Core Studies: Piliavin

• What does it study?

  Classic study of the Bystander Effect.
• What was Piliavin's background part 1?


  1. Case of Kitty Genovese who was murdered in the 60s over 30 neighbours saw it happen but no one stepped into to help.
  2. This is know as Bystander Effect, in particular diffusion of responsibility, neighbours diffused responsibility of helping her onto all others present
• What was Piliavin's background part 2?


  3. Pre research by Latane and Darley into the Bystander Effect involved people hearing someone have epileptic shock over phone, found many didn't try to get help because they believed someone else was there who could help instead

  4. but most prev res into Bystander effect were lab experiments so lacked ecological validity, so Piliavin wanted to expand on this by using a field exp with natural setting of NY subway
• What was P's aim?


  Assess how the nature of a situation would impact the helping behaviour of those present.
• What was Piliavin's sample?


  Approx 4500 men and women on NY subway between 11:00 and 15:00 on weekdays. Approx 55% white and 45% black.
• What was the r method


  field exp with natural setting of NY subway on 7.5 minute carriage journey
• What apparatus was used?

  black cane for ill victim, bottle of alcohol wrapped in brown paper bag for drunk victim, notepad and pens, checklist, stopwatch, for two female observers
• What were the different variables (4 IV and 6DV)?

  IV: type of victim (drunk or ill), race of victim (black or white), effect of model (appear after 70s or 150s), size of witnessing group

  DV: race of helper (black vs white), gender of helper (make vs female), frequency of help, speed of help, movement out of critical area, verbal comments made by bystanders.
• What was the procedure part 1?


  4 teams of 4 researchers including 2 female observers, one male victim who pretended to be ill or drunk, and one model. They were are General Studies students aged 26-35, always dressed alike. Drunk victim would smell of alcohol and would carry glass liquor bottle wrapped in brown paper bag. Ill victim would walk with a limp using a black cane. They would behave the same in both trials but there were less drunk trials because confederates didn't want stigma attached to them.
• What was the procedure part 2?

  Victim stood near pole in centre of critical area, stagger forwards after 70 seconds and collapse on floor, stare at ceiling on back and wait to receive help. If no help, model would step in at 150s and offer help to victim to motivate others to help as well. If no helped received when journey over and train stopped, r.m would help victim stand and whole team would disembark off train and change platform, repeat process again. 6 to 8 trials a day, all same victim conditions.
• What were the 4 model conditions?


  4 model conditions, critical area early, critical area late, adjacent area early, adjacent area late. Critical area was space surrounding victim, adjacent was further away but in same carriage.
• How was data recorded?

  two female observers, one sat in critical area, one sat in adjacent area, both recorded verbal comments spontaneously made by nearby passengers
• What were the findings?

  Quan: spontaneous help for ill victim was 95% vs 50% for drunk victim. Help after r.m was 100% for ill and 95% for drunk. Slight tendency for same race helping especially in drunk condition, no evidence of diffusion of responsibility. More comments made by passengers in drunk condition, females made comments like, "I'd help but I'm just not strong enough".
• What were the conclusions?

  1. when escape not possible and bystanders are face to face with a victim, diffusion of responsibility is less likely.
  2. individual who appears ill more likely to receive help than if drunk as this is seen as self-induced and less worthy of help in a social context
  3. bystanders conduct cost-reward analysis before deciding whether or not to help a victim