Piliavin - These templates can be filled in as part of your revision because they include PDF

Preview

Summary

These templates can be filled in as part of your revision because they include everything you need to know about each study under each area of component 2 of Psychology. Blank and filled in copies will be uploaded....

Description

Social Area: Piliavin et al. (1969) - Subway Samaritan Background information Some of the factors that have been said to influence whether someone will help in an emergency situation include; the nature of the situation, the nature of the helper, the cost of helping and the nature of the victim. Piliavin based his study on the story of Kitty Genoverse, who was stabbed 3 times outside a block of flats. Although 38 people witnessed the attack, no-one called the police or offered any type of help to her. After 30 minutes, when she had fallen through someone’s front door, the police were called, but by the time the ambulance arrived, it was too late and she had died. Piliavin wanted to test the effect of different factors on whether the victim would receive help, how long it would take and side comments about helping, such as gender. To test this, Piliavin kept the same situation, gender and location but changed the victim’s situation and race. He wanted to see if they would be helped and how long it took for them to get help. They also used a model, who would help if no-one else did after a certain amount of time. Aim of study Piliavin’s aim was to investigate the effect of the following variables on helping behaviour: type of victim (drunk or white cane); race of victim (black or white); whether people were more likely to help in an emergency situation if they have seen someone else displaying helping behaviour (modelling); the relationship of group size (diffusion of responsibility). Participants Around 4,450 men and women who travelled on the 8th Avenue IND in NYC, between 59th and 125th street weekdays, between the hours of 11am and 3pm during the period from April 15 to June 26, 1968, which travelled through Harlem and the Bronx. The racial makeup of participants on the subway was 45% black and 55% white. The mean number of people per car during these hours was 43 and the mean number of people in the ‘critical area’ was 8.5. The critical area was the place where the experiment took place and the adjacent area was the other side of the car. Method and (assumed) design Piliavin’s experiment was a field experiment because it took place in participant’s natural environment. The independent variables were manipulated and the dependent variables were measures. It used independent measures because people were only tested once (it is likely that people witnessed it more than once because of the time of day and the amount of times they did the experiment). It was a covert observation because the experimenter had no input and wasn’t a part of the experiment. IV and how it was manipulated

DV (what was measured and HOW)

1. The type of victim (drunk or ill)

Time taken to help the drunk/ill victim

2.

The total number of passengers that helped

The race of victim (black or white)

The gender/race/location of every helper

3.

Spontaneous comments made by every passenger

Effect of group size (varied naturally)

The gender/race/location of p’s in the critical area

4.

Movement of p’s out of the critical area

Model conditions (early/late, critical/adjacent)

Procedure On each trial a team of four students (2 males and 2 females) would enter the train. The females were the observers and the males played the role of the model and victim. There were four teams altogether. One observer was in the critical area and the other observer was in the adjacent area. The victim stood next to the pole in the centre of the critical area. There were four victims, all were male, three were white and one was black. The four models were all male and dressed informally but not identically. The victim acted either ill with a black cane or drunk with a bottle of whisky in a brown paper bag. The victim would stagger forward and collapse at 70 seconds after the train departing from the first station. They would remain still on the floor looking at the ceiling until they received help. If the victim received no help by the next stop then the model would help him up. They would then get off and get on another car going in the opposite direction to redo the trial. They would do 6-8 trials per day. They did 38 drunk trials and 65 ill trials. In all other aspects, the victims behaved (and dressed) identically in both conditions. There were 4 different model conditions: critical/early; critical/late; adjacent/early; adjacent/late. Early was helping them 70 seconds after they collapsed and late was helping them 150 seconds after they collapsed. When the model helped, he raised the victim to a sitting position and stayed with him for the remainder of the trial. In each trial, one observer noted the race/sex/location of every rider in the critical area and the number of participants who helped the victim, as well as their race/sex/location. The second observer would do the same for the people in the adjacent area and how long help took to arrive. Both recorded comments made by passengers about the situation. Each experiment lasted about 7.5 minutes and the same journey was used on all 103 trials. Controls Same train route for each trial; same time frame; same performance; same gender models; same gender victim; same gender observers; same data collected; same position of model/observer/victim; same appearance of victim. Results Quantitative results Cane Victim (IV 1) Drunk Victim (IV 1)  62/65 trials received help before model  19/38 trials received help before model  5 seconds - median time to help  109 seconds - median time to help  95% of trials received help before model  50% of trials received help before model Gender 90% of first helpers were male. Comments mostly came from women: “I’m not strong enough”. Race (IV 2) Black victims received help less quickly than white victims in the drunk condition and in the drunk condition there was a slight ‘same race’ effect. Diffusion of Responsibility (IV 4) Not supported because the more people in the critical area, the more likely help was received and the more quickly help was received. Comments Made More comments made about the drunk victim than the ill condition. Most comments were made in trials where no help was given within the first 70 seconds. Many women said that “It’s for men to help” or “You feel so bad when you don’t know what to do”. Conclusions The drunk is helped less often because the cost of helping is seen as greater because it is likely to cause disgust, embarrassment or harm. The cost of not helping is less because nobody will blame someone for not helping a drunk because it is perceived that the victim is responsible for his own situation. Women help less often than men because the cost to them in terms of effort and danger is greater and it is not seen as a woman’s responsibility to offer assistance and the cost of not helping is less.

Evaluation (add context to your point) Strength

Research Method

    

Covert observation Convenient location Natural behaviours witnessed Field experiment Independent measures design

 

Both types of data collected Standardised

Data Type

Weakness        

   Validity  

Controlled to prevent extraneous variables High ecological validity Population validity with cultural mix No demand characteristics Some face validity

     

     

Reliability

Clear control variables Consistent experience Standardised A lot of trials Replicable Natural reactions

   

How it is

Ethical Issues?

Unethical Independent measures Passengers could have witnessed it more than once Not as much control Quantitative data won’t reveal why Could give false impressions why Qualitative data hard to summarise statistically Observer bias Could have seen more than one trial Some extraneous variables Ecological validity with time of drunk victim Population validity Some demand characteristics if witnessed trial already Low face validity Not an equal amount of trials Not enough black victim trials Not enough trials where model was able to help Could have witnessed more than once How it isn’t

  

Withdraw Protection of participants Confidentiality

    

Deception Informed consent Right to withdraw Protection of participants No debrief

 

Used males and females Large samples

   

All victims were male All models were male All observers were females More ill than drunk conditions

 

Only conducted on one route Only conducted in Harlem/ Bronx Only shows NY civilians

  

Heterogeneous city 45/55 racial split Show people from other cultures

Sampling Bias

Ethnocentrism 

How does Piliavin link to the key theme of responses to people in need

Peoples responses to others in need are said to be affected by the nature of the situation, the nature of the helper, the cost to the helper and the nature of the victim. It can also be affected by diffusion of responsibility where people assume others will help so it isn’t their job. Piliavin was investigating different variables effects on helping behaviour. They wanted to see if the race or type of victim would affect the amount of help they received and the type of help they would receive. Results showed that the type of victim plays a big part in whether a person receives help or not. Race also slightly plays a part as well. How does Piliavin link to the social area Social psychology is an approach that assumes that the main influences on our behaviours, thought processes and emotions are the surrounding environment and other people. The approach believes that our social context rather than individual characteristics changes and influence people’s behaviour. Piliavin was investigating different variables effects on helping behaviour. They wanted to see if the race or type of victim would affect the amount of help they received and the type of help they would receive. Results showed that the drunk is less helped because the perceived cost of helping is greater and they are seen as being responsible for the situation they are in whereas someone with a cane is going to get quicker help because the cost is less to the helper....