front of 38 unresponsive witnesses
Research method- Field study - In New York Subway - The journey lasted 7 and a half mins
Sample- Around 4450 men and women used the New York subway between 11:00 am and 3:00pm - About 45% were black and 55% white
Independent variables- Type of victim (drunk or carrying a cane) - Race of victim (black or white) - Effect of a model (after 70 or 150 seconds, from the critical or adjacent area) - Size of witnessing group
Dependent variables- Frequency of help - Speed of help - Race of helper - Movement out of critical area - Gender of helper - Verbal comments from bystanders
Procedure- 4 teams of 4 researchers (2 female + male observers, one victim and one model) - The victims were 3 black and 1 white, general study students - The victim stood near a pole in the critical area, after 70 seconds he collapsed - Remained on floor until received help - If no help was offered either 70 or 150 seconds the model would step in
Issue with the procedure- More cane trials than drunk trials - They was an uneven no. black + white victims - As Team 2 violated instructions by running cane rather than drunk trials because the victim 'didn't like' playing drunk
Findings- Cane victim was helped 95% of the time - Drunk victim was helped 50% of the time - 90% of the helpers were male - Slight tendency to help same race - especially in drunk condition - No diffusion of responsibility, the larger the group the quicker the response
Conclusions- People who appear ill is more likely to get help than people who appear drunk - Men are more likely to help a male victim - No connection between no. of bystanders + speed of helP - Bystanders weigh up a cost-reward ratio
Model response to emergency situations- Observation of an emergency creates an emotional arousal state - unpleasant - The more the observer can empathise with the victim, higher it is, the longer the victim doesn't get help - Reduced by helping directly, going to get help or rejecting the victim - The response chosen will be from cost-reward ratio
Evaluation of research methods- Field study, real life setting (New York subway) - Used observation - Snapshot study, limited to the time, place + culture
Data- Quantitative and qualitative data
Quantative data- The number of helpers - The percentage genders of helpers - Allowed Piliavin to compare results of different conditions
Qualitive data- Comments made by passengers
Ethical issues- DECPETION, victim is actor - No consent, no right to withdraw, but could leave unknowingly - HARM, reduced self worth if person didn't help - No debrief - Confidentiality, no names recorded
Validity- Field study, many extraneous variables, affects results - Controlled time of day, where the victim fell + victims clothes - Passengers may have witnessed the experiment more than once - High ecological validity, real life setting
Reliability- Fairly reliable,103 trials, shown consistent effect - Not enough black drunk victims (only 22), white drunk victim (57) - Standardised, replicable
Sampling bias- Very large sample, equal % of black + white participants compared to real population - Lacked generalisability, all from same culture
Ethnocentrism- Low ethnocentrism as New York has such a large range of races - But all from same culture
Freewill vs determinism (Freewill)- Helping behaviour was lower in the drunk condition (50%) compared to the cane condition this shows a choice to help
Freewill vs determinism (Determinism)- Weighing up cognitively cost to reward ratio
Reductionism holism debate (Holism)- There is range of factors that determine choice (physiological and cognitive) - Study takes holistic approach
Reductionism holism debate (Reductionism)- Other reasons to help, kindness, genuine unselfish desire to help other people
Link to area/perspectives- Social, reveals the extent to which behaviour is.. - The likelihood of someone helping in an emergency situation if there are others around
Link to key theme- Responses to people in need - How people behave when someone is in need of help