Piliavin's subway study

• What was the aim of Piliavin's subway study?

  To see if victim appearance affects helping behavior
• What type of experiment was Piliavin's subway study?

  Field experiment with little control
• Where did Piliavin's subway study take place?

  Subway in New York City
• How did participants react to the study in Piliavin's subway study?

  They were unaware they were in a study
• What did the actor do in Piliavin's subway study?

  Collapsed on the train in disguises
• How many trials involved alcohol props in the study?

  38 trials
• How many trials involved a sober actor with a walking stick?

  65 trials
• What percentage of time did victims with a walking stick receive help within 150 seconds?

  95% of 'disabled' victims (with cane) received help within 150 seconds
• What percentage of drunk victims received help within 150 seconds?

  50% of 'drunk' victims (carrying bottle wrapped tightly in a brown bag) received help within 150 seconds
• How quickly did the victims with a walking stick receive help within 70 seconds?

  87% of 'disabled' victims (with cane) received help within 70 seconds
• What percentage of drunk victims received help within the first 70 seconds?

  17% of 'drunk' victims (carrying bottle wrapped tightly in a brown bag) received help within the first 70 seconds
• Did the crowd size affect the likelihood of offering help?

  Crowd size did not affect help
• What conclusion was drawn from Piliavin's subway study?

  Characteristics of the victim affect whether they will receive help.
• What is a strength of Piliavin's subway study regarding validity?

  The study had high ecological validity - participants didn’t know they were taking part so did not show demand characteristics, acted as usually would.
• What is a weakness of Piliavin's subway study regarding generalisability?

  The majority of the participants would have been from the city centre - a non-rural area. They may have been more used to these types of emergencies and therefore not generalisable.
• What is another weakness of Piliavin's subway study regarding generalizability and culture?

  The participants were from the USA - an individualistic culture and therefore the findings cannot be generalised to other cultures.
• What is the weakness of the study regarding personality?

  It ignores the role of dispositional factors – some people would be more likely to help than others
• What is bystander behaviour in psychology?

  Bystander behaviour refers to how people act in emergency situations when others are present.
• What does research show in relation to bystander behaviour?

  Research shows people are often less likely to help when there are other bystanders.
• What is the bystander effect?

  The bystander effect is when the presence of others reduces the likelihood that someone will help in an emergency.
• What is diffusion of responsibility?

  Diffusion of responsibility is the idea that when many people are present, each person feels less personally responsible to act, making help less likely.
• What real-life event inspired research into bystander behaviour?

  The 1964 murder of Kitty Genovese in New York City, where at least 37 people heard her being attacked but no one called the police until it was too late. Psychologist's Bob Darley and Bibb Latane worked nearby.
• What did Darley and Latané conclude from the Kitty Genovese case?

  They concluded that people are less likely to help when others are around due to diffusion of responsibility, and coined the term bystander behaviour.
• How is the Kitty Genovese case linked to Piliavin’s Subway Study?

  Piliavin’s study was designed to test bystander behaviour in a real-life setting (a subway), partly in response to the Kitty Genovese case, and to challenge lab-based findings by studying helping in public.
• Why did Piliavin choose a subway setting for their study?

  The subway was a naturalistic setting with no easy escape and low anonymity, making it ideal to test helping behaviour without the limitations of a lab.
• What is the aim of Piliavin's subway study?

  To investigate if certain characteristics of a victim would affect whether people will help a bystander in a natural setting.
• What method did Piliavin use for his subway study?

  A field experiment on a New York subway train where a male confederate collapsed under different conditions during the journey to observe helping behaviour.
• What conditions did the male confederate collapse under?

  The confederate appeared either 'drunk' or 'disabled'
• What were the characteristics of the 'drunk' condition?

  The 'drunk' condition smelled of alcohol and carried a bottle of alcohol wrapped tightly in a brown paper bag.
• What were the characteristics of the 'disabled' condition?

  The 'disabled' condition had a man who appeared sober and carried a black cane.
• What was the role a separate confederate played?

  A 'model' who helped after either 70 seconds or 150 seconds if no one else did.
• How was the data collected in Piliavin's subway study?

  There were 103 trials.

  Two observers recorded data including both quantitative and qualitative data.
• What was the quantitative data gathered in Pilavin's subway study?

  The frequency (who helped) and how long it took to help (speed of helping)
• What was the qualitative data gathered in Piliavin's subway study?

  The helper's characteristics and any comments made.
• How many observers recorded key information?

  Two
• What is prosocial behaviour?

  Acting in a way that promotes the welfare of others and may not benefit the helper.