Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Piliavin (Results (The cane victim received spontaneous help 95% of the…
Piliavin
Results
The cane victim received spontaneous help 95% of the time (62/65 trials) compared to the drunk victim 50% of the time (19/38 trial)
Help was offered more quickly to the cane victim (a median of 5 secs compared to 109 secs delay for the drunk victim)
90% of the first helpers were males
On 60% of the trials when help was given this was provided by 2 or more helpers
More comments were made by passengers in the drunk than the cane condition and most comments were made when no help was given within the first 70 seconds. Many women made comments such as ; "It's for men to help him", "You feel so bad that you don't know what to do"
There was no difference in the number of white/black helpers, except that in the drunk condition where people were more likely to help someone of their own race
No diffusion of responsibility was found, in fact response times were faster with larger groups than smaller.
Out of 103 trials, 34 passengers left the area of the incident (mostly in the drunk condition).
The early model (70 seconds) produced significantly more help than a late model (150 seconds)
Procedure
There were 16 researchers in total. The always worked in the same groups of 4 (2 male/2 female). Males were either the victim or model, females were observers. There were 103 trials, all of which took place on the A and D trains of the 8th avenue New York Subway between the 59th street and 125 street. The journeys lasted about 7 1/2 minutes. Each team varied the location of the experimental compartment from trial to trial.
The victims (3 white, 1 black-one in each team) were all male students, aged 26-35 years, and dressed identically in casual clothing.
On 38 trials the victims smelt of alcohol and carried a bottle of alcohol wrapped in a brown bag (drunk condition). On 65 trials they appeared sober and carried a black cane (cane condition).
The models (all white) were males aged 24-29 years. There were 4 model conditions:
1. Critical area-early (model stood in critical area and helped after 70 seconds)
2. Critical area-late (model stood in the critical area and helped after 70 seconds)
3. Adjacent area-early (model stood in adjacent area and helped after 70 seconds)
4. Adjacent area-late (model stood in adjacent area and helped after 150 seconds)
The victim stood near a pole in the critical area. After about 70 seconds he staggered forward and collapsed. Until receiving help he remained supine on the floor looking at the ceiling. If he received no help by the time the train stopped the model helped him to his feet. At the stop the team disembarked and waited separately until other passengers had left the station They the changed platforms to repeat the process in the opposite direction.
The two female observers sat in the adjacent area and recorded the dependant variables. On each trial one observer noted the race, sex and location of every rider seated or standing in the critical area. In addition she counted the total number of individuals who are to the victims assistance. She also recorded the race, sex and location of every helper. The second observer coded the race,sex and location of all persons in the adjacent area. She also recorded the latency (time) of the first helper's arrival after the victim had fallen and on appropriate trials, the latency of the first helpers 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.
Conclusions
Helping behaviour depends on the social situation/ circumstance that we find ourselves in. Someone who appears drunk will get less help than someone who appears ill.
With mixed groups of men and women, men are more likely than women to help a male victim.
When a male is in need on a subway train, no diffusion of responsibility is present, contradicting previous laboratory research by Darley and Latane. When escape is not possible and bystanders are face-to-face with a victim, help is more likely to be forthcoming.
-
Bystanders conduct a cost-reward analysis before deciding whether or not to help a victim: People help in an emergency situation to try to rid themselves of an unpleasant emotional state. Thus emotional arousal can be reduced by helping or leaving the situation. This decision is made based on weighing up the costs and benefits associated with helping, If the costs are too great people will not help.
Research method
-
Four IV's:
1)Type of victim (drunk or carrying a cane)
2) Race of victim (black or white)
3) Behaviour of a model (intervening after 70 or 150 seconds, form the critical or adjacent area), or no model at all
4)Size of the witnessing group (a naturally occurring independent variable)
The DV's, recorded by two female observers seated in the adjacent area- were:
1)Frequency of help
2)Speed of help (latency)
3)Ethnicity of helper
4)Sex of helper
5)Location of helper
6)Movement out of critical area
7)Verbal comments by bystanders
Aims
To investigate bystander behaviour in a real life setting (New York subway) and see:
-whether an ill person would get more help than a drunk person
-if there would be ethnocentric behaviour in helping
-if the intervention of a model would influence other' helping behaviour
-the effect of group size on helping behaviour
Sample
An opportunity sample of approximately 4,500 men and women who used the New York subway on weekdays between 11.00 am and 3.00pm between April 15 and June 26, 1968. About 45% were black, 55% white