Piliavin (Brain)
Piliavin et al. (1969) Good Samaritanism (textbook pg. 115-117)
“Understand the aims, procedures and findings (results and conclusions), strengths and weaknesses of: Piliavin et al (1969) Good Samaritanism: An Underground Phenomenon?”
Background to the study: Piliavin, Rodin and Piliavin wanted to conduct a field experiment (natural setting for the participants but the researchers still manipulate an IV to measure the impact on the DV). They wanted to find out what factors can impact bystander intervention, after the case of Kitty Genovese’s death in 1964.
Description: APRC
| A | • Piliavin aimed to investigate the effect of the type of victim on bystander intervention/apathy. • Piliavin also aimed to investigate the effect of the behaviour of other bystanders on bystander intervention/apathy. |
| P | • The sample consisted of 4450 men and women (55% white and 45% black) who were travelling on a New York subway between 11am and 3pm between April and June in 1968. There was an average of 43 people in each carriage. • There were four groups of confederates, each consisting of four students (two males and two females). One male acted as the “victim”, one as the “model” and the two females covertly (secretly) observed. • The victim entered the train carriage and stood next to the central aisle handrail – the area around him was called the “critical area.” The model sat either in the critical area or the “adjacent area” (other side of the carriage) and the observers always sat in the adjacent area to observe. • After the first station stop, the victim stumbled forward and collapsed on the floor. In some cases, the model offered assistance (either 70 or 150 seconds after the fall) and in other cases, he did not intervene. The observers recorded how many people helped, after how much time, which area they were sat in (critical or adjacent), their race and their gender. They also recorded comments made by passengers. • They repeated this over 103 trials. In some cases, the victim appeared drunk and was holding a bottle wrapped in a paper bag, smelling like alcohol. In other cases, the victim carried a cane. Sometimes the victim was played by a white confederate and sometimes by a black confederate. |
| R | • The cane victim received help before the model intervened in 95% of trials (62/65) compared to 50% of trials for the drunk victim (19/38). • There a slight tendency for same race helping, particularly in the drunk condition, people were more likely to help someone of their own race. • Time before helping was less when there were more people present (this contradicts other research about diffusion of responsibility). • 90% of the first helpers were male (60% of people in the carriage were male) and 64% of the first helpers were white (55% of people in the carriage were white). |
| C | • People are more likely to offer help to someone perceived as ill compared to someone perceived as drunk – suggesting cost of helping affects bystander intervention. |
| • Men are more likely to help compared to women – this could be as women perceive the cost of helping to be higher or that males feel more social pressure to help. • There is a slight tendency of same race helping, particularly when the victim is drunk. • Large groups are more likely to offer support compared to small groups (no diffusion of responsibility was seen). |
Evaluation: GRAVE
| G | • All participants were from the same culture (New York) therefore the results might not represent the full target population. People may be more or less likely to help in other cultures due to different social norms. • The victim was always male – therefore we cannot assume that the same results would occur if the victim was female – people may be more or less likely to help based on gender of the victim. |
| R | • The study had a standardised procedure (e.g. same place the victim fell, same amount of time the model waited before intervening, observers sat in the same area etc.) therefore it could be easily replicated to check consistency of results. 103 trials took place with 4450 participants, therefore they can be confident in the reliability of the results. |
| A | • The study highlights factors that affect bystander intervention, which could be useful when encouraging people to help in future emergencies. As a result of the study, Piliavin created a theory to explain bystander intervention: the arousal-cost reward model. |
| V | • The results have high ecological validity, as it was conducted in a natural setting (real New York subway train) and participants weren’t aware that the victim was a researcher or that they were part of a study, therefore the results reflect real life helping behaviours. • The observers’ notes may have been subjective – for example, is going over to the person and saying “are you okay” really helping? Their perceptions of helping behaviour may differ from one another’ and they may not have seen or been able to record all of the participants’ actions, making the observations lack validity. • The observers recorded both quantitative (no of helpers) and qualitative data (commends made), so they could cross-check their findings to ensure accuracy (triangulation). • As it was a field experiment, the researchers had limited control over the subway train and the participants, e.g. whether the passengers were travelling in groups or alone may have affected whether they were likely to help or not. |
| E | • The participants were not aware they were in a study (covert observation) so didn’t give informed consent and didn’t have a right to withdraw. It is also possible that seeing the man collapse caused distress and they may have experienced pressure to offer help or guilt if they didn’t help. (However, they weren’t told about the study to protect validity and avoid demand characteristics) |
Piliavin et al (1969) Key Term Glossary
| Field experiment | An experiment where the researcher manipulates the IV to measure the impact on the DV, in a setting that is natural to the participants. |
| Covert observation | An observation in which the observer secretly observed and the participants don’t know they are being watched. |
| Independent variable | The variable that the researcher manipulates/changes. |
| Dependent variable | The variable that the researcher measures. |
| Ecological validity | Whether the behaviours observed in research reflect everyday behaviours. |
| Subjectivity | When a measurement is biased due to opinion or judgement, it is not a scientific measurement. |
| Triangulation | Cross-checking the validity of findings by using more than one type of data. |
| Need more help? Want to stretch your understanding? Need a video example? |
| https://holah.co.uk/summary/piliavin/ |
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1NLRoaJlDY (APRC summary) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16qnA7-vYik (APRC summary) |
Still got a question? Leave a comment
Leave a comment