Piliavin, Rodin and Piliavin

What was the background of this study?
Kitty Genovese - brutal murder outside her appartment block in New York. None of the 38 witnesses cotacted the police, even though the attack lasted over an hour.
1 of 19
What year was the study conducted?
2 of 19
To investigate factors affecting helping behaviour and especially the impcat of a model (who offers to help first) and also the size of the group and frequency of help.
3 of 19
IV & DV?
IV = type of victim (drunk/ill), race of victim, model condition DV= helping behviour - frequency, sex and race of helper, time taken.
4 of 19
Method, design, data?
Field experiment using participant observation. Indendent measure design. Both data types.
5 of 19
approx. 4450 men and women travelling on a particular stretch of the New York underground system between 11am and 3pm on weekdays during the period of April 15th - June 26th.
6 of 19
Outline the procedure (1)
2 trains selected as they did not stop for 7.5 minutes between 59th and 125th street. Team of 4 students (2m/2f) boarded train using different doors. 4 different teams, each varied location of experimental compartment from trial to trial.
7 of 19
Outline the procedure (2)
Females = observers, sat outside critical area. Male model and victim remainded standing; victim always next to pole in critical area. 70 secs into journey, victim collapsed. He remained motionless on floor until receiving help.
8 of 19
Outline the procedure (3)
If victim received no help by the time the train slowed to a stop, the model helped him to his feet and off the train. 6-8 trials run on any given day and all trials on one day used the same victim condition.
9 of 19
Outline the procedure (4)
4 male victims all aged between 26 - 35, three were white and one was black. All identically dressed. Drunk condition = 38 trials = smelt of alchohol and carried bottle of alcohol in brown bag. Ill = 65 trials = appeared sober, carried black cane.
10 of 19
What were the 4 different model conditions?
Critical area-early: waited until 4th station to help, 70secs after collapse. Critical area-late: waited until 6th station to help, 150secs after collapse. Adjacent area-early: waited until 4th station to help. Adjacent area-late: waited until 6th.
11 of 19
What observations were noted?
1st observer: total no. of passengers who helped, their race, sex and location on train. Also noted the race, sex and location of every passenger on train. 2nd observer: time taken to help, using stopwatch. Comments made by nearby passengers.
12 of 19
Outline the results
Cane victim recieved help on 62/65 trials, drunk victim only on 19/38 trials. Helpers, 90% male and 64% white. Quickest help came from largest group. More qualitative data on drunk condition, e.g "It's for men to help him".
13 of 19
Strengths of the study
High EV, very large sample - representative of New Yorkers. Both data types - easy to analyse and in-depth.
14 of 19
Weaknesses of the study
Field experiment - less control, travellers may have seen more than one incident, and harder to replicate. Only male victims used.
15 of 19
1. No informed consent, covert observation. 2. Decieved 3. No debriefing 4. Possible psychological harm - feelings of guilt, distress and anxiety.
16 of 19
Define: Altruism
The selfless concern for the welfare of others.
17 of 19
Define: Pluralistic ignorance
The tendancy for people in a group to mislead each other about an emergency situation.
18 of 19
Define: Diffusion of responsibility
The idea that people are less likelt to help someone if there are others present because they perceive the responsibility as being shared.
19 of 19

Other cards in this set

Card 2


What year was the study conducted?



Card 3




Preview of the front of card 3

Card 4


IV & DV?


Preview of the front of card 4

Card 5


Method, design, data?


Preview of the front of card 5
View more cards


No comments have yet been made

Similar Psychology resources:

See all Psychology resources »See all Core studies resources »