Piliavin

• Background

  The Bystander effect is described as where the presence of other people can inhibit (stop) people from coming to someone's aid who is clearly in need of some help.
• Background

  Pluralistic Ignorance is the tendency for people in a group to mislead each other unintentionally about an emergency situation.
• Background

  Diffusion of Responsibility is where the responsibility for the situation is spread among the people present. This implies that the more people present, the more the bystander believes responsibility is spread out so feels less personal responsibility and are therefore less likely to help.
• Aim

  To investigate, under real life conditions, the effect of several factors on helping behaviour.
• Research Method

  The method used was a type of field experiment.
• Research Method

  The independent variables were:

  1. The type of victim (drunk or carrying a cane)
  2. The race of the victim (black or white)
  3. The effect of the model (after 70 or 150 seconds, from the critical or adjacent area) or no model at all
  4. Size of the witnessing group (a naturally occurring IV)- linked to diffusion of responsibility
• Research Method

  The dependent variables were:

  1. Frequency of help
  2. Speed of help
  3. Race of helper (same or different)
  4. Sex of helper
  5. Movement out of the critical area
  6. Verbal comments by bystanders
• Sample

  • Approximately 4450 men and women
  • Travelling on the 8th Avenue New York subway between 11 am and 3 pm on weekdays during the period of April 15th to June 26th, 1968. Therefore this is opportunity sampling.
  • The average racial composition was 45% black and 55% white
• Sample

  • Two particular trains were chosen for the study. These trains did not make any stops between 59th street and 125th street.
  • For 7.5 minutes the participants were a captive audience to the emergency.
• Procedure- The Teams

  • The researchers recruited 16 Columbia University General Studies students (aged 26-35 years) to carry out the experimental trials. These were the confederates and were split up into 4 teams of 4.
  • In each team there would be one male 'victim', one male 'helper' and two female observers.
• Procedure- The Trials

  A single trial was a non-stop 7.5 minutes in either direction
• Procedure- The Trials

  1. A team of four students boarded the train using different doors. (The four teams collected data for 103 trials overall)
  2. The location of the experimental compartment varied from trial to trial. The female observers sat outside the critical area and recorded data as unobtrusively as possible. The male model and victim remained standing.
  3. The victim always stood next to a pole in the centre of the critical area. As the train passed the first station (approximately 70 seconds into the journey) the victim staggered forwards and collapsed.
• Procedure- The Trials

  4. Until receiving help, the victim remained motionless on the floor, looking at the ceiling.

  5. If the victim received no help by the end of the 7.5 minutes, the model helped him to his feet.

  6. At the stop , the team got off and waited separately until other passengers had left the station. They then proceeded to another platform to board a train traveling in the opposite direction for the next trial.
• Procedure- The Trials

  • 6 to 8 trials were run on any given day.
  • All trials on the same day were in the same victim condition.
• The Victims

  • The four victims were aged between 26 and 35.
  • 3 white and 1 black
  • All dressed alike.
  • Victims behaved identically in the 2 conditions (standardised routine)
  • Each victim participated in drunk and cane trials
  • There were more cane trails than drunk trials as team 2 didn't like playing the drunk victim.
• The Victims

  The drunk victims:

  • Smelled of alcohol
  • Carried a bottle of alcohol wrapped in a brown bag
  • Took part in 38 trials
• The Victims

  The Cane victims:

  • Appeared sober
  • Carried a black cane
  • Took part in 65 trials
• The Models

  • White males aged 24 to 29
  • Casually, but not identically dressed
  • There were four different model conditions used across both drunk and cane victim conditions
  • When the model intervened, he helped the victim to a sitting position and stayed with him for the remainder of the trial.
• The Model Conditions:

  1. Critical Area- early: Standing in the critical area and waiting until passing the fourth station before helping the victim (70 seconds)
  2. Critical Area- late: Standing in the critical area and waiting until passing the sixth station before helping the victim (150 seconds)
  3. Adjacent area- early: Standing in the adjacent area and waiting until passing the fourth station before helping the victim (70 seconds)
  4. Adjacent area- late: Standing in the adjacent area and waiting until passing the sixth station before helping the victim (150 seconds)
• Female Observers and Data Collection

  • One observer noted the race, sex and location of every person seated or standing in the critical area.
  • She also counted the total number of individuals in the car, and the total who came to the victims assistance.
  • She also noted the race, sex and location of every helper.
• Female Observers and Data Collection

  • The second observer recorded the race, sex and location of every passenger in the adjacent area.
  • She also recorded the latency period (the time it took the first helper to respond to the victim).
  • She also recorded how long it took someone else to help after the model had started to help the victim.
• Female Observers and Data Collection

  • Both observers made a note of any passenger comments during the journey.
  • They also tried to elicit a response from the person sitting next to them.
• The Arousal: Cost Reward Model

  • In an emergency situation an emotional arousal (stimulation/ anxiety) is created by bystanders.
  • This arousal may be perceived as fear/ disgust/ sympathy etc depending on the aspects of the situation.
  • According to Piliavin et al., we are motivated to help people not by altruism but as a way of reducing unpleasant feelings of arousal.
• The Arousal: Cost Reward Model

  The state of arousal is heightened by:

  • Empathy with the victim
  • Being close to the emergency
  • The length of time the emergency continues for
  • Being unable to escape the scene
• The Arousal: Cost Reward Model

  The state of arousal can be reduced by:

  • Helping the victim
  • Going to get help
  • Leaving the scene
  • Believing the victim does not deserve help
• The Arousal: Cost Reward Model

  The chosen response depends on a cost-reward analysis by the individual. These include:

  • Cost of helping- effort, embarrassment, physical harm
  • Cost of not helping- self-blame, perceived censure from others
  • Rewards of helping- praise from self, onlookers and the victim
  • Rewards of not helping- getting on with one's own business, not incurring the possible costs of helping
• Results- IV1- The Effects of the Victim

  • The cane victim received spontaneous help 95% of the time (62/65)
  • The drunk victim received spontaneous help 50% of the time (19/38)
  • Help came quicker to the cane victim than the drunk victim with the median latency period being 5 seconds compared to 109 seconds for drunk trials.
• Results- IV2- The Effects of the Model

  • Helping behaviour was very high and much higher than earlier laboratory studies.
  • This meant it was not possible to investigate the effects of the model's helping because on the majority of trials the victims were helped before the model acted.
• Results- IV3- Who helped? (Race and Gender)

  • 90% of first helpers were male (60% passengers were male)
  • There was a slight tendency for same race helping especially in the drunk condition.
• Results- IV4- Size of Witnessing Group- Diffusion of Responsibility

  • On 60% of trials when help was given (49/81), help was provided by 2 or more helpers.
  • On 21/103 trials a total of 34 people left the critical area, particularly when the victim appeared to be drunk.
  • Response times were faster with larger groups than smaller groups of passengers so diffusion of responsibility was NOT observed.
• Qualitative Data

  • More comments were obtained on drunk trials and most of these were obtained when no one helped until after 70 seconds.
  • This could be due to the discomfort passengers felt in sitting inactive in the presence of the victim, perhaps hoping that others would confirm that inaction was appropriate.
• Qualitative Data from women passengers

  • "It's for men to help him"
  • "I wish I could help him- I'm not strong enough"
• The cane victim received spontaneous help 95% of the time , the drunk victim received spontaneous help 50% of the time.


  An individual who appears ill is more likely to receive help than one who appears drunk.
• 90% of the first helpers were males


  With mixed groups of men and women, men are more likely than women to help a male victim.
• Explanations using the Arousal: Cost- Reward model

  The drunk is helped less often because:

  • The perceived cost is greater- more likely to cause disgust, embarrassment or harm.
  • The cost of not helping is less- nobody will not blame another for not helping a drunk because he is perceived as being partly responsible for his own victimisation.
• Explanations using the Arousal: Cost- Reward model

  Women help less than men because:

  • The cost to them in terms of effort and danger is much greater.
  • It may not be seen as a woman's role to offer assistance under these circumstances, so the cost of not helping is less.
• Explanations using the Arousal: Cost- Reward model

  Diffusion of responsibility is not found in the cane- carrying situation because:

  • The cost of not helping is high
  • The cost of helping is low
• Explanations using the Arousal: Cost- Reward model

  As time without help increases, so does the arousal level of bystanders. A late model is not copied because people have already chosen an alternative way of reducing arousal, for example leaving the area or engaging in conversation with others in order to justify their lack of help.
• The key theme is responses to people in need.