Piliavin

• How to answer a background question on Piliavin

  1. outline the murder of Kitty Genovese
  2. link the case to diffusion of responsibility/bystander effect (define)
  3. further influences - lab experiment (Latane + Darley)
  4. Piliavin's aim to research bystander effect in a more realistic situation - context
• Example answer to background question

  
• What is the bystander effect

  the phenomenon where the presence of other people can reduce the chance that people will help someone in need
• Explanations for the bystander effect

  • Pluralistic ignorance = when a group collectively aren't clear as to whether a situation is an emergency or not so whether the person is actually in need (likely in an ambitious/unclear situation)
  • Diffusion of responsibility = people are less likely to help someone if there are others present as they perceive responsibility as being shared between all present, and there4 see themselves as less responsible
• Kitty Genovese

  brutally murdered in front of her apartment block in New York in the 60s. many of her neighbours could hear + see her being murdered but did nothing to help when she was in need - due to bystander effect
• Latane + Darley (1968)

  lab experiment: found bystanders hearing an elliptic fit over earphones didn't repost theses believed others were present so they would help.

  Piliavin recognised these lab experiments lacked EV so didn't demonstrate how people would react in a realistic situation so she planned to investigate helping behaviour using a field experiment (NY subway)
• Aim

  to investigate how the nature of the situation would affect the helping behaviour of those present
• Research method

  field experiment in New York Subway. journeys lasted approx 7 + a half mins
• Independent variables

  main: the type of victim (either appeared drunk or ill with a cane)

  • the race of the victim (black or white)
  • the effect of a model (how would others respond when one person offered assistance either after 70 or 150 seconds)
  • size of the witnessing group (not manipulated, naturally occurring IV)
• Dependent variables recorded by 2 female observers in nearby area

  Quantitative:

  • frequency of help (how often people helped)
  • speed of help (how quickly people responded)
  • race of helper
  • sex of helper (male or female)
  • movement out of critical area

  Qualitative:

  • verbal comments by bystanders
• Example Q: how is it a field experiment

  
• Sample

  4,450 men + women who used the New York subway on weekdays between 11am an 3pm

  about 45% were black, 55% white
• Strengths + weaknesses of the sample

  + large sample = high external reliability

  + no gender bias = can generalise to both men + women

  -ethnocentric = cannot generalise

  + New York has many tourists from many cultures = can generalise (not ethnocentric)

  -doesnt consider any races other than black + white (ethnocentric)

  -excludes people that work
• Procedure: research team

  4 teams of 4 researchers: 2 female observers, 2 males - 1 acting as victim, 1 the model. victims: 3 white, 1 black, all male, General Studies students, 26-35 years + dressed alike

  How IV was manipulated: victim smelled of liquor + carried a liquor bottle wrapped tightly in a brown paper bag or appeared sober + carried a black cane. acted identically in both conditions (control). fewer drunk trials performed than ill trials as male confederates didn't want to play drunk victim as much, so there was a lack of consistency in standardisation (low IR)
• Procedure: 4 model conditions

  • critical area - early = model stands in critical area + help after 70s
  • critical area - late = model stands in critical area + help after 150s
  • adjacent area - early = model stands in adjacent area + help after 70s
  • adjacent area - late = model stands in adjacent area + help after 150s
• Procedure: staged emergency

  • victim stood near pole in critical area. after 70s he staggered forward + collapsed. remained still on floor looking at ceiling until received help. if no help received by time train stopped, role model helped victim to his feet
  • at stop team disembarked, changed platforms to repeat process in opposite direction. 6-8 trials were run on a given day, all using same victim condition

  female observers recorded DVs. 1 observed in critical area, 1 in adjacent area. both observers recorded verbal comments spontaneously made by nearby passengers
• Problems with procedure

  • fewer drunk trials than ill trials = low IR
  • witnessing victim collapse = may cause distress/psychological harm = ethics
  • 6-8 trials a day = some passengers may see it twice which gives DCs = low IV
  • observers recorded ALL DVs = some behaviours of DV may be missed
• Procedure example Q: Describe the procedure used in Piliavin et al's study (6)

  
• Materials/apparatus

  • black cane for ill victim
  • bottle wrapped in brown paper bag for drunk victim
  • stopwatch to measure time taken to respond
  • notepad/checklist to record observations
• Findings + conclusions of study

  
• Example Q: Suggest why the study by Piliavin didn't provide evidence for diffusion of responsibility (2)

  
• Example Q: Outline one conclusion Piliavin made in relation to diffusion of responsibility (2)

  
• Evaluation table

  
• Link to key theme question - What, Who and how

  WHAT = to investigate how the nature of a situation effects the helping behaviour of those present

  WHO = 4450 men + women using the New York Subway on weekdays

  HOW = 4 researchers stepped onto train, after 70s victim (drunk or ill with a cane) staggered forward + collapsed, remained lying on floor looking at ceiling until received help. if no help model would intervene either after 70s or 150s, 2 female observers recorded speed of help + frequency of help
• Link to key theme - finding + link

  FINDING = ill victim helped 100% of the time, drunk victim helped 81% of time, no evidence of diffusion of responsibility

  LINK = this links to responses in people in need, main response to people in need is to help -> enclosed train carriage so can't walk away, face-to-face with victim = cannot diffuse responsibility
• Answer to social approach question

  
• 2 ways the study may be considered ethnocentric

  • only studies one Western culture (New York) -> cannot generalise to other cultures
  • only studies 2 races (black or white) -> we don't know how other races would respond so cannot generalise
• Debates Piliavin links to

  • reductionism = reduces helping behv to situational factors (e.g. enclosed train carriage where there was no escape explains no bystander effect being found) + ignores indv diffs
  • situational = explains helping rates due to situational variables only e.g the type of victim (ill/drunk) in their env