Piliavin

Question 1

Diffusion of responsibility

Answer 1

When a large crowd is present we feel less personal responsibility as we diffuse our responsibility onto others. This means we assume others will help and take responsibility. In a smaller crowd we may feel a greater need to intervene and help as there are fewer people to share responsibility with.

Question 2

Pluralistic ignorance

Answer 2

we look to others to help us interpret different situations and this then informs how we should respond. If we see others not responding we interpret the situation as a non-emergency. If we see others helping, we are more likely to offer assistance.

Question 3

Give 4 situational factors which influence bystander effect

Answer 3

1. Diffusion of responsibility
2. Pluralistic ignorance
3. Noticing the event
4. Cost of helping

Question 4

Noticing the event

Answer 4

In a large crowd we pay less attention to what is going on around us. Therefore we are less likely to notice an emergency situation compared to when we are on our own

Question 5

Cost of helping

Answer 5

If there is a risk to ourselves we tend not to help as the cost to our safety is too high.

Also we are less likely to help if we do not have the time to stop, as it is great a cost to ourselves again

Question 6

Give 3 individual factors which influence bystander effect

Answer 6

1. Competence
2. Mood
3. Similarity

Question 7

competence

Answer 7

if we feel we are able to help or have the skills to help, we are more likely to intervene.

Question 8

mood

Answer 8

good mood = pay more attention = more likely to recognise if people need help = more likely to help

bad mood = behave more inwardly

Question 9

similarity

Answer 9

Identify with the person in need = more likely to help, because we begin to think same thing could happen to us

Question 10

What is the background of the study? (why was it performed)

Answer 10

• wanted to carry out research in field setting, as previous in lab
• investigate variables affect whether bystander help in an emergency, such as race and type of the victim
• if could replicate the effect of ‘diffusion of responsibility’ and ‘modelling’ —unlike previous, auditory clue, now also visual clues, to see if these affect
• The murder of Kitty Genovese triggered interest in the action of bystanders and the nature of ‘diffusion of
  responsibility’. This suggests that bystanders are less likely to come to someone’s aid if group members are
  strangers

Question 11

Give 2 previous evidence that investigated bystander effect

Answer 11

Kitty Genovese

• savagely attacked and the man viciously raped and stabbed her near her apartment
• at least 38 witnesses but showed no sign of assistance. despite scenes of violence and screams were heard

Latane and Darley

• seizure over headphone
• less likely to help if they believed there were others also listening to the seizure taking place

Question 12

what is the aim

Answer 12

To investigate, under real life conditions the speed and frequency of helping in relation to

• the TYPE of victim
• the RACE of victim
• the presence or absence of MODEL
• the SIZE of witnessing group

Question 13

What are the hypotheses?

Answer 13

• drunk = less help than ill
• more help = same race
• seeing other help = behave in similar way
• more people = less help

Question 14

What is the IV?

Answer 14

• type of victim
• race of victim
• position and speed of response of the model
• no. of bystander

Question 15

What is the DV?

Answer 15

Level of bystander helping, operationalised as

• time taken for the 1st passenger to help
• total no. of people who helped
• gender and race and location of each helper
• verbal comments by passengers during the incident

Question 16

Where & when did they conduct the experiment?

Answer 16

• New York subway express train
• 7.5 minute
• weekdays between 11am-3pm during April to June

Question 17

Who conducted the study?

Answer 17

• 16 Columbia students
• 4 teams = 2 males + 2 females
• males = victim and model
• females = observer

Question 18

What was the sample?

Answer 18

• opportunity sample
• 4,450 passengers
• 45% black, 55% white
• mean no. per carriage = 43
• mean no. in critical area = 8.5

Question 19

3 main steps of the procedure

Answer 19

1. OBSERVER
2. VICTIMS
3. MODEL

Question 20

Describe the procedure ( observer)

Answer 20

• 2 females
• recorded spontaneous comments
• recorded time taken for the 1st passenger to offer help

Question 21

Describe the procedure (victim)

Answer 21

• age 20-26
• critical area
• Eisenhower jackets + old socks + no tie
• drunk/ill (liquor bottle+smell / carried cane) black/white

Question 22

How does the victim fell?

Answer 22

Train passes 1st station, victim staggered forward + collapsed, remained at the floor looking at the ceiling

Question 23

Describe the procedure (model)

Answer 23

• 4 white men
• 24-29
• unidentical, informal clothing
• raised victim to a sitting position and stayed with him for the rest of the journey

Question 24

What are the differences in location and time of early/late help

Answer 24

• critical area early, or adjacent area early

- 70s after collapsed, 150s after collapsed

Question 25

Main categories of results (there are 8)

Answer 25

1. level of bystander helping 2. no. of helpers 3. gender of helpers 4. position/speed of model helper 5. who left 6. comments 7. same race helping 8. diffusion of responsibility

Question 26

Results related to level of bystander effect

Answer 26

Drunk trial, spontaneous help = 50% | cane trial, spontaneous help = 95%

Question 27

Results related to no. of helpers

Answer 27

60% of trials received help from more than one helper

Question 28

Results related to gender of helper

Answer 28

90% of spontaneous 1st helpers were MALE, even only 60% of the people in critical area were male

Question 29

Results related to position/speed of model helper

Answer 29

Position = no effecet early model = significantly more likely to bring about further helping 100% late model = 43%

Question 30

Results related to 'who left'

Answer 30

highest %, at least 1 person left the critical area was for BLACK/DRUNK trial, with help after 70s

Question 31

Results related to 'comments'

Answer 31

drunk trials + help more than 70s = most comments

Question 32

Results related to 'same race helping'

Answer 32

white victim, 68% of helpers were white black victim, 50% were white slight same race helping Drunk trial = mainly same race, 90% white

Question 33

Results related to 'diffusion of responsibility'

Answer 33

No evidence. Response time faster for groups of 7+ than groups of 1-3 7+ = 97s, 1-3 = 309s

Question 34

What are the conclusions?

Answer 34

- ill>drunk - male more likely to help than female - mixed racial group = same race helping, especially when drunk than ill - Longer emergency continues = more likely to leave, more likely to discuss (most comments in drunk), less impact of model on helping behaviour (43% late model)

Question 35

What else did they conclude about 'diffusion of responsibility'

Answer 35

It does not occur when people cannot leave.

Question 36

2 factors of the cost-reward model

Answer 36

1. emotional arousal | 2. cost-reward calculation

Question 37

How will 'emotional arousal' be heightened or reduced?

Answer 37

Heightened = empathising with, proximity, emergency continues for longer Reduced = helping or getting help, reject as undeserving

Question 38

Describe the cost-reward model

Answer 38

Cost of helping, cost of not helping | reward of helping, reward of not helping

Question 39

Give 2 strengths of the study

Answer 39

- Quantitative and qualitative data - 95% help cane, 50% help drunk - allows comparison + objective analysis (quan) - insight (qua) - objective + realistic understanding - Field experiment - natural setting, not aware of being observed - reduce demand characteristics - high ecological validity

Question 40

Give 2 weaknesses of the study

Answer 40

- violated ethical guideline - unaware of being observed, unable to tell aim, cannot give their consent - might suffer psychological distress, believing victim genuinely fell - did not control extraneous variables well - position of observer, observer's accuracy = low, view may be blocked (delay in time recorded) - might be inaccurate understanding, lacks ecological validity

Question 41

How was the data collected?

Answer 41

- content analysis for the no. of comments - by two female researchers - also noted spontaneous comments and actions by those around her