Piliavin

Piliavin

1. Aim

   • It was a study to investigate the various factors that affect bystander behaviour. It had 4 areas of focus. 1) Responsibility of victim 2) Race of victim 3) Effect of modelling 4) Effect of size of the group. They predicted that the person that was drunk would not get as much help as the ill person as this was down to the possible cost of helping someone with unpredictable behaviour. Race of victim was predicted to affect rate of helping. Prediction was more help would be givin to same race victim. It was intended that seeing some1 else help would make some1 act in the same way.

2. Independent Variables

   • Dependant Variables
     • DV was helping and the measures that were taken were 1) TIme taken for 1st pssnger to offer help 2) Total no. of helpers 3) Gender race + location of every helper 4) time taken for some1 to offer help after model. Other measures inc. 1) movement of ppt out of critical area 2) gender race location of every1 in crit area. 3) spontaneous comments made by ppts.
   • FIELD EXPERIMENT. Iv's were 1) Type of victim (drunk or ill) 2) Race of victim 3) Presence of model (early or late) 4) The number of bystanders present

3. Location & Ppts

   • Carried out on trains in NYC this was selected as one train made no stops between 59th street and 125th street so there was a gap of 7.5 mins with a captive aud. 103 trials were made. PPTS. 4450 men&women who used these trains daily between hours of 11-3pm in April 1968. 45% BLACK 55% WHITE.

4. Confedarates

   • Each trial = Columbian students 2 males 2 females who acted out emergency. 4 teams whose members worked together. Females observed and males played role of victim&model. 4 Victims were 1 in each team were ages 26-35 3 were white one black identically dressed in jackets old trousers no tie. 4 Models aged 24-29 wore informal clothes.

5. The emergency procedure

   • 2 males and 2 females boarded train. Female observers took seats in adjacent area. Victim stood by pole in critical area. 70 secs into journey. Victim staggered forward & collapsed lay on the floor waiting for help. If vitim received no help by the time the train slowed down for the stop the model helped him to his feet. When victim provided help he raised vitim to sittin position and stayed with him the rest of the journey

6. Victim & Model Conditions

   • DRUNK MODEL COND. 38 trials victim smelt of alcohol and carried brown bag. CANE VICTIM COND. 65 trials victim sober and had a black cane. EARLY MODEL/CRITICAL AREA. model stood in critical area & waited until passing 4th station to offer help (70secs after collapse) LATE MODEL/CRITICAL AREA. model stood in critical area and waited till 6th station to offer help 150 secs after collapse. EARLY MODEL/ADJACENT AREA. model in adjacent area moved to critical area ad waited till 4th station. LATE MODEL/ADJACENT AREA model moved from adjacent area to critical and helped at 6th station.

7. Observ. Recorded

   • Observers noted gender race and location of every ppt. in critical. Total no. in carriage. Total who came to help victim and race sex and location of helpers. Second observer coded race sex and location of every1 in adjacent. And time taken for first to help after model. They both recorded comments made

8. Results

   • ~victim who appeared ill got more help than drunk1. Cane victim received more spontaneous help 95% of the time compared to 50% of drunk. Pattern of this was same for black and white. ~ of the first helpers 90% were male. ~ tendancy for same race helping increasing when victim was drunk compared to ill. ~ NO strong relationship between no. of bystanders and speed of helping. ~ longer the emergency cont. w/out help being offered the less impact a model has on the helping behaviour of obser. The more likely it was that ppt. left the critical to avoid situation. The more likely it was that observers discussed incident and its implications for its behvour.
     • Spontaneous Comments~ More comments for drunk one. Comments were led by the discomfort they felt sitting inactive

9. Conc.

   • P said a model of response to emergency situations : the arousal cost reward model, a heuristic device helping to predict helping behaviour. Observation of an emergency creates emotional arousal in bystander. The arousal state is higher when more can empathise w/ victim. Closer they are to emergency. Longer emergency continues without help being offered. Arousal can be reduced by helping directly, going to get help, leaving scene, rejecting victim as undeserving of help.
     • They go on to suggest helping behaviour is determined by weighing up costs and rewards of helping and not helping. so drunk is helped less as costs are higher and rewards are lower. Lack of diffusion of responsibility was explained by fact that ppt. could not escape situation.