Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
10 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
What was the aim of Piliavin's study?
|
To investigate the situational explanation of bystander behaviour. How features of an emergency situation can influence bystander behaviour. |
|
|
What was the sample for Piliavin's study?
How was it obtained? |
4450 men and women, 55% white 45% black Using trains in New York between 11-3 pm in 2 months in 1968
Random sample- anyone on these trains
|
|
|
Describe the method for Piliavin's study? |
-field experiment -103 trials -7.5 minute journey -4 teams of 4: 2 observers, victim, model |
|
|
What was the IVs and DVs? |
IVs: type of victim (drunk/ill), race of victim (black/white), effect of modelling (early/late), effect of group size (occurred naturally)
DVs: time taken for first passenger to help, total number of passengers who helped, gender race and location of helpers, time taken for first passenger to help after model assisted |
|
|
What was the procedure? |
-team entered by different doors -observers sat in adjacent area -victim stood at pole and fell after 70 seconds and collapsed -if victim recieved no help until train stopped, model helped -team left train and boarded one in opposite direction |
|
|
What were the results of the study? |
-All had help with no model but black drunk (75%) -Model trials:white cane victims 100% helped, white drunk 77%m drunk black 67% 90% first helpers male -same race helping tendancy -those helping were quick to
|
|
|
What were the conclusions? |
Situational Hypothesis: observation of emergency creates emotional arousal in bystander. Arousal state higher if bystander can empathise with victim. |
|
|
What were the strengths? |
Generalisable: large sample, men and women, different races and backgrounds. High ecological validity: unaware of study, no demand characteristics. Standardised procedure Qualitative and quantitative data |
|
|
What were the weaknesses? |
Ethics: informed consent, no right to withdraw, no debrief, deception, protection of participants Impossible to control who got on train: low external reliability: different results if study repeated Generalisability: only Americans, only involves those getting trains between 11-3pm |
|
|
Improvements to the study? |
Sample: only allow certain numbers and certain types of people on train. Method: do in street-forced behaviour on train Ethics: leaflets to inform passengers-protect them Women Victims: many women didn't feel strong enough |
