1. Piliavin-Abridged

2. Background Kitty Genovese-38 witnesses-bystander effect
Diffusion of responsibility

3. Aim To test diffusion of responsibility in real life setting
To look at effect of type of victim and race of victim
To look at effects of modeling
To examine relationship between group size, and frequency or latency

4. Methodology
Field Experiment, with some naturalistic observation

5. Variables IV DV Type of victim (Cane or drunk)
Race of victim (black and white)
Model conditions DV
Frequency of helping, speed of helping, race of helper, sex of helper

6. Participants
4450 men and women travelling between 11 am and 3 pm. (naïve)
45% black and 55% white
Opportunity Sample

7. Procedure 1. Four members position themselves on train
2. 70 seconds after train leave, victim staggers forward, collapses, and remains on floor
3. If no one helps, model intervenes 4 conditions
Same 70
Same 150
Diff 70
Diff 150
4. Observer 1 records race, sex, and location of passengers, total number of people and helpers. Observer 2 records same for adjacent area, and time taken. Both record comments
5. If no one helps, model helps victim to feet. Repeat going in opposite direction. 6-8 trials each day.

8. Data
Quantitative: demographics, frequency, etc.
Qualitative: Comments

9. Apparatus (Scratch out Data Analysis)
Subway train (13 seats)
Eisenhauer Jackets and old slacks
Cane, bottle in paper bag
Response categories for observer

10. Main Findings Study this stuff, a bunch
Cane-62 of 65 without model, 5 seconds
Drunk-19 of 38, 109 seconds
60% two, three or more (first helper crucial)
90% of helpers were male
Drunk had same race. Ill not an effect

11. Conclusions Ill gets more help than drunk Men more likely to help
Same race likely, especially when drunk
No strong relationship between number and speed
The longer it goes, less effect of model, and increased likelihood that people leave area

12. Strengths Realistic setting Limited demand characteristics Usefulness
High control

13. Weaknesses Generalizability Situational variables
Ethical guidelines broken

14. Ecological Validity
High, real life situation

15. Ethics D – Nope R – Nope D – Not debriefed I - Nope C - Yes
H – Limited

16. Usefulness
Debatable- Contributes quite a bit to discussion

17. Relationship to approach
Diffusion of responsibility
Cost-reward matrix (helping, not helping)
Arousal as unpleasant feeling
Needs to be reduced
Leave area, help, get help, conclude don’t deserve it

18. Relationship to issues
Generalisations
Ecological Validity
Usefulness
Snapshot study