Piliavin

• Background: What was the event that led to research about responses to helping behaviour?

  • Kitty Genovese was murdered in an alley and nobody came to help her and just watched 
• Background - Theories of bystander behaviour:

  Bystander apathy – what people do when watching an emergency situation (less likely to help with bystanders) 
• Background - Theories of bystander behaviour:

  Diffusion of responsibility – person is less likely to take responsibility to action or inaction when others are present because others take responsibility  
• Background - Theories of bystander behaviour:

  Pluralistic ignorance – majority of group members privately reject the norm but incorrectly assume most others accept it and therefore go along with it  
• Background - Theories of bystander behaviour:

  Cost-benefit analysis –  arousal for the individual by considering what the benefits of helping or what is the cost of helping  
• Background - Theories of bystander behaviour:

  Altruistic behaviour – doing for others without expectation or reward 

  Attribution – explaining the cause of a behaviour  
• Background: What were Darley and Letane's lab experiments of bystander behaviour?

  1. “Woman falls off chair in next room”
  2. “Epileptic seizure” 
  3. “Smoke room”
  4. Found diffusion of responsibility where people are less likely to help if with others
• What were the aims?

  • To test bystander behaviour / apathy in a real life setting (New York subway)  
  • To see the effect of the type of victim on helping behaviour  
  • To see the effect of the race of the victim 
  • To see the effect of group size (diffusion of responsibility on helping behaviour)  
• IVs - Type of victim:

  Type of victim – drunk or cane 

  • Cane had spontaneous help 95% of the time  
  • Drunk had spontaneous help 50% of the time 
  • 60% of trials help was given by 2 or more helpers 
  • 34 people left critical area when victim collapsed particularly when drunk 
  • Help offered more quickly in cane condition than drunk  
• IVs - Race of victim:

  Race of victim – black or white 

  • Black victim had less help and less quickly than the white victim especially when drunk 
  • Slight “same race” effect where whites were more likely to help whites than blacks in drunk condition  
  • (Gender – males more helpful than females as 90% of first helpers were male (however more male ppts and all victims were male) 
• IVs - Impact of modelling

  Impact of modelling (more likely to help if seen someone else displaying the behaviour) 

  • Model intervening early (70 sec) had slightly more effect than the late model (150 sec) 
  • Only small amount of data as most victims helped before model could step in 
• IVs - Group size

  • The more passengers in immediate vicinity of the victim the more likely help was given
  • Opposite of Letane and Darley as diffusion of responsibility was not found
  • Explanations:
  • Original effect produced in a lab – number of helpers in field could counterbalance diffusion effect 
  • Potential helpers could see victim which may reduce tendency to diffuse responsibility  
• DVs:

  Quantitative data: 

  • Number of people who helped 
  • Time taken to help 
  • Gender, race and location of helpers 
  • Whether people moved away  

  Qualitative data: 

  • Comments made by passengers during incident 
  • More comments obtained in drunk than cane 
  • Most comments made on trial where help given after 70 seconds Many women made comments – particularly about it being the men’s job to help 
• What was the method?

  • Field experiment using observational techniques 
  • Independent measures 
  • Snapshot 
• What was the sample?

  • Opportunity sample 
  • Estimated 4450 travellers on train 
  • 45% black 55% white 
  • Average number in the carriage was 43 
  • Average number in critical area was 8.5 
• Procedure - researchers:

  • 16 researchers in 4 teams – 2 male and 2 female (control of demand characteristics as may recognise researchers if all in one team) 
  • Always worked in the same teams  
  • Male is always a victim (gender bias) 
  • Female is always observer 
  • 3 white 1 black aged 36-35 
• Procedure - how were extraneous variables controlled?

  • 103 trials between 11am and 3pm 
  • 15th April to 26th June 1968  
  • A to D carriages 
  • Trains between 59th and 125th street  
  • 7mins 30 seconds journey 
• Procedure - what was the setup inside the carriage?

  • 2 males and 2 females boarded from different doors  
  • Each team varied the location of the experiment 
  • Female confederates sat outside critical area recording data as discretely as possible 
  • Male model and victim remained standing  
  • Victim always stood next to pole in critical area 
• Procedure - what did the models do?

  • White models aged 24 to 29 
  • All casually but not identically dressed  
  • Conditions: 
  • Stood in critical area: 
  • Early – helped after 70 seconds 
  • Late – helped after 150 seconds 
  • Stood in adjacent area: 
  • Early – helped after 70 seconds 
  • Late – helped after 150 seconds 
• What were the conclusions?

  • Someone who appears drunk will get less help than someone who appears ill 
  • With a male victim and a public helping situation, men are more likely to get help  
  • No diffusion of responsibility was found 
  • Same race helping occurs more when the victim is drunk 
  • Results explained with “Arousal cost-reward model” 
• How is it useful?

  • Contradicts previous lab research from Latane and Darley which provides useful, valid information 
  • Realistic setting and large sample suggest behaviour observed reflects what happens in real life 
  • Explains many emergency situations