Docstoc

Piliavin_ Rodin _ Piliavin _1969_

Document Sample
Piliavin_ Rodin _ Piliavin _1969_ Powered By Docstoc
					Piliavin, Rodin &
Piliavin (1969)
        JMR



Good
Samaritanism: an
underground
phenomenon?
  Piliavin, Rodin & Piliavin (1969)   1
The Kitty Genovese
Murder (1964)
   Kitty Genovese murdered in New
    York in „60s - many people heard
    her screams but nobody called the
    police until it was too late
   Why no “Good Samaritan”? (Luke
    10: 25-37)
   ALTRUISM – high-cost & low-cost



      Piliavin, Rodin & Piliavin (1969)   2
             Darley and Latane (1968)
   Laboratory experiment
   P hears someone in another room (really a
    tape recording) having an epileptic fit.
   When P thought he was the only one listening
    he was MORE likely to help then when he
    believed there were other listeners in nearby
    rooms.
   DIFFUSION OF RESPONSIBILITY

               Problem: these experiments lack
                ecological validity (mundane realism)
                    Piliavin, Rodin & Piliavin (1969)   3
The Field Experiment
             To conduct an experiment that
              was more true to life, Piliavin
              et al used express trains of the
              New York 5th Avenue Subway
              (Harlem  Bronx)
             (Can New Yorkers be
              generalised to other people?
              Can subways be generalised
              to other places?)


   Piliavin, Rodin & Piliavin (1969)         4
            Procedure
   VICTIM (age 26-35) collapses on train during
    non-stop 7½-minute journey, 11 a.m. - 3 p.m.
    weekday - between 59th Street & 125th Street
    stations of 8th Avenue branch of New York
    subway.
   4,450 “unsolicited participants”
    (OPPORTUNITY SAMPLE) witness event
    (45% black, 55% white, mean 45 on each
    train and 8.5 in “critical area”)
                  Piliavin, Rodin & Piliavin (1969)   5
              Procedure (cont’d)
   Helped (i) after a short while or (ii) after a number
    of minutes, by 24-29 yr old bystander (the
    MODEL).
   Victim is either a black or white
   In one condition, victim is acting drunk (smells of
    liquor, carries liquor bottle in brown paper bag)
   In other condition, victim acts sober, but unsteady,
    and carried a black cane
   Two female observers record what happens


                     Piliavin, Rodin & Piliavin (1969)      6
Plan of Train
  Adjacent Area                         Critical Area




    Piliavin, Rodin & Piliavin (1969)                   7
Independent Variables
   Drunk or cane
   Black or White
   Early, Late or No model
   Model initially sitting in the critical
    area or adjacent area
   The number of people on the train



       Piliavin, Rodin & Piliavin (1969)      8
Dependent Variables
   Time taken to help.
   Race of the helper.
   % of trials in which passengers
    (subjects) left the critical area
   The number of comments made




       Piliavin, Rodin & Piliavin (1969)   9
Results
   1. Cane victim (any race) helped MORE
    OFTEN and SOONER than drunk victim
    (cane, 100% help, av.5secs; drunk 82%
    help, av.109secs).
   2. Tendency for same-race help in drunk
    condition.
   3. Significantly more men helped than
    women
   4.The more people on the train the
    greater chance of somebody helping.
   (AGAINST diffusion of responsibility)
   5. Initial position of model had no effect
    on helping behaviour.

        Piliavin, Rodin & Piliavin (1969)    10
Results (cont’d)
   6. As time went by: more comments and
    more people left the critical area.
   7. EARLY MODEL more likely to
    encourage help than LATER MODEL
   8. When SPONTANEOUS help was
    given, victim received it from 2 or more
    helpers 81% of time – observers had
    difficulty recording times
   9.Once one person helped, “drunk”
    condition did not affect others helping
   10. Few “drunk” trials carried out (35
    compared to 68 “cane” trials) – models
    didn‟t like acting drunk!
       Piliavin, Rodin & Piliavin (1969)   11
Comments by Female
Passengers
   “It‟s for men to help him”
   “I wish I could help him – I‟m not
    strong enough”
    “I never saw this kind of thing
    before – I don‟t know where to
    look”
   "You feel so bad that you don't
    know what to do."

       Piliavin, Rodin & Piliavin (1969)   12
Conclusions
   Piliavin suggests a COST:REWARD
    model of EMOTIONAL AROUSAL
   1. empathy
   2. being close to the emergency
   3. the length of time the emergency
    continues)
   People try to REDUCE arousal
   1. by helping
   2. going to get help
   3. leaving the scene
   4. believing victim does not deserve help
       Piliavin, Rodin & Piliavin (1969)   13
Cognitive Appraisal
   Costs/Rewards of helping or not
    helping:
   cost of helping might be
    embarrassment or physical harm
   cost of not helping might be guilt or
    blame from others
   rewards of helping might be praise
   rewards of not helping would be
    getting on with one's own business

       Piliavin, Rodin & Piliavin (1969)   14
Think About It
   Are the results explained by this
    theory?
   Is this study TIME-LOCKED?
    What‟s changed since 1969?
   Where else could this research be
    carried out?
   What other method could be used?


       Piliavin, Rodin & Piliavin (1969)   15