Piliavin - Subway Samaritan

Front 1

Suggest weaknesses with the way in which the observational data was collected

Back 1

• Two observers recording different things so no check regarding reliability

• Bystander may have obscured view of one or both observers

• Bystanders may have been influenced by presence of observers

• Events may have happened too quickly for the observers to record all

Front 2

Suggest ways in which the collection of data could have been improved

Back 2

- use of more observers so can do inter-rater reliability check

- record actions on camera so no need for people to observe and can replay later

Front 3

Describe the setting

Back 3

4450 men and women. New york subway train travelled between 59th and 125th street stations. Time 11 am and 3 pm on weekdays during the period of April 15th to June 26th 1968. 6-8 trials on any give day. 45%black 55%white. Mean per compartment=43, Mean in critical area=8.5. Incident occurred 70s in journey. Data collected for 103 trials. Victim stood next to pole, staggered forward and collapsed until receiving help he remained on his back looking at the ceiling. 4 Teams, each team had a victim, a model and two observers.

Front 4

Give advantages and disadvantages of this setting

Back 4

Advantages: captive audience for 71⁄2 minutes same subway line between same stations so features relatively constant/controlled audience and victim must be face-to-face

Disadvantages: captures only those between 11am and 3pm who travel this line same people may travel on same train each day it is New York and so cannot be generalised to other subways

Front 5

Give reasons why diffusion of responsibility has been found in laboratory experiments but was not found in the field experiment.

Back 5

- participants knew they were taking part in a lab study;

- participants were not in same room as victim;

- In these studies, the emergency was only heard, not seen. Since visual cues are likely to make an emergency much more arousing for the observer

Front 6

Outline ways in which ethical guidelines were broken.

Back 6

-Informed consent: participants did not give informed consent.

- Deception: participants were deceived because the victim was a stooge and was not ill or drunk

- Psychological harm: participants may have been afraid of a drunk male; stressed by witnessing a person fall over in front of them.

- did not have the right to withdraw;

- Debriefing: participants were not debriefed.

Front 7

Outline ways in which ethical guidelines were not broken

Back 7

- Physical harm: no participant was physically harmed.

- Confidentiality: no participant was identified.

Front 8

Describe categories of behaviour that were observed and say what was found

Back 8

- Frequency of helping: spontaneous helping given 62/65 for ill and 19/38 for drunk.

- Speed of helping: median helping time 5 secs for ill, 109 secs for drunk.

- Race of helper: 45% black and 55% white for ill. Same race helping for drunk.

- Sex of helper; men much more likely to help than women.

Front 9

Suggest ways in which the reliability of any observation can be checked.

Back 9

The reliability of an observation can be checked by having two or more observers observe the same event. Data can then be compared and correlated to determine level of agreement through inter-rater reliability.

Front 10

Describe benefits of helping for the participants in the study.

Back 10

- victim receives assistance

- helper may be rewarded

- helper may feel good about him- or herself

- helper may reduce feelings aroused by emergency

Front 11

Suggest why this study is not reductionist.(

Back 11

- Piliavin offers a complex explanation of helping behaviour as he believes lots of factors influence both the costs and benefits of helping.

- When we consider whether we help someone or not we have to take on board the situation we are in as well as how we feel.

Front 12

Suggest possible costs of helping any victim.

Back 12

victim may be dangerous in some way

helper may lose time, get dirty

helper may feel bad about him- or herself

Front 13

Outline the aim of the study

Back 13

The main focus of Piliavin et al.'s study was on the type of victim (drunk or ill) and the race of the victim (black or white) Other independent variables included movement out of the ‘critical area’ (of the train compartment), and spontaneous comments.The study was also concerned with the impact of modellingA final aim was to examine the relationship between the size of the group (the number of potential helpers) , frequency (how often) and latency (time between the emergency occurring and someone intervening), with a victim who was both seen and heard

Front 14

Briefly describe the quantitative results of the experiment.

Back 14

- Frequency of helping: help given spontaneously 62 times out of 65 for ill and 19 times out of 38 for drunk.

- Speed of helping: median helping time 5 secs for ill, 109 secs for drunk.

-Race of helper: 45% black and 55% white for ill. Same race helping for drunk.

-Sex of helper: men (90%) much more likely to help than women.

Front 15

Give examples of high ecological validity in this study.

Back 15

-The study was conducted on a real subway train.

- The victim carried a cane/smelled of alcohol.

- Participants were not aware they were being observed/a study was being conducted.

Front 16

Give advantages of snapshot studies using this study as an example.

Back 16

Advantage: a quick way to collect data, especially if long-term development is not relevant. Example: data could be recorded every 7.5 minutes.

Advantage: usually collect quantitative and objective data.Example: observers recorded frequency of helping, speed of helping, etc.

Advantage: can be good to get preliminary evidence before getting locked into expensive and time-consuming longitudinal work.Example: supported the arousal/cost-benefit explanation of emergencies.

Front 17

How is this study different from other studies?

Back 17

Before 1969, most studies of bystander intervention (a form of helping, and hence pro-social behaviour) were laboratory experiments. Piliavin et al.'s field experiment took place in the natural setting of a New York subway train ('a laboratory on wheels'), with participant observation being a major method for collecting data.

Front 18

Outline controls that were applied in this study.

Back 18

- same subway train, same line with no stops for 71⁄2 minutes;

- same victim appearance: Eisenhower jackets, old slacks and no tie; black cane or liquor bottle in paper bag and smelled of alcohol;

- same procedure: after 70 seconds victim staggers forward and falls on floor;

- same recording of data: observers in same place on train recording frequency of helping, etc. Awareness of being constant needed. “The subway” or “The victim” is not sufficient.

- 6–8 trials run on any given day

Front 19

Identify independent variables that were manipulated by the experimenters

Back 19

Type of victim (drunk / ill)

Race of victim (black / white)

Model (late / early or critical / adjacent)

Model intervention

Front 20

Identify dependent variables recorded by the observers.

Back 20

The speed of helping

The frequency of helping

The race of the helper

Front 21

Describe participants

Back 21

About 4,450 men and women who travelled on this stretch of the subway, between 11 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. on weekdays, during the period 15 April to 26 June 1968 were the unsolicited participants. the racial composition of a typical train traveling through Harlem to the Bronx was about 45 per cent black and 55 per cent white

Front 22

Outline the characteristics of spontaneous first helpers

Back 22

60% of the people in the critical areas were male, and men made up 90 per cent of the spontaneous first helpers. of the first 81 helpers, 64%were white (but this was not significantly different from the expected 55% based on racial distribution in the compartments). However, on the 65 trials where spontaneous help was offered to white victims, 68% of the helpers were white.; this is significantly different from the expected 55%. on the 16 trials where the black victim was spontaneously helped, 50% of the first helpers were white. This represents a slight (non-significant) trend towards ‘same-race’ helping.

Front 23

Describe behaviours of the ‘drunk’ victim

Back 23

Smelled of liquor) / carried a brown paper bag.Stood next to pole in critical area.When passing first station, staggered forward and collapsed

Front 24

Describe ways in which the results of the ‘drunk’ condition differed from those of the ‘ill’ condition.

Back 24

Drunk helped spontaneously on 19/38 trials, ill helped on 62/65 trials. Therefore less helping of drunk. Also drunk was more likely to be helped by member of same race (‘black’ or ‘white’)

Front 25

Explain why a field study was used.

Back 25

Previous studies done in laboratory

Field study is high in ecological validity

Front 26

Give one disadvantage of this field study

Back 26

Restricted environment: same train at same time, etc

Observers may not see/record all behaviours

Lack of controls

Front 27

Outline the background of the study

Back 27

Following the 1964 murder of Kitty Genovese and the apparent apathy of 38 witnesses, where no-one telephoned the police or went to help, many psychologists began to conduct laboratory studies into what became known as bystander behaviour - in particular, Darley and latane. They conducted studies such as 'a lady in distress' and 'the smoke-filled room experiment'. All these studies showed that as group size increased the amount of helping behaviour decreased and this was termed diffusion of responsibility.

Front 28

Suggest ways in which arousal can be reduced.

Back 28

“Observation of any emergency creates an emotional arousal state in the bystander and will be interpreted differently in different situations as fear, disgust, sympathy, etc. and possibly a combination of these. This arousal needs to be reduced and the response to reduce it is a function of the cost-reward matrix”.

Front 29

Outline the model of response to emergency situations proposed by Piliavin

Back 29

A situation creates arousal (as above) but helping is determined by cost-benefit matrix:

- Costs of helping: helping may be physically arousing; may get hurt; be late for work, etc.

- Benefits of helping: reward e.g. thank you from victim or crowd; feelings that one is a good person, etc.

-Costs of not helping: no reward; that one is not a good person; may cause guilt.

Front 30

Aim of study

Back 30

The aim of the study was to investigate factors affecting helping behavior .The factors they were interested in 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

Also to investigate the impact of the presence of a model

The relationship between the size of the group and the frequency of helping

Front 31

Describe victims

Back 31

N=4, 3 white and one black. Aged between 26-35. All dressed casual but not identical

Drunk: 38 trials, smelled of alcohol and carried a bottle wrapped in a brown paper bag.

Ill: 65 trials, appeared sober, carried a black cane

Front 32

Describe Models

Back 32

- Critical area early: Model would stand in critical area and waits 70s before helping victim

- Critical area late:Model would stand in critical area and waits 150s before helping victim

- Adjacent area early: Model would stand in adjacent and waits 70s before helping victim

- Adjacent area late: Model would stand in adjacent and waits 150s before helping victim

when model intervened he helped the victim to a sitting position and stayed with him for the remainder of the trial

Front 33

Describe observers

Back 33

Females sat outside critical area and recorded data as unobtrusively as possible during the journey

Front 34

Modelling effects

Back 34

Overall, the early model (70 seconds) elicited significantly more help than the late model (150 seconds).

Front 35

Other responses and comments

Back 35

21 out of 103 trials, 34 people left critical area, more likely when drunk victim , and when no help was offered during first 70s

comments were made on drunk trials when no help was offered after 70s women said things like : ‘it’s for men to help him’ ‘i wish i could help him’ ‘i’m not strong enough’

Front 36

Can the study be generalised?

Back 36

Piliavin et al. suggest that the model of response to emergency situations can be generalised and it explains what all people experience in an emergency situation.

Front 37

Conclusions

Back 37

- ill victim is more likely to receive help than drunk victim

- men were more likely to help than women

- Tendency for same race helping was observed for drunk than ill.

- No diffusion of responsibility. Effect was in opposite direction

- The longer the emergency continued without help offered:

The less impact model had on bystanders helping behaviour

Bystanders were more likely to leave critical area to avoid situation

More likely for bystanders to make comments and discuss incident

Front 38

Strengths of study

Back 38

high level of ecological validity. The study was done in a true to life environment and consisted of an incident, which could and does happen.

The sample size was also very large and we would assume a fairly representative sample of New Yorkers. The researchers should therefore be able to generalise their findings.

Front 39

Criticism of cost arousal

Back 39

A criticism of the Arousal: Cost – Reward Model is that it takes a very negative view of people. It denies that people act altruistically and assumes that behaviour is always measured in some form of cost or benefit. Altruism refers to behaviours which are unselfish and motivated by another person’s needs.

Front 40

Identify the ACR model

Back 40

The arousal: cost-reward (ACR) model identifies two conceptually distinct, but functionally interdependent influences on helping:

- Arousal in response to the need or distress of others is an emotional response and is the basic motivational construct. When arousal is attributed to the distress of the victim, it is experienced as unpleasant and the bystander is motivated to reduce it.

- The cost-reward component involves cognitive processes by which bystanders assess and weigh up the anticipated costs and rewards associated with both helping and not helping.

The ACR model has generated a large amount of research, which has concentrated largely on the relative costs of helping and not helping .

Front 41

Outline the hypothesis of the study

Back 41

The expectation regarding type of victim was that help would be accorded more frequently and rapidly to the apparently ill victim

Front 42

How did piliavin support his hypothesis?

Back 42

First, it was assumed that people who are regarded as partly responsible for their plight would receive less sympathy and consequently less help than people seen as not responsible for their circumstances.

Secondly, it was assumed that whatever sympathy individuals may experience when they observe a drunk collapse, their inclination to help him will be dampened by the realisation that the victim may become disgusting, embarrassing, and/or violent. This realisation may, in fact, not only constrain helping but also lead observers to turn away from the victim—that is, to leave the scene of the emergency.

Front 43

What was hypothesised about modelling effects?

Back 43

Several investigators have found that an individual's actions in a given situation lead others in that situation to engage in similar actions.

Front 44

What did the observers record?

Back 44

On each trial one observer noted the race, sex, and location of every rider seated or stand- ing in the critical area. In addition, she counted the total number of individuals in the car and the total number of individuals who came to the victim's assistance. She also recorded the race, sex, and loca- tion of every helper. A second observer coded the race, sex, and location of all persons in the adjacent area. She also recorded the latency of the first helper's arrival after the victim had fallen and on appropriate trials, the latency of the first helper's arrival after the programmed model had arrived. Both observers recorded comments spontaneously made by nearby passengers and attempted to elicit comments from a rider sitting next to them.

Front 45

Describe strengths of study

Back 45

High level of ecological validity. But some of the participants were very close to the victim and could not escape the situation unlike many other situation in emergencies. And this may be one of the reasons why diffusion of responsibility did not occur.

The sample size was large

Front 46

Describe weaknesses of the study

Back 46

- The participants cannot give their consent

- The participants are being deceived because they are unaware that it is not a genuine emergency

- Participants were not debriefed

- A further problem with field experiments is that they are more difficult to control than laboratory experiments.