Background & Aim
What was the main aim of the Piliavin et al. study?
To investigate factors affecting bystander intervention in real-life emergencies.
What research method was used in the study?
Field experiment conducted in a natural setting.
Did race affect helping behavior in the study?
Mostly no, but same-race helping was slightly more common in the drunk condition.
Was informed consent obtained from participants? Why or why not?
No, because participants were unaware they were part of a study.
How does this study help us understand real-life emergency situations?
It shows that helping behavior is influenced by victim characteristics and social context rather than just group size.
What real-world event inspired the study?
The Kitty Genovese murder in 1964, where multiple witnesses failed to intervene.
Where did the study take place?
On the New York City subway between 59th Street and 125th Street.
What was the main factor that influenced whether people helped?
The victim’s condition—people were more likely to help the "ill" victim than the "drunk" victim.
Why is deception an ethical concern in this study?
Participants were tricked into believing the emergency was real, which could cause distress.
What implications does the study have for public safety policies?
Encourages public awareness campaigns to promote helping behavior and reduce hesitation in emergencies.
What psychological concept does the study investigate?
Bystander effect and helping behavior.
What were the two conditions of the victim in the experiment?
The victim was either "ill" (carrying a cane) or "drunk" (smelling of alcohol and carrying a bottle in a brown bag).
How did the presence of a model affect helping behavior?
When a model helped first, bystanders were more likely to help as well.
Did participants have the right to withdraw? Why or why not?
No, because they were unaware they were being studied and could not opt out.
How can this study be applied to workplace environments?
It highlights the importance of leadership and role models in encouraging prosocial behavior.
What theory did Piliavin challenge with his findings?
Diffusion of responsibility, which suggests people are less likely to help in larger groups.
How many trials were conducted in total?
103 trials over several months.
What percentage of people helped the "ill" victim compared to the "drunk" victim?
95% helped the ill victim, while only 50% helped the drunk victim.
What potential psychological harm could participants have experienced?
Some may have felt guilt or distress for not helping, or stress from witnessing the event.
What role does social responsibility play in helping behavior?
People are more likely to help when they feel personally responsible or when the victim appears deserving of help.
How does the study relate to the diffusion of responsibility theory?
Unlike previous studies, Piliavin found that people were more likely to help in real-life situations, contradicting the diffusion of responsibility theory.
What were the independent and dependent variables in the study?
IV: Victim’s condition (ill vs. drunk), race, presence of a model, group size.
DV: Whether participants helped, how long it took, and who helped first.
What was the average time it took for someone to help the victim?
The ill victim was helped within 5 seconds, while the drunk victim took longer (around 109 seconds on average).
How does this study compare ethically to Milgram’s obedience study?
Less ethically problematic than Milgram’s study, as there was no direct harm or coercion, but still involved deception and lack of consent.
How might modern technology (e.g., social media) influence bystander behavior today?
Social media can increase awareness and accountability, but can also lead to bystander apathy if people assume others will act first.