Slides Shared Resource

1. Piliavin, Rodin and Piliavin Subway Field Experiment 1969 2. Field Experiment <ul><li>What are the advantages and disadvantages of experiments?…
of 43
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Related Documents
  • 1. Piliavin, Rodin and Piliavin Subway Field Experiment 1969
  • 2. Field Experiment <ul><li>What are the advantages and disadvantages of experiments? </li></ul><ul><li>What do you think the advantages and disadvantages of a field experiment might be? </li></ul>
  • 3. Field Experiments <ul><li>An experiment conducted in a more natural environment (in the field). As with the laboratory experiment the IV (Independent variable) is still manipulated (changed) by the researcher. </li></ul><ul><li>Participants are often not aware they are participating in an experiment. </li></ul>
  • 4. Advantages of Field Experiments <ul><li>Less demand characteristics </li></ul><ul><li>More ecologically valid </li></ul>
  • 5. Problems with Field Experiments <ul><li>Controlling all the extraneous variables </li></ul><ul><li>Ethics </li></ul>
  • 6. Picture of Kitty Genovese
  • 7. Place of the murder
  • 8. Theories put forward after murder <ul><li>Latane and Darley did laboratory experiments which showed what may have happened in the Kitty Genovese Case. They showed that the more people present the less likely we were to help. </li></ul><ul><li>They called this effect ‘diffusion of responsibility’ </li></ul>
  • 9. Evidence for Diffusion of Responsibility <ul><li>Students were put into individual cubicles to debate and told that there were different numbers of other students in other cubicles whom they would debate with via a microphone. </li></ul><ul><li>Suddenly a fake member of the group was hear to groan and gasp for help as if having a seizure. </li></ul>
  • 10. <ul><li>Results: </li></ul><ul><li>When they believed they were the only ones present 85% helped within 60 seconds </li></ul><ul><li>When they thought there were three people present only 62% helped within 60 seconds </li></ul><ul><li>When they thought four or more were present only 31% helped within 60 seconds </li></ul>
  • 11. <ul><li>Another theory put forward was that of ‘ pluralistic ignorance ’. When someone might need help we look around us for clues as to the importance of the event. If no one else is acting then we are less likely to act. </li></ul><ul><li>Bateson said that we are more likely to help if we empathise (can see from the other person’s viewpoint) identify with the victim – he called this the ‘empathy altruism model’. </li></ul>
  • 12. Weaknesses of current theories <ul><li>Most current theories lacked scientific support. The scientific research that had been carried was in the laboratory – lacking ecological validity. </li></ul><ul><li>Piliavin wanted to test the theories in a real environment so that her findings would be more ecologically valid. </li></ul>
  • 15. Jane Piliavin
  • 16. Victims were all dressed identically in bomber jacket below
  • 17. <ul><li>Why do you think Piliavin dressed all her victims identically? </li></ul><ul><li>To reduce clothing preference as an extraneous variable! </li></ul>
  • 18. Layout of the Subway Experiment
  • 19. Field Experiments <ul><li>Give two advantages and two disadvantages of a field experiment? </li></ul>
  • 20. <ul><li>Advantages: </li></ul><ul><li>More ecologically valid </li></ul><ul><li>Less demand characteristics </li></ul><ul><li>Disadvantages </li></ul><ul><li>Less reliable as difficult to control all the variables </li></ul><ul><li>More expensive </li></ul><ul><li>Less ethical as people do not know they are being experimented on </li></ul>
  • 21. What did the experimenters mean by: <ul><li>The critical area </li></ul><ul><li>The adjacent area </li></ul>
  • 22. <ul><li>Critical area was area in which confederate collapsed </li></ul><ul><li>Adjacent area was area further away from the victim, at the other end of the carriage, in which the observers stood </li></ul>
  • 23. Dependent Variables <ul><li>List at least 6 of the dependent variables that Piliavin was measuring. </li></ul>
  • 24. Dependent Variables <ul><li>Race of helper </li></ul><ul><li>Which victim was helped most </li></ul><ul><li>Speed of helping </li></ul><ul><li>How many people helped </li></ul><ul><li>Gender of helper </li></ul><ul><li>Whether participants tried to move away </li></ul><ul><li>What was being said </li></ul>
  • 25. Method of data collection <ul><li>What method of data collection did Piliavin use? </li></ul><ul><li>What are the problems with this method? </li></ul>
  • 26. Observation Methods of Collecting Data <ul><li>Piliavin used observation methods to collect the data. </li></ul>
  • 27. Observations and recording data <ul><li>Advantages </li></ul><ul><li>Behaviour is more naturalistic so less demand characteristics </li></ul><ul><li>Is higher in ecologically validity (more real) </li></ul><ul><li>Disadvantages </li></ul><ul><li>May be difficult to record so much information at any one time and may miss some data </li></ul><ul><li>Difficult to operationalise variables in observations (what actually constitutes helping?) </li></ul><ul><li>May misinterpret some behaviours and inter-rater reliability is sometimes difficult </li></ul><ul><li>Easy to gather quantitative data but not qualitative data </li></ul><ul><li>Behaviour may occur that you had not expected or planned for </li></ul><ul><li>Less ethical </li></ul>
  • 28. Independent Variables <ul><li>What were the independent variables that Piliavin was changing or manipulating? </li></ul>
  • 29. Independent Variables <ul><li>Race of the victim (black or white) </li></ul><ul><li>Type of victim (drunk or ill) </li></ul>
  • 30. Results <ul><li>Cane victim received help in 62 of 65 trials </li></ul><ul><li>Drunk victim received help in 19 of 38 trials </li></ul><ul><li>90% of those who helped were men </li></ul><ul><li>Race of victim and helper did not have an effect except in drunk condition </li></ul><ul><li>Model was hardly used as helping was so high </li></ul><ul><li>Most people who did not help (women) made comments about their size or physical strength as a reason for moving away </li></ul>
  • 31. Piliavin’s Cost Rewards Model of Helping Behaviour <ul><li>From the research results Piliavin proposed a new model to explain helping behaviour based on cost versus rewards. </li></ul>
  • 32. Cost Benefits Model <ul><li>We are more likely to carry out an action that gives us the most benefit and the least costs. </li></ul><ul><li>Costs of helping include: effort, disgust, embarrassment and cost of not helping include self blame and opinion of others thinking badly of us. </li></ul><ul><li>Benefits of helping include self praise and praise of others. </li></ul>
  • 33. The Model <ul><li>Why did Piliavin use a model? </li></ul><ul><li>To use if no one helped to see if this prompted others to then help </li></ul><ul><li>Give two examples of the conditions in how the model would be used. </li></ul><ul><li>Critical area early and critical area late! </li></ul><ul><li>Why was the model not really needed? </li></ul><ul><li>The helping was much higher than anticipated </li></ul>
  • 34. Sample <ul><li>Do you think that you can generalise from the sample? </li></ul><ul><li>Give reasons for your answers! </li></ul>
  • 35. Generalisability <ul><li>Piliavin used a large sample (over 4,000) so this makes the data good for Generalisability. </li></ul><ul><li>However you cannot be sure you could generalise the results to another place or setting </li></ul>
  • 36. Problems with the setting <ul><li>Why do you think the setting may restrict generalisability? </li></ul>
  • 37. <ul><li>People were unable to walk away </li></ul><ul><li>Outside emergency help more difficult to depend on/obtain quickly </li></ul><ul><li>People were more likely to notice the emergency because of the confined space </li></ul>
  • 38. Support for previous research <ul><li>Did the Piliavin study give support for the idea of ‘diffusion of responsibility? </li></ul><ul><li>No diffusion of responsibility was shown which could be because people were face to face with the victim and could not leave the area or ignore the problem as easily as they might in other circumstances </li></ul>
  • 39. Criticisms of the Study <ul><li>What other criticisms of the study could you make? </li></ul>
  • 40. Ethics <ul><li>What ethical guidelines did Piliavin break? </li></ul><ul><li>How could these have been overcome? </li></ul>
  • 41. Usefulness of the study <ul><li>What could you say that the study offers our understanding of human behaviour? </li></ul>
  • 42. Usefulness of Study <ul><li>Shows that diffusion of responsibility does not necessarily occur. </li></ul><ul><li>Shows that helping behaviour is very complex with wide range of variables that may affect it </li></ul><ul><li>Shows that costs/rewards factors affect helping – maybe there should be more discussion in society about the cost / rewards problems and helping (change laws that people feel may affect them if they do help e.g.: you can be sued!) ! </li></ul>
  • 43. Usefulness conclusions <ul><li>Piliavin said that under real life conditions the average person – even in a group – will act when he clearly sees that another human being is in trouble! </li></ul>
  • We Need Your Support
    Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

    Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

    No, Thanks