My instinct was there is nothing 'naturalistic' about this study. However, I think it parallels real world very well. However, the Annabelles of this world will instinctively help, Daisys will if asked (or maybe instinctively?) and the Zach's won't notice. Also the relationships of peers is essential. Some children will ask for help, others won't. They may ask their friend but not a stranger. This is such an odd study. Plus, such small numbers. Pick 11 different children will have completely different results. Not even half and half boys/girls to see if girls more altruistic. Nonetheless, previous research finding 'less than 1 altruistic activity per hour' (Murphy cited in P, R-J & C)? is potentially a ridiculously pointless comment. Context is vital. What are they doing? If someone doesn't need your help you won't help them. Consequently, this study is good for encouraging the factor we are hoping to observe (altruism). The children were unaware it was a study so reactions were 'naturalistic', which is good. (but does this mean no 'informed consent'; yet not harmful so is this required. But what if a child hit another directly because of this 'experiment' that would cause harm.