Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

SOCIAL APPROACH CORE STUDY 3 Core Study 3: Piliavin (1969) Subway Samaritan Good Samaritanism: An underground phenomenon?

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "SOCIAL APPROACH CORE STUDY 3 Core Study 3: Piliavin (1969) Subway Samaritan Good Samaritanism: An underground phenomenon?"— Presentation transcript:

1 SOCIAL APPROACH CORE STUDY 3 Core Study 3: Piliavin (1969) Subway Samaritan Good Samaritanism: An underground phenomenon?

2 AMSP Questions Why was this study performed? What were the aims of this study? What did the researchers hypothesise? What method(s) did the researchers use? Why was this method used? What was the design of the study? What were the IVs, the different conditions? How was data collected? What did the observers record (DVs)? Who conducted the study? Where did the study take place? What was the emergency? What apparatus was used? What materials were require? Aims & HypothesisMethod

3 AMSP Questions Who was the target population? What sampling technique was used? How was this carried out? Who were the participants? Why were these trains used?  Describe the train carriage and how the observers/models were organised?  Describe the procedure of the study (step- by-step), detail what happened. Try to include:  Include the different confederates involved  The conditions that participants were exposed to  The clothes that that the victim had to wear any materials they required  How long the study lasted for and how many trial were carried out SampleProcedure

4 AMSP Questions Why was this study performed? What were the aims of this study? What did the researchers hypothesise? Aims & Hypothesis

5 Aim & Hypothesis Why was the study performed?  Piliavin, Rodin & Piliavin wanted to carry out research in a field setting to identify some of the variables that affect whether bystanders help in an emergency or whether they ignore a person’s need for help, even in a situation that is clearly an emergency.  They specifically wanted to test the effects of ‘diffusion of responsibility’ and modeling found in earlier studies.  A wider question addressed by this study is whether ‘altruism’ exists.

6 Aim & Hypothesis What were the aims of this study? To investigate, under real life conditions, the effect on speed and frequency of helping, and race of the helper in relation to:  The type of victim (drunk or lame)  The race of the victim (black or white)  The presence or absence of helping models  The size of the witnessing group.

7 Aim & Hypothesis What did the researchers hypothesise? 1.Person who was drunk would receive less help than someone who was ill 2.More help would be given to a person of the same race as the bystander (same-race helping) 3.Seeing another person help would lead others in that situation to behave in a similar way 4.Test diffusion of responsibility: the more people present, the less help would be given

8 AMSP Questions What method did the researchers use? Why was this method used? What were the IVs, the different conditions? How was data collected? What did the observers record (DVs)? Who conducted the study? Where did the study take place? What was the emergency? What apparatus was used? What materials were require? Method

9  What method did the researchers use?  Why was this method used ? Field Experiment To test helping behaviour in a real life situation

10 Method What were the variables? IVs 1. Type of victim: Lame with cane or drunk. 2. Race of victim: Black or white 3. Presence of a model 4. The position and speed of response of the model. DVs 1. The gender, race and location of everyone in the critical area 2. Time take for 1 st passenger to offer help. 3. Total number of people who helped 4. Time taken for 1 st person to offer help after the model had assisted. 5. Movement of any passenger out of the critical area 6. Spontaneous comments made by passengers

11 Method Independent Variables:  The type of victim (drunk or ill)  The race of the victim (black or white)  The presence or a model (early or late)  The number of bystanders present (varied naturally). What were the IVs: The different conditions ?

12 Method  What did the observers record (DVs)?  How was data collected? DVs - Frequency of help - Speed of help - Race of helper - Sex of helper - Movement out of the critical area - Verbal comments by bystanders DVs 1. The gender, race and location of everyone in the critical area 2. Time take for 1 st passenger to offer help. 3. Total number of people who helped 4. Time taken for 1 st person to offer help after the model had assisted. 5. Movement of any passenger out of the critical area 6. Spontaneous comments made by passengers

13 Method APPARATUS  Subway trains MATERIALS  Clothes for model & victim  Alcohol/Cane  Notebook to record data  Stopwatch to time intervals

14 Method THE LOCATION  New York subway express train  Weekdays between 11am- 3pm during 15 th April to 26 th June 1968 Where did the study take place?

15 Method THE LOCATION  The victim (drunk/blind) standing at the pole in the middle of the carriage collapsed.  He would lie there until he got help, if no-one helped the model would help him.  6-8 trials per day took place. What was the emergency?

16 Method THE EXPERIMENTERS 1.15 Columbia GS students yrs. 2. Divided into 4 teams of 2 males and 2 females 3.Males took role of victim and model 4.Females recorded the data Who conducted the study?

17 The Experimenters...  4 teams of 4 students  Each team had 2 males and 2 females OBSERVERS MODEL VICTIM

18 AMSP Questions Who was the target population? Why were these trains used? What sampling technique was used? How was this carried out? Who were the participants? Sample

19 Who was the target population?  Passengers on two different trains.  Carried out on the A and D trains of the 8 th Avenue IND in NYC.  Two trains were selected. The trains travelled through Harlem to the Bronx in New York.  The trains were chosen because they did not stop between 59 th Street and 125 th Street. This meant that for 7.5 minutes participants were a captive audience to the emergency. Why were these trains used?

20 Sample What sampling techniques was used? The participants were not formally sampled, they were observed in a public place, this means... Observations on weekdays between the hours of 11:00am to 3:00pm, during the period of 15 th April to 26 th June 1968 The mean number of people per carriage during these hours was 43. The mean number of people in the ‘critical area’ where the staged incident took place was 8. How was this carried out?

21 Sample Who were the participants?  Unsolicited participants  The 4,450 passengers who travelled on the train during the investigation periods.  45% black people  55% white people

22 AMSP Questions  Describe the train carriage and how the observers/models were organised?  Describe the procedure of the study (step- by-step), detail what happened. Try to include:  Include the different confederates involved  The conditions that participants were exposed to  The clothes that that the victim had to wear any materials they required  How long the study lasted for and how many trial were carried out Procedure

23 Describe the train carriage and how the observers/models were organised?  There were 4 teams, who members always worked together.  The female confederates observed and recorded data.  The four models were aged between 24 and 29. they wore informal clothes, although they were not dressed identically.  The make played the roles of model and victim:  4 victims, 1 in each team, were males aged were white and 1 was black. All were identically dressed in jackets, old trousers & no tie.

24 Layout Figure 1: Layout of adjacent and critical areas of subway car 

25 Procedure Confederates The four victims (one from each team) were males, aged between 26 and 35, three white and one black. All were identically dressed in jackets, trousers and no tie. The clothes that that the victim had to wear any materials they required

26 The Victims... DRUNK VICTIM On 38 trials the victim smelled of alcohol and carried a bottle of alcohol in a brown bag. CANE VICTIM On 65 trials, the victim appeared sober and carried a black cane.

27 Procedure Conditions Drunk victim condition: On 38 trials the victim smelt of alcohol and carried a brown bag. Cane victim condition: on 65 trials the victim appeared sober and carried a black cane. Early model/critical area: the model stood in the critical area and waited until passing the 4 th station to offer help (70 seconds after collapse). Late model/critical area: the model stood in the critical area and waited until passing the 6 th station (150 seconds after collapse). Early model/adjacent area: the model stood in the area adjacent to the critical area and waited until passing the 4 th station to offer help. Late model/adjacent area: the model stood in the area adjacent to the critical area and waited until passing the 6 th station to offer help.

28 Conditions  There were 4 different model conditions used across both drunk and cane conditions:  Critical Area  Early – helped 70 seconds after the collapse.  Late – helped 150 seconds after he collapse.  Adjacent Area  Early – helped after 70 seconds  Late - helped after 150 seconds

29 Procedure How long the study lasted for and how many trials?  15 th April to 26 th June 1968  103 trials  38 drunk  65 blind

30 Procedures Write a step-by-step plan of what happened during the experiment:  Start with trial one  End with final trial You may wish to include:  You may wish to draw a picture of the research setting  Prods/Prompts given by the experimenter  Recorded responses given by the learner (confederate)

31 Procedures 1. Team of 2 males and 2 females boarded the train using different doors. 2. The female confederates took seats outside the critical area and recorded data for the journey. 3. The victim stood next to the pole in the critical area. 4. As the train passed the first station the victim staggers forward and collapses. 5. Until receiving help he remains motionless on the floor looking at the ceiling. 6. If the victim received no help by the time the train was stopping, the model would help him up.

32 Factors affecting helping behaviour The TYPE of victim The RACE of the VICTIM The SPEED of helping The FREQUENCY of helping The RACE of the HELPER The impact of the presence of a MODEL

33 Procedure  As the train passed the first station, approx 70 seconds after departing, the victim collapsed. He lay on the floor until receiving help.  If the victim received no help by the time the train slowed to a stop, the model helped him to his feet.  At the stop the team got off the train and waited separately until the other passengers had left the station.  They then proceeded to another platform to board a train going in the opposite direction to repeat the experiment.  6-8 trials were run on any given day, all of which were of the same ‘victim condition.’  When the model provided assistance, he raised the victim to a sitting position and stayed with him for the remainder of the trial.

34 Data Collection: How was data gathered? What quantitative data did Piliavin record?  What qualitative data did Piliavin record? The female observers sat in the adjacent area and noted down:  The total number of passengers who helped the victim (including their race, sex and location)  The race, sex, and location of every passenger in the critical and adjacent areas.  A second observer noted down the time it took for help to be given as well as race, sex and location of every passenger in the critical and adjacent areas  Observers also recorded comments made by the passengers.

35 Findings List 8 KEY finding from the research - Include data where possible, both qualitative and quantitative

36 Findings 1. The cane victim received spontaneous help 95% of the time (62/65 trials) 2. The drunk victim received spontaneous help 50% of the time (19/38 trials) 3. 90% of the spontaneous 1 st helpers were male, even though only 60% of the people in the critical area were male 4. For all conditions, on 60% of the trials the victim received help from more than one helper.

37 Findings  100% help for cane victim  Help offered more quickly to cane victim (median 5 second) Cane Victim Drunk Victim  81% help for drunk victim  Help offered more slowly to drunk victim (median 109 second)

38 Findings  60% (48/81), when help was given this was provided by two or more helpers  Of the first helpers, 90% were males  There was a slight tendency for same-race helping, especially in the drunk condition  No diffusion of responsibility was found. In fact response times were faster with larger groups. General Findings

39 Findings 5. During the 103 trials, 34 people left the critical area but mainly in the drunk condition. 6. More spontaneous comments were made in the drunk situation 7. There was not evidence to support the diffusion of responsibility hypothesis 8. The response time were faster when there was 7 or more people present compared to when there were 3 or less.

40 Conclusions Locate research findings to support these conclusions: 1. An individual who appears ill is more likely to receive help than one who appears drunk. 2. With mixed groups of men and women, men are more likely than women to help a male victim. 3. When escape is not possible and bystanders are face-face with a victim, help is likely to be forthcoming. 4. Bystander conduct a cost-reward analysis before deciding whether or not to help a victim.

41 Other Conclusions  When in an enclosed area people are likely to offer spontaneous help to a victim  Men are more likely than women to help in an emergency  Whether people help a victim or not depends on the type (condition) and race of the victim  When in an enclosed area people tend not to diffuse their responsibility for helping others


Download ppt "SOCIAL APPROACH CORE STUDY 3 Core Study 3: Piliavin (1969) Subway Samaritan Good Samaritanism: An underground phenomenon?"

Similar presentations


Ads by Google