Piliavin 1969

• What was the background?

  Kitty Genovese

  
  

  -28 years old

  -Murdered while coming home from work in Queens District, NY

  -38 neighbours were waiting to see what each other would do
• What previous research was done into bystander apathy?

  -Smoke coming out of vent

  
  

  -Somebody speaking over intercom having an elliptic 'seizure' -> 'Seizure study' by Darnley + Latane 1968
• What were the four aims?

  -Type of victim -> would an ill person get more help than a drunk person?

  
  

  -Race -> would people help those of them same before the different race?

  
  

  -Model help -> if a model started helping the victim, would that encourage others to also help?

  
  

  -Number of bystanders -> would the number of bystanders who saw the victim influence how much help was given?
• What were the IV's of the victim condition?


  Black or white

  
  

  Drunk or ill
• What were the IV's of the model condition?

  Critical area - early

  Critical area - late

  
  

  Adjacent area - early

  Adjacent area - late
• What DV did the two observers record?

  1 observer -> critical area -> noted (in critical area):

  
  

  -Race

  -Sex

  -Location

  Of passengers +:

  
  

  -total number of people in carriage

  -Total number of people who helped victim

  
  

  
  

  1 observer -> adjacent area -> noted (in adjacent area):

  
  

  -Race

  -Sex

  -Location

  Of passengers +:

  
  

  -The time taken for first helper to arrive

  -Late ch of first helper when there a model involved
• What was the % of the sample in terms of race? + how many passengers there were

  4450 passengers

  
  

  -55% white and 45% black
• What was the procedure?

  -Took place on weekdays daily -> 3 months + -> 11am-3pm

  
  

  -Experiment always took place between the same two stops on the train -> 7.5 minute period -> no interruptions

  
  

  -Used teams of uni students
• What were the quantitative findings?

  -Total race in exp -> 55% white and 45% black

  
  

  -90% first helpers = men

  
  

  -62/65 help given to people with cane

  -19/38 help for drunk victim
• What were the qualitative findings?

  -Comments often made by women -> 'it's for men to help him'

  
  

  -More comments made by passengers in drunk than cane condition -> most comments made when no help was given within the first 70 seconds
• What were the strengths?

  -Carried out 103 times -> help identify consistency's

  
  

  -Opportunity sampling -> quick + convenient -> not board

  
  

  -Natural -> field experiment -> reduces DC = more reliable data from sample -> able to see how people would act in the real situation
• What was the weakness?

  -Passengers unable to withdraw

  
  

  -Not an equal amount of drunk or cane

  
  

  -Only in NY

  
  

  -People didn't know it was fake -> could've caused emotional harm to people

  
  

  -Doesn't represents all commuters -> excludes workers/ people who travel during rush hour + those who don't take subway.