Piliavin Case Study by Kit Amer https://padlet.com/kitamer951/cr7xcm5nvmss en-us 2016-09-25 12:01:40 UTC 2026-02-23 13:22:23 UTC hello@padlet.com <u>Introduction</u> kitamer951 https://padlet.com/kitamer951/cr7xcm5nvmss/wish/126205122
The Piliavin case study was based on previous research done by Latane and Darley. They were the researchers responsible for the Bystander Apathy Experiment in 1964. It focused on helping behavior to different kind of individuals and whether the concepts of diffusion of responsibility and pluralistic ignorance could be applied to all situations.  ]]> 2016-09-25 12:02:52 UTC https://padlet.com/kitamer951/cr7xcm5nvmss/wish/126205122 <u>The Work of Latane and Darley</u> kitamer951 https://padlet.com/kitamer951/cr7xcm5nvmss/wish/126229867 Latane and Darley followed on from a peculiar case known as the Kitty Genovese incident which occurred in 13th March, 1964 where a woman in New York was stabbed to death right outside her apartment in the middle of the night . The curiosity of this came from the inaction of the thirty-eight witnesses who didn't do anything in response until the police were notified at 3:50 am - 50 minutes after she was first attacked despite the constant screaming that could be heard and lights being turned on in surrounding apartments.  They performed several experiments that investigated this such as one lab experiment where participants were put into a room (they were told to fill out a questionnaire on attitudes to urban life) and it was observed whether they notified the receptionist whether it was a lone individual or three individuals in a group. It was found that when the participants where on their own, 50% reported it in two minutes and 75% reported it in the six minutes when their reaction was being monitored whereas 12% reported in two minutes and 38% reported in six minutes when the participants where in a group. It was theorized that we tend to define situations by the reaction of others around us even when put into a potentially harmful situation and thus the term Pluralistic Ignorance was coined. It was thence suggested that the amount of people present would be proportional to the amount of helping behavior, a further experiment  involving a supposed discussion with collage students about their personal problems with the addition of a tape recording of an  actor pretending to have a seizure that aimed to discover which students would get up to to find out more or to seek out help. It was found out in the results of the experiment that the collage students were much less likely to help when they were in a group whereas students by themselves were significantly more likely to help within 60 seconds. Latane and Darley said that there is a reduced likelihood of helping behavior with larger groups and the larger the group is, the lower the chance is - this was called the diffusion of responsibility. ]]> 2016-09-25 19:02:11 UTC https://padlet.com/kitamer951/cr7xcm5nvmss/wish/126229867 kitamer951 https://padlet.com/kitamer951/cr7xcm5nvmss/wish/126232624 2016-09-25 19:45:31 UTC https://padlet.com/kitamer951/cr7xcm5nvmss/wish/126232624 kitamer951 https://padlet.com/kitamer951/cr7xcm5nvmss/wish/126232746 2016-09-25 19:47:28 UTC https://padlet.com/kitamer951/cr7xcm5nvmss/wish/126232746 <u>Aim</u> kitamer951 https://padlet.com/kitamer951/cr7xcm5nvmss/wish/126232802 The study was meant to investigate factors affecting helping behavior as well as relationships between the size of a group and the frequency of which helping behavior is observed.]]> 2016-09-25 19:48:22 UTC https://padlet.com/kitamer951/cr7xcm5nvmss/wish/126232802 <u>Sampling</u> kitamer951 https://padlet.com/kitamer951/cr7xcm5nvmss/wish/126232938  
There were roughly 4,450 men and women involved in this experiment. All of these were travelling on the New York Subway system between 59th and 125th street from 11 p.m and 3 a.m on weekdays between the days of April 15th and June 26th, 1968. The racial composition average was 45% - 55% black to white and there was an average 43 people in each carriage whilst the journey was about 7.5 minutes. ]]> 2016-09-25 19:51:06 UTC https://padlet.com/kitamer951/cr7xcm5nvmss/wish/126232938 <u>Measured Factors:</u> kitamer951 https://padlet.com/kitamer951/cr7xcm5nvmss/wish/126233528
- Type of victim, whether they were drunk or ill
-  Race of victim
- Speed of helping
- Frequency of which help was given
- Race of the helper
- Presence of a model (someone who helps first) ]]> 2016-09-25 20:00:24 UTC https://padlet.com/kitamer951/cr7xcm5nvmss/wish/126233528 <u>Procedure</u> kitamer951 https://padlet.com/kitamer951/cr7xcm5nvmss/wish/126234239
For each trial, four students (two male and two female) would board the train. The female confederates would sit separate to the critical area and record data while the male model and victim remained standing. After a 70s, the victim would collapse to the floor and remain motionless until help was given or until the train stopped where the model confederate would help the victim up, the team would exit the train at the station and take a train going in the opposite direction back the initial platform. The female student who were observing behavior also noted down any comments made and tried to draw them from people around them. As well as this, they recorded race, sex and location on the subway of the people who helped the victim after they collapsed.  ]]> 2016-09-25 20:11:29 UTC https://padlet.com/kitamer951/cr7xcm5nvmss/wish/126234239 <u>Different Conditions</u> kitamer951 https://padlet.com/kitamer951/cr7xcm5nvmss/wish/126234813
There were 6-7 repeat trials and there were different conditions they were done in although not all were done evenly as students weren't as comfortable with pretending to be drunk. All of the four victims, one from each team, were dressed identically and were all males aged 26-35. The models, all white males aged 24-29, were in casual dress but weren't identical.

Drunk condition - The victim appeared drunk, carrying a bottle of alcohol wrapped in a brown paper bag and smelled of alcohol.

Cane condition - The victim appeared sober and carried a black cane


]]> 2016-09-25 20:21:52 UTC https://padlet.com/kitamer951/cr7xcm5nvmss/wish/126234813 kitamer951 https://padlet.com/kitamer951/cr7xcm5nvmss/wish/126235146 Critical Area (Early) - Here the victim would as the model waited in the critical area and helped him after the fourth station had passed
Critical Area (Late) - The model stood in the critical area and waited for the sixth station to pass to help the victim

Adjacent Area (Early) -  The model would stand here waiting for the fourth station to pass to then go over to the critical area and help the victim

Adjacent Area (Late) -  The model would wait here and help the victim after the sixth station had passed]]> 2016-09-25 20:29:17 UTC https://padlet.com/kitamer951/cr7xcm5nvmss/wish/126235146 <u>Results and Findings</u> kitamer951 https://padlet.com/kitamer951/cr7xcm5nvmss/wish/126235851 It was found that helping behaviour was much higher than previous laboratory experiments. Specifically, the cane victim received spontaneous help on 62 out of 65 trials whereas the drunk victim received spontaneous help in 19 out of 38 trials. On 60% of these incidents where spontaneous help was given (81 trials), more than one person offered help and there were no differences in race, sex or location on carriage on the type of people who helped. A significant proportion of the helpers were male, only 10% were female and there was a slight tendency for same-race helping whilst an expected 64% of the helpers were white. There was no one on any of the trials who left the train but a total amount of 34 left the critical area, especially when the victim was in drunk condition, on 23 out of the 103 trials. More comments were observed when the victim appeared drunk and and when no one would help the victim until 70 seconds had passed. Such comments from women on the trials included "It's for men to help him", "I wish I could help him - I'm not strong enough" and "You feel so bad, you don't know what to do. ]]> 2016-09-25 20:42:11 UTC https://padlet.com/kitamer951/cr7xcm5nvmss/wish/126235851 <u>Theory </u> kitamer951 https://padlet.com/kitamer951/cr7xcm5nvmss/wish/126301623 The findings in the experiments were inexplicable by diffusion of responsibility since a larger group didn't correspond to a reduction in helping behaviour. Piliavin et al then developed his own model, called the Cost-Arousal model which states that emotional arousal is created by an emergency situation. The amount of arousal can depend on a number of factors such as empathy or amount of exposure (time spent near the situation) and can be reduced by other factors that include helping, leaving the situation and deciding whether the person needs help or not. We then tend to consider the possible cost and rewards of helping vs not helping. You can see this in the experiment as the victim received help less often as the perceived cost is greater whereas the reward is lower - social approval would dictate that helping a drunk is more acceptable than helping a normal victim as they are seen as responsible for their own condition. As time goes on, the emotional arousal increase; we see the late model not being replicated as people find alternatives to reduce their unwanted emotional arousal such as leaving the area of conversing with others around them to justify themselves. ]]> 2016-09-26 09:30:44 UTC https://padlet.com/kitamer951/cr7xcm5nvmss/wish/126301623 <u>Exam Questions</u> kitamer951 https://padlet.com/kitamer951/cr7xcm5nvmss/wish/126305536
1. According to Piliavin, Rodin and Piliavin diffusion of responsibility has been demonstrated in the laboratory studies on helping behaviour. 

(a) What is meant by the term diffusion of responsibility? (2) 

(b) Why did it not occur in in their experiment? (2)

 

2. In the subway Samaritan study (by Piliavin, Rodin and Piliavin), outline two difficulties that the researchers experienced when carrying out the experiment. (4)

 


3. 

(a) According to the cost-arousal model proposed by Piliavin, Rodin and Piliavin, what are the two factors that influence a persons decision to help or not? (2) 


(b) Give an example of the results from the study and explain it in terms of the two factors. (2)

 

4. In the subway Samaritan study by Piliavin, Rodin and Piliavin, the researchers made observations of behaviour inside a railway carriage. Identify two practical or methodological problems with conducting these observations. (4) 

 


 

5.

 (a) In the Subway Samaritan Study by Piliavin, Rodin and Piliavin, some of the researchers acted as victims and some as models. Identify one of the model conditions. (2)


(b) Outline one conclusion that was drawn from the model conditions (2)

 

6. Piliavin, Rodin and Piliavin's subway Samaritan study was a field study. Describe one advantage and one disadvantage of conducting field studies and relate them to this study. (4)

 

7. The study by Piliavin, Rodin and Piliavin (subway samaritans) took social psychology out of the laboratory and into the field.

(a) Give one reason why diffusion of responsibility was found in laboratory studies but not in the Piliavin, Rodin and Piliavin field study. (2)

(b) Suggest one problem with conducting social psychological research in a laboratory. (2)

 

8. All studies in psychology raise ethical issues. Outline two ethical issues raised in the study by Piliavin, Rodin and Piliavin (subway Samaritanism). (4)

 

9. Outline one ethical and one practical problem that occurred in the conducting of the subway Samaritan study by Piliavin, Rodin and Piliavin. (4)

 

10. Give one finding from the subway Samaritan study by Piliavin, Rodin and Piliavin. (2)

 

11. In the subway Samaritan study, Piliavin, Rodin and Piliavin proposed an arousal/cost-reward model. From this model, give two ways of reducing arousal in the subway emergency. (4)

 

12.

 (a) Outline how one ethical guideline was broken by Piliavin, Rodin and Piliavin in their subway study. (2)



(b) Outline one way in which the ethical guidelines were upheld by Piliavin, Rodin and Piliavin in the same study. (2)

 

13. Give one reason for the lack of diffusion of responsibility found in the subway study by Piliavin, Rodin and Piliavin.[2] 

 

14.


(a) From the subway Samaritan study by Piliavin, Rodin and Piliavin, briefly describe one quantitative measure recorded by the observers. (2)


(b) Outline one limitation of the quantitative data in this study. (2)

 

15. Piliavin, Rodin and Piliavin used observations in their study on subway Samaritans. Outline one strength and one weakness of using observations in this study. (4)

 

16. Briefly describe the cost benefit theory suggested by Piliavin, Rodin and Piliavin to explain how people behave when deciding whether to help a victim. (4)

 

17. Outline two ethical issues raised by Piliavin, Rodin and Piliavins subway Samaritan study. (4)


]]> 2016-09-26 09:53:01 UTC https://padlet.com/kitamer951/cr7xcm5nvmss/wish/126305536 https://padlet.com/kitamer951/cr7xcm5nvmss/wish/315052534 2018-12-17 05:02:00 UTC https://padlet.com/kitamer951/cr7xcm5nvmss/wish/315052534 https://padlet.com/kitamer951/cr7xcm5nvmss/wish/373393952 Can i know about the advantages and disadvantages from this case study]]> 2019-08-06 08:31:02 UTC https://padlet.com/kitamer951/cr7xcm5nvmss/wish/373393952