Piliavin et al - Evaluation
Tell a Story
Background
1964, Kitty Genovese fatally stabbed in New York. Police suggested 38 possible witnesses, none did anything until too late. Suggested that lack of help caused by diffusion of responsibility - no one helps because they all think someone else will do it, more people present, less responsibility people feel so don't help
Method
Design: Field experiment, independent design
Sample: Opportunity sample of nearly 4500 passengers that were on NY subway between 59th and 125th, weekdays between 11:00-15:00. Slight more white than black, averaged 43 per compartment. Each trial lasts 7 1/2 minutes. Per trial, 4 students boarded. Two female - observers. One male - confederate. One male - victim.
Procedure: Two conditions: 'drunk' and 'cane'. 70 seconds pass from train leaving station, victim staggered and collapsed. If no one helped, confederate stepped in after either 70 or 150 seconds. Point was to see if passengers would follow confederate. Observers would note time taken for passengers to help with race, gender, location of all participants and participants that help. Comments overheard noted as well and who moves away
Results
Cane victim received 95% spontaneous help
Drunk 50% spontaneous
Cane averaged 5 seconds before help
Drunk averaged 109 seconds
24% drunk helped before role model but 91% cane
Black victims received help less quickly, especially drunk condition
Neither race was more helpful, slight 'same race' effect
80% helpers male
No evidence of diffusion of responsibility
Conclusion
Factor 1: emergency situation creates sense of empathy (arousal) in bystander. Empathetic arousal increased if one feels sense of identity with victim, or if one physically close to victim. Arousal reduced by helping. Also reduced by going away or rationalising why didn't help
Factor 2: helping behaviour determined by cost-reward calculation. If possible costs greater than possible rewards help less likely
Core studies in their pairs
How study changes understanding of individual, social and cultural diversity
Individual
This area of research has found that individual['s responses to people in need do vary and factors such as the judgements of an individual in need and cultural factors do have an effect on helping behaviour
Social
The classic study suggests individuals use a cost-benefit analysis to decide whether to help those in need; as this includes perceptions of costs and stereotypes of those in need society can improve helping behaviour by breaking down stereotypes. As an example in Piliavin's research people were more likely to help someone of the same race and this issue needs to be tackled however race was not focused on by Levine et al. The contemporary study found a shift in the helping behaviour of females and contrasted Piliavin's research that showed helpers were predominantly males
Cultural
Levine carried out research cross-culturally that suggests that helping behaviour and altruism are affected by more than just situational explanations with countries that practice simpatia found more likely to help. This furthers the research by Piliavin et al and shows that cultural practices can be embedded to improve helping behaviour
How does the study relate to the area
Social approach because it was seeking to investigate (in a real-life setting) the impact of other people on helping behaviour. It did this through counting of the number of people in the carriage at the time of incidents (diffusion of responsibility was not seen) while another person was available to model helping behaviour in case this was necessary
Research methods/techniques
One strength of using a field experiment is that there is more ecological validity. This means the study can be applied to real-life situations as participants are in a natural environment. In Piliavin's study, the experiment took place on a New York subway, which for participants is naturally occurring
One weakness of using a field experiment is that the environment cannot be controlled. this means that the experimenter is not able to control the environment the participants are in and have no control over extraneous variables. In Piliavin's study, the study took place on the New York subway, which cannot be controlled
Types of data
One strength of using quantitative data is that it is easier to compare and draw conclusions from. This way the data can be used to find out if results are significant or not. In Piliavin's study, there was 100% overall help for the cane condition , but 81% for the drunk condition
One weakness of using quantitative data is that it does not give reason for people's behaviours. Quantitative data doesn't contain information needed to draw non-numerical conclusions from. In Piliavin's study, we know that 90% helpers were male but only due to the qualitative data that was collected
Validity
Piliavin's study is high in ecological validity due to the natural setting of the study. This means the study can apply to rea life situations. Piliavin's study takes place on the New York subway and has a person with a cane and a drunk person fall over, which could happen in real life
click to edit
Reliability
Piliavin's study is high in internal reliability as the study was standardised. This means every participant experienced the exact same thing. In Piliavin's study, all experimenters has a script to follow, had the same training, fell at the same time, etc
click to edit
Sampling bias
I believe there isn't sampling bias due to the fact that participants were those that entered the subway. This means opportunity sampling was used as they were still approached but by the 'victim' rather than the experimenter. Piliavin's study's sample was very large (4550) and contained both black and white passengers in a proportion representative of the local population
How does Piliavin relate to the key theme
The key theme is response to people in need. Piliavin investigated this using 'victims' that were either drunk or walked with a cane. In Piliavin's study, they had the 'victim' enter the subway and after 70 seconds staggered forward and collapsed in front of passengers in the critical area to test and see if participants would help the 'victim'. The person with the cane got help 100% of the time, while the drunk person only got help 81% of the time, showing that if a person has a visible disability, they will always get help, but if they're drunk, 19% of the time they won't get help