Piliavin Social Psychology Core Studies Background Bystander Anyone

Piliavin Social Psychology Core Studies

Background Bystander - Anyone who is present at an incident but not directly involved. Bystander effect – the behaviour of bystanders who do not assist those who need help in an emergency Kitty Genovese murder - Famous murder in New York 1964 where a woman was stalked by a man and stabbed 3 separate times in the same night, 38 people saw but no one helped. Psychologists wanted to find out why Diffusion of responsibility - When groups of people witness an emergency together and each individual assumes only a fraction of responsibility for helping. The larger the group, the less responsibility placed on each individual and the less likely anyone is to help

Background Altruism – Performing a selfless act Intrinsic rewards - Rewarding yourself, feeling good etc… Extrinsic – Recognition, praise from others etc. . Pluralistic ignorance – The tendency for people in a group to mislead each other about an emergency situation. For example, a person might perceive an emergency as a non-emergency because others are remaining calm and not taking action. Exchange theory – looking at the costs and benefits of helping Decisions we make when assessing whether to help Nature of victim, race, age, condition, situation

Aim The aim of the study was to investigate factors affecting helping behaviour. The factors they were interested included: The type of victim (drunk or ill) The race of the victim (black or white) The speed of helping The frequency of helping The race of the helper + size of the group and the impact of the model

Sample 4550 passengers (unsolicited participants) 43 in each carriage (approx. ) Racial mix was 45% black and 55% white All travelling on a particular stretch of the New York underground system between 11 a. m. and 3 p. m. on weekdays during the period of April 15 th to June 26 th, 1968.

Method Field experiment Participant observation Snapshot study IV Victim’s responsibility : operationalized by carrying a cane (ill – low responsibility) or by carrying a bottle wrapped in a brown paper bag and smelling of alcohol (drunk – high responsibility) Victims race: (black or white) Presence of a model: (early 70 sec, late 150, close or distant) Number of bystanders: however many people were present DV Time taken for first passenger to help Total number of passengers who helped Gender, race, location of every helper Time taken for the first passenger to help after the model assisted

Controls How many seconds into the journey the victim collapsed Location of observers Way they were dressed The time gap between two stations

Procedure Confederates (people employed by piliavin) On each trail a team of four experimenters acted out an emergency. There were 4 teams whose members always worked together. The two female confederates observed and recorded data while the two male confederates played the roles of victims and helpers. The 4 victims, 1 in each team, were all aged in their late 20 s. Three were white and one was black. All were dressed the same in black jackets, and casual. They either acted drunk or ill (by carrying a cane)

Procedure The 4 models, 1 in each team, were aged 24 -29. They were always white. The model was used to see if others would copy the behaviour and to help the victim. There were 5 model conditions : Critical area – helped after 70 seconds Critical area – helped after 150 seconds Adjacent area – helped after 70 seconds Adjacent – helped after 150 seconds. No model – (sometimes were told not to help)

Procedure There were 2 observers in each team who were always white females. They entered the train with the other two members and sat in the adjacent area. Observer 1 recorded: Race, sex, location – of passengers in the critical area. Observer 2 recorded: Race, sex, location – of passengers in the adjacent area. (was also in-charge of the stopwatch and noted how long it took for someone to help) Both observers noted qualitative data also, which was any comments they heard, actions people did

Procedure The teams entered through different doors. The victim performed his collapse 70 seconds into the journey. The model then would carry out one of the five model conditions. The observers were sat in the adjacent area and carried out their observations in secret. They were participant observers as they were pretending to be normal passengers on a train.

Results The cane victim received spontaneous help 95% of the time whereas the drunk victim was spontaneously helped 50% of the time More comments from subway passengers were obtained in the drunk condition than in the cane condition 90% of first helpers were males The more passengers who were in the immediate vicinity of the victim the more likely help was to be Given Black victims received help less quickly than white victims, especially in the drunk condition

Conclusions An ill person is more likely to receive help than a drunk person Men are more likely to help another man than women are People are more likely to help their own ethnic group, especially when they appear drunk The longer an incident goes on, the less likely people are to help, the more likely people are to leave the area, and the more likely they are to discuss the incident There is no strong relationship between size of group and likelihood of helping. The small correlation between group size and helping behaviour is positive rather than negative therefore is no support for diffusion of responsibility

Ethics No consent Deception No debriefing – participants had no idea it wasn’t real No right to withdraw (deliberate) However there was confidentiality

Strengths of the study Both types of data were recorded allowing statistical analysis and in depth data High ecological making it more representative of real behaviour Very well controlled therefore we could assume that the IV did affect the DV and was more reliable

Weaknesses No inter rater reliability Ethical issues are a big problem The participants had no was to get out of the carriage so perhaps the helping behaviour was forced

Evaluation of Sample Huge sample so it is very generalizable of many people as there were all types of people present However the study disregarded 9 -5 workers therefore isn’t representing the entire population

Evaluation of Method High ecological validity, low demand characteristics and so behaviour is likely to be representative Lots of problems with ethics, lower control of extraneous variables as it wasn’t a controlled situation like a lab experiment

Changes to the study To improve the study I would make sure that it had inter-rater reliability. In the original study, although there were two observers, inter rater reliability was not present as they observed different areas. Have a woman collapsing Another change I would make to the study is to debrief the participants. The original experiment is very ethically frowned upon as it breaks numerous ethical guidelines. To debrief the participants, the train driver could make an announcement whilst retaining the participants for a few minutes to explain the situation.

Effects of changes By having inter rater reliability this means that the study will be more reliable and so the results/conclusions drawn from the study may increase in reliability, perhaps allowing more accurate observations to be recorded. By having a woman collapse we would be able to generalise the results of helping behaviour slightly wider as only men collapsed in the original study. By having the participants debriefed this means that the study will be seen as much more ethically sound. Participants will not leave stressed/harmed which they could have done in the original study.