Piliavin Test

Identify two practical or methodological problems with conducting these observations.

1) Mere presence of the observers might have changed the course of the events observed. The inactivity of some potential helpers in the adjacent area in the trials may have been because of the inactivity of the two observers. 2) Observers may have become over involved in the setting making it difficult for them to be objective about their observations, since the study ran for two months.

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

1) The positioning of people in the carriages could not be controlled for, and this is just one such example of an uncontrolled aspect. 2) Another uncontrolled aspect included the possibility that the observers could have gotten over-involved. 3) People may have not noticed the incident or may have ignored it (e.g. if they were reading).

Describe one advantage and one disadvantage of conducting field studies and relate them to this study.

Advantage: they take place in a realistic setting, meaning it has ecological validity. In relation to the Piliavin study, the setting was a subway train, which is not artificial since traveling on trains is a real situation that many people find themselves in daily. Also, the event could easily happen, so the study has ecological validity. Disadvantage: The positioning of people in the carriages could not be controlled for, and this is just one such example of an uncontrolled aspect. Another uncontrolled aspect included the possibility that the observers could have gotten over-involved.

According to the model of response to emergencies proposed by Piliavin, Rodin and Piliavin, what are the two factors that influence a person's decision to help or not?

Costs versus the benefits of helping. We will carry out the action that we assess as giving us the greatest benefit and least cost.

Identify one of the model conditions.

Critical area condition: the model stood in the critical area and helped after 70 seconds.

Why did it not occur in Piliavin, Rodin and Piliavin's study on "subway Samaritans"?

Diffusion of responsibility did not occur in Piliavin's study because the participants were face to face with the victim and couldn't escape from the situation since they were on a train.

What is meant by the term diffusion of responsibility?

Diffusion of responsibility is a term referring to the finding that as the number of bystanders increases, the likelihood that any individual will help decreases. In other words, it is a reduction of perception of personal responsibility in proportion to the number of others present.

What did the study show us about diffusion of responsibility?

In Piliavin's study, the findings challenged those of the laboratory research since the fuller the carriage the more likely help was to be offered, meaning there was no diffusion of responsibility. It was concluded that there is no relationship between size of group and likelihood of helping. The small correlation between group size and helping behavior is positive rather than negative. Therefore, there is no support for diffusion of responsibility.

Outline one conclusion that was drawn from the model conditions.

One conclusion drawn from the model conditions was that the longer an incident goes on, the less likely people are to help (even if help is modeled), the more likely people are to leave the area, and the more likely they are to discuss the incident.

Outline one limitation of the quantitative data in this study.

One limitation of the quantitative data recorded was that it didn't take into account the age of the bystanders, for example, if they were either too young or too elderly to help. Quantitative data also didn't measure how far away the helpers were, which needs to be considered when discussing their speed.

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

One quantitative measure recorded by the observers was the number of bystanders that were present. Another quantitative measure was the amount of people who helped the victim and the speed at which it took people to help the victim.

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

Strength: Allowed the researchers to get the best perspective of the study rather than only being able to use comments from bystanders. Weakness: Since the observers could not help the model, it may have caused others to follow and not step in.

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

The drunk was helped less because the costs of helping are higher in that he might get angry, over-friendly or may even vomit. The costs of not helping are lower; we may feel less guilt for not helping in that we believe he has at least partially put himself in the position that he is in.

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

The only ethical guideline upheld was confidentiality- participants were kept anonymous and could not be identified based on the information provided from the study.

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

The participants were deceiving as they did not know they were part of the experiment and also thought the victim was actually in danger.

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

The participants were in a closed space and could not escape the situation.