Version 1

Lesson Element

Piliavin et al (1969) Subway Samaritan

Instructions and answers for teachers

These instructions cover the student activity section which begins on page 1 6 and which consists of six activity sheets. This lesson element supports OCR A Level Psychology.

When distributing the activity section to the students either as a printed copy or as a Word file you will need to remove the teacher instructions section.

Mapping to the specification Define key terminology

Describe the background to the study

Describe and evaluate the research conducted by Piliavin et al

General teacher guidance

IntroductionPrevious research had demonstrated that ‘diffusion of responsibility’ could be the reason why people choose not to help in an emergency situation - a theory proposed by Darley and Latané in an effort to explain the murder of Kitty Genovese. However, this research had been conducted in a laboratory setting, therefore Piliavin et al. aimed to investigate what factors affect helping in a real-life, natural environment.

Piliavin et al. designed a field experiment, using covert observation to test several variables and their effect on helping behaviour. These included the responsibility of the victim (drunk/cane,) race of the victim, effect of modelling and effect of group size. They conducted the study on the New York subway, over several months, staging an accident in which a passenger (actor) collapsed. Results did not find evidence for diffusion of responsibility, but rather that people were making a rational decision to help based on the cost vs. reward heuristic.

1

Version 1

Version 1

There are seven possible student activities suggested in this lesson element, each with worksheets. The worksheets are designed to be used after the teacher has given some background and outlined Piliavin et al. (1969) study. Each worksheet contains an activity to reinforce and check learning.

Teacher preparationStudents should be given an introduction to the topic, by considering the background to the Piliavin et al. study.

Students should then be introduced to Piliavin et al’s Arousal: Cost vs. Reward model. You will need access to an OCR text book and/or OCR’s Guide to Core Studies 2 (pages 3-7) to demonstrate helping behaviour in the study and the concluding Arousal: Cost vs. Reward model.

Students can then work in pairs/small groups to complete the activities on the study; procedure, results and evaluation.

Task instructionsA copy of all six worksheets should be printed for each student.

For reference, the teacher should have a textbook/presentation/original articles/core study guide when students are completing these activities.

Task 1: BackgroundThe specification states that learners must know how each core study relates to the area of psychology it is placed within. In this case, the Piliavin et al. core study relates to Social Psychology. The below activities aim to provide students with an understanding to the background of Piliavin et al.’s study.

Worksheet 1 is to be accompanied with the NewYorker article. Ask students to read the article and watch the rolling show about Kitty Genovese and answer questions regarding the incident: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/03/10/a-call-for-help

1. What makes someone help/choose not to?

2. What reasons might they have?

3. How would you react in this situation? Why?

To follow, students could then watch the following clip which gives clear explanation of bystander apathy, and diffusion of responsibility, this will help them to understand the background to the study. Students can additionally use the information from the text book on Darley and Latané (1968), in order to add further detail to their mind map below. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4S1LLrSzVE

2

Version 1

Then model the information that students should have

3

Piliavin et al. note in their study that social psychologists became particularly interested in the behaviour of bystanders following the case of the brutal murder of Kitty Genovese in New York in 1964. The murder attracted

interest from psychologists because according the the press, not one person out of the 40 people who witnessed the attack lasting over half an hour, tried to help or

contacted the police.

The therefore planned to investigate helping behaviour

using a field experiment where they could observe behaviour as

it is in the real world.

Piliavin et al believed that it was the situation that determined behavious, whereas

previous research believe dit wasa person's personality that decides whether someone

helps or not

Piliavin et al wanted to see if altruism

exists...

The early laboratory experiments into bystander apathy consisted of candid camera/trigger happy

style scenarious where people were placed in situations such as a smoke filled room to

invesitgate if people would sound the alarm or not. (e.g. Latane and Darley 1968).

Previous research had been conducted in the laboratory, and therefore cannot generalise to real life lack ecological validity

and external validity.

Why did Piliavin et al conduct this research - what reasons can you find?

Version 1

Task 2: Aims of the studyWorksheet 2 requires students to apply their knowledge of the aims within Piliavin et al study. The below table provides the four aims which the study had and the activity is for the students to summarise the prediction/s for each aim. Students should be given 5-10 minutes to complete this activity.

Key terminology

Aim Information and predictions

Responsibility of the victim

The researchers predicted that a person who was drink (and therefore responsible for their condition) would receive less help than someone who was ill, (and therefore not responsible for their need for help.) It was suggested that this would be due to the possible cost of helping someone whose behaviour was unpredictable.

Race of the victim The race of the victim was predicted to affect the rate of helping. It was predicted that more help would be given to a person of the same race as the bystander: same race helping. This prediction was based on previous findings concerning similarity and liking.

Effect of modelling

Previous research had suggested that seeing another person help would lead others in that situation to behave in a similar way.

Effect of size of group

Examined the relationship between group size and helping response, specifically to test the diffusion of responsibility found in earlier studies: the idea that the more people, the less help given.

Task 3: Features of the studyWorksheet 3 follows on to activities which focus on the description of the study. Students should use the structured work sheets to collect information on the method, procedure and results. Additionally, students should use information from the text book to assist with these activities.

4

Independent Variables: Dependent Variables: The Location:

The Confederates:

Victim and Model Conditions:The Emergency

The Participants: Piliavin et al.Methodology

Version 1

Information which could be used to complete this activity: The study was carried out on the A and D trains of the 8 Avenue IND in New York City.

These were selected because they make no stops- so for 7.5 minutes there was a captive audience.

In total, 103 trials of the experiment were conducted.

The participants were approx. 4450 men and women who used these trains on weekdays between 11am and 3pm, between the 15 April and 26 June, 1968.

They were unsolicited participants.

Racial composition of the train was 45% black and 55% white.

Mean number of people in each carriage was 43.

Mean number of people in the critical area was 8.

On each trial a team of 4 confederates, 2 males and 2 females, acted out an emergency.

There were 4 teams of 4.

The female confederates always observed and recorded data, while the males played the roles of model and victim.

The victims were all male, aged between 26-35yrs. Three were white and one was black.

All were identically dressed in jackets, old trousers and no tie.

The four models were aged between 24 and 29. They wore informal clothes and were not dressed identically.

As the train passed the first station, approximately 70 seconds after departing, the victim staggered forward and collapsed. He lay on the floor looking at the ceiling until he received help.

If he received no help by the time the train slowed to a stop- the model helped him to his feet.

At the stop, the team got off and waited separately until all passengers had left the platform- they then processed to another platform to wait for the train heading in the opposite direction, to repeat the experiment.

When the model provided assistance, he raised the victim to a sitting position and stayed with him for the remainder of the trial. An equal number of no-model conditions were randomly assigned to each team.

Drunk victim condition: on 38 trials the victims smelt of alcohol and carried a black cane

5

Version 1

Cane victim condition: on 65 trials the victim appeared sober and carried a black cane.

The dependent variable was helping, of which various measures were taken:

Time taken for the first passenger to offer help.

The total number of passengers who helped.

The gender, race and location of every helper.

The time taken for the first passenger to offer help after the model had assisted.

Several other measures were also taken:

Movement of any passengers out of the critical area.

The gender, race and location of every passenger in the critical area.

Spontaneous comments made by passengers.

Critical area - early: the model would stand in the critical area and wait until passing the fourth station before he helped the victim (approximately 70 seconds after the collapse).

Critical area - late: the model would stand in the critical area and wait until passing the sixth station before he helped the victim (approximately 150 seconds after the collapse).

Adjacent area - early: the model would stand in the adjacent area and waited until passing the fourth station before he helped the victim.

Adjacent area - late: the model would stand in the adjacent area and waited until passing the sixth station before he helped the victim.

When the model intervened, he helped the victim to a sitting position and stayed with him for the remainder of the trial.

6

Version 1

Now annotate the Subway diagram with the details of what happened in each condition area of the carriage:

7

What happens in the adjacent area? What happens in the critical area?

Describe the victim…Describe the observers…

Version 1

Critical area - early: the model would stand in the critical area and wait until passing the fourth station before he helped the victim (approximately 70 seconds after the collapse).

Critical area – late: the model would stand in the critical area and wait until passing the sixth station before he helped the victim (approximately 150 seconds after the collapse).

Adjacent area – early: the model would stand in the adjacent area and wait until passing the fourth station before he helped the victim.

Adjacent area – late: the model would stand in the adjacent area and wait until passing the sixth station before he helped the victim.

When the model intervened, he helped the victim to a sitting position and stayed with him for the remainder of the trial.

From: Piliavin, I.M., Rodin, J.A. & Piliavin, J. (1969) Good Samaritanism: An underground phenomenon? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 13, 289-99.

Task 4: ResultsWorksheet 4 requires students to apply the results found in the study to each aim. A table of results is provided to help students complete this activity.

Table 1 provides the percentage of trials in which help was given by race and condition of victim, and total number of trials in each condition.

Table 1

Trials White victims Black victims

Cane Drunk Cane Drunk

No model 100% 100% 11% 73%

Number of trials run 54 11 8 11

Model trials 100% 77% - 67%

Number of trials run 3 13 0 3

Total number of trials 57 24 8 14

Percentage of trials in which help was given by race and condition of victim, and total number of trials in each condition.

8

Version 1

Aim Finding

Responsibility of the victim An individual who appeared to be ill received more help than one who appeared to be drunk- even when the immediate help needed was of the same kind! Cane victim 95% spontaneous help compared to 50% for the drunk victim! This pattern was the same for black and white victims.

Race of the victim There was some tendency for same-race helping, with it being more frequent; this was increased when the victim was ‘ill’ in comparison to being ‘drunk.’

Effect of modelling The longer the emergency continued without help being offered the less impact a model had on the helping behaviour of observers, the more likely it was that individuals left the immediate area to avoid the situation, the more likely it was that observers discussed the incident and its implications for their behaviour.

Effect of size of group No strong relationship between the number of bystanders and speed of helping; the expected increased diffusion of responsibility with a greater number of bystanders was not obtained for groups of these sizes.

Task 5: Findings and conclusionsWorksheet 5 will engage with the students and encourage them to make conclusions on the findings from the Piliavin et al study. In the activity students will be given the findings from the study and will be tasked to make as many conclusions as they can about the Arousal: Cost vs. Reward model.

Results/Findings

Helping behaviour was very high and much higher than earlier laboratory studies. Therefore, it was not possible to investigate the effects of the model’s helping because on the majority of trials the victims were helped before the model acted.

The cane victim received spontaneous help on 62 out of the 65 trials, and the drunk victim received spontaneous help on 19 out of 38 trials.

9

Version 1

On 60% of the 81 trials where spontaneous help was given, more than one person offered help. Once on person had started to help, there were no differences for different victim conditions (black/white, cane/drunk) on the number of extra helpers that appeared. The race of the victims made no significant different to helping behaviour, but there was a slight tendency for same race helping in the drunken condition.

It was found that 90% of helpers were male. Although there were more men present, this percentage was statistically significant.

It was also found that 64% of the helpers were white; this was what would be expected based on the racial distribution of the carriage.

Diffusion of responsibility was not evident. The diffusion of responsibility hypothesis predicts that helping behaviour would decrease as the number of bystanders increases. In fact the field experiment found that the quickest help came from the largest groups. However, in the earlier laboratory experiments there was only one participant and the other bystanders were confederates.

Nobody left the carriage during the incident (mainly because the train was moving); on 21 of the 103 trials a total of 34 people left the critical area, particularly when the victim appeared to be drunk.

More comments were obtained on drunk than cane trials and most of these were obtained when no one helped until after 70 seconds; this could be due to the discomfort passengers felt in sitting inactive in the presence of the victim, perhaps hoping that others would confirm that inaction was appropriate.

The following comments came from women 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”.

Conclusions

Piliavin et al. developed a model to explain their results called the Arousal: Cost vs. Reward model.

They argue that firstly, observation of an emergency situation creates an emotional arousal in bystanders. This arousal may be perceived as fear, disgust or sympathy, depending on aspects of the situation.

This state of arousal can be increased by a number of factors including:

1. empathy with the victim (i.e. whether you can perceive yourself in the victims situation)

2. being close to the emergency

3. the length of time the emergency continues for.

10

Version 1

This state of arousal can be reduced by a number of factors including:

1. helping

2. seeking help from another source

3. leaving the scene

4. deciding the person doesn’t need or deserve help.

Therefore according to this model we are motivated to help people not by altruism (acting in the interest of others) but as a way of reducing unpleasant feelings of arousal.

Piliavin et al. go on to argue that the chosen response depends on a cost-reward analysis by the individual.

These include:

1. costs of helping, such as effort, embarrassment and possible physical harm

2. cost of not helping, such as self-blame and perceived censure from others

3. rewards of helping, such as praise from self, onlookers and the victim

4. rewards of not helping, such as getting on with one’s own business and not incurring the possible costs of helping.

Task 6: Evaluating the studyThe specification states that students should now the methodological issues within the core studies. Using the white board in the room get the class to identify as many methodological issues as they can.

Whiteboards: Identify as many evaluation issues as you can.

11

Evaluation of Piliavin

Version 1

Worksheet 6 requires the students to evaluate the Piliavin et al study.

PointExplain (how and why this is a strength/ limitation? Use key terminology.)

Example (give a specific example from the study that relates to the point.)

Field Experiment A weakness of conducting a Field experiment is the lack of control over variables.

A strength of conducting a field experiment it takes place in a natural environment.

Field Experiment

Sample A strength of the sample is that it was fairly large This is a strength as it means that the study has external validity.

However, the study is

ethnocentric - This is a limitation because it means that we cannot generalise from the sample due to cultural bias- the sample is unrepresentative…

Sample

Ethics No physical harm was actually caused to anyone This is a strength as it means that individual rights and the BPS code of ethics were upheld.

Lack of consent, or right to withdraw.

Psychological distress to participants.

Ethics

Qualitative data Rich in detail, helps to develop insight into factors that cause certain behaviours.

Subjective - open to interpretation which can reduce internal reliability and validity, due to possibility of researcher bias.

12

Version 1

PointExplain (how and why this is a strength/ limitation? Use key terminology.)

Example (give a specific example from the study that relates to the point.)

Quantitative data Objective - minimal bias and therefore high internal reliability and validity. Easy to analyse differences between different groups.

A limitation of this type of data is that it can be reductionist - it tell us there is a difference, but gives no insight into why.

Covert Observation A strength is that it generates research with high ecological validity - as participants are unaware they are being observed, we tend to observe natural behaviour.

However, this type of observation is unethical, as it does not gain informed consent, removes the right to withdraw and can involve deception.

13

Version 1

Follow on questions (teacher answers)

Following on from the above activities here are some key questions for students to answer. Have the students discuss their answers with their peers. Allow students 15 – 20 minutes to answer the below questions.

1. Outline the aim of the study by Piliavin et al.

The aim of the study was to investigate the effect of several variables on helping behaviour using express trains on the New York Eight Avenue Independent Subway as a ‘laboratory on wheels’.

The factors they were interested included:

a) the type of victim (drunk or ill)b) the race of the victim (black or white)c) effect of modellingd) effect of group size.

2. Identify the IV’s.

The independent variables in this study were:

a) the type of victim (drunk or ill)b) the race of the victim (black or white)c) effect of modellingd) effect of group size.

3. Identify the DV’s in this study.

The dependent variable was helping, of which various measures were taken:

a) time taken for the 1st passenger to offer helpb) the total number of passengers who helpedc) the gender, race and location of every helperd) The time taken for the first passenger to offer help after the model had assisted.e) Several other measures were also taken:

i. movement of any passengers out of the critical areaii. the gender, race and location of every passenger in the critical areaiii. spontaneous comments made by passengers.

4. Suggest one strength of the sample used in this study.

A strength of the sample is that it is fairly big and therefore would be representative of people who used the subway in NYC, e.g. 4450 participants were estimated to have been involved.

14

Version 1

5. Outline one strength of gathering quantitative data.

Objective - minimal bias and therefore high internal reliability and validity. Easy to analyse differences between different groups.

6. Outline one strength of a field experiment.

A strength of a field experiment is that the research is conducted in a natural environment and therefore has high ecological validity, for example…..

7. Outline one weakness of a field experiment.

A weakness of a field experiment is that there is a lack of control over extraneous variables due to the natural setting, which can cause a lack of internal reliability and internal validity. For example….

8. Describe two ethical issues within this study.

One ethical issue is the lack of informed consent within this study - participants were not aware that they were involved in an experiment.

Another ethical issue in Piliavin et al’s study is that the participants could not be debriefed at the end of the experiment. Thus, not allowing the participants to know that they were involved in an experiment and that all incidences that occurred on that Subway journey were controlled.

15

We’d like to know your view on the resources we produce. By clicking on ‘Like’ or ‘Dislike’ you can help us to ensure that our resources work for you. When the email template pops up please add additional comments if you wish and then just click ‘Send’. Thank you.

Whether you already offer OCR qualifications, are new to OCR, or are considering switching from your current provider/awarding organisation, you can request more information by completing the Expression of Interest form which can be found here: www.ocr.org.uk/expression-of-interest

www.ocr.org.uk/i-want-to/find-resources/

OCR Resources: the small printOCR’s resources are provided to support the delivery of OCR qualifications, but in no way constitute an endorsed teaching method that is required by the Board, and the decision to

use them lies with the individual teacher. Whilst every effort is made to ensure the accuracy of the content, OCR cannot be held responsible for any errors or omissions within

these resources.

© OCR 2016 - This resource may be freely copied and distributed, as long as the OCR logo and this message remain intact and OCR is acknowledged as the originator of this

work.OCR acknowledges the use of the following content: Piliavin, I. M., Rodin, J., and Piliavin, J. A. (1969), Good Samaritanism: An underground phenomenon? Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 13, (4) 289–299, Darley, J. M., and Latané, B. (1968). Bystander intervention in emergencies: Diffusion of responsibility. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 8, 377-383.

Please get in touch if you want to discuss the accessibility of resources we offer to support delivery of our qualifications: resources.feedback@ocr.org.uk

This formative assessment resource has been produced as part of our free A Level teaching and learning support package. All the GCE teaching and learning resources, including delivery guides, topic exploration packs, lesson elements and more are available on the qualification webpages.

A Level Psychology .

Version 1

Student Activity

A Level Core Study: Piliavin et al (1970)

Area: Social Psychology

Key Theme: Helping behaviour

Worksheet 1 - BackgroundRead the article from the New Yorker Magazine on the murder of Kitty Genovese, and watch the rolling show, and note down answers to the following questions:

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/03/10/a-call-for-help

1. What makes someone help/ choose not to?

2. What reasons might they have?

3. How would you react in this situation? Why?

16

Version 1

Now using the information from the YouTube video you have just watched and the Darley and Latané study try and complete the below mind map.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4S1LLrSzVE

Be able to describe the context of the study.

17

Why did Piliavin et al conduct this research - what reasons can you find?

Version 1

Worksheet 2: Aims of the study

There were four aims to Pilivian et al’s study. What did they predict would happen for each aim?

Aim Information and predictions

Responsibility of the victim

Race of victim

Effect of modelling

Effect of size of group

18

Version 1

Worksheet 3: Features of the studyUsing the below table fill out the appropriate information for the Piliavin et al. study.

19

Independent Variables: Dependent Variables: The Location:

The Confederates:

Victim and Model Conditions:The Emergency:

The Participants:

Piliavin et al.Methodology

Version 1

Version 1

Now annotate the Subway diagram with the details of what happened in each condition area of the carriage.

20

What happens in the adjacent area? What happens in the critical area?

Describe the victim…Describe the observers…

Version 1

Worksheet 4Using the information from the findings table, try to summarise the results of the Piliavin et al. study.

Table 1

Trials White victims Black victims

Cane Drunk Cane Drunk

No model 100% 100% 100% 73%

Number of trials run 54 11 8 11

Model trials 100% 77 - 67%

Number of trials run 3 13 0 3

Total number of trials 57 24 8 14

Percentage of trials in which help was given by race and condition of victim, and total number of trials in each condition.

Aim/IV Finding

Responsibility of the victim

Race of the victim

Effect of modelling

Effect of size of group

21

Version 1

Worksheet 5: Findings and conclusionsUsing the findings/results below, make as many conclusions as you can about the Piliavin et al. study.

Results/Findings

Helping behaviour was very high and much higher than earlier laboratory studies. Therefore it was not possible to investigate the effects of the model’s helping because on the majority of trials the victims were helped before the model acted.

The cane victim received spontaneous help on 62 out of the 65 trials, and the drunk victim received spontaneous help on 19 out of 38 trials.

On 60% of the 81 trials where spontaneous help was given, more than one person offered help. Once on person had started to help, there were no differences for different victim conditions (black/white, cane/drunk) on the number of extra helpers that appeared. The race of the victims made no significant different to helping behaviour, but there was a slight tendency for same race helping in the drunken condition.

It was found that 90% of helpers were male. Although there were more men present, this percentage was statistically significant.

It was also found that 64% of the helpers were white; this was what would be expected based on the racial distribution of the carriage.

Diffusion of responsibility was not evident. The diffusion of responsibility hypothesis predicts that helping behaviour would decrease as the number of bystanders increases. In fact the field experiment found that the quickest help came from the largest groups. However, in the earlier laboratory experiments there was only one participant and the other bystanders were confederates.

Nobody left the carriage during the incident (mainly because the train was moving), on 21 of the 103 trials a total of 34 people left the critical area, particularly when the victim appeared to be drunk.

More comments were obtained on drunk than cane trials and most of these were obtained when no one helped until after 70 seconds; this could be due to the discomfort passengers felt in sitting inactive in the presence of the victim, perhaps hoping that others would confirm that inaction was appropriate.

The following comments came from women 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”.

22

Version 1

Conclusions

Worksheet 6: Evaluating the study

PointExplain (how and why is this a strength/ limitation? Use key terminology.)

Example (give a specific example from the study that relates to the point.)

Field Experiment

Sample

Ethics

Qualitative data

Quantitative data

Covert Observation

23

Version 1

Follow on questions (teacher answers)

Answer the below questions and discuss your answers with your peers.

1. Outline the aim of the study by Piliavin et al.

2. Identify the IV’s.

3. Identify the DV’s in this study.

4. Suggest one strength of the sample used in this study.

5. Outline one strength of gathering quantitative data.

24

Version 1

6. Outline one strength of a field experiment.

7. Outline one weakness of a field experiment.

8. Describe two ethical issues within this study.

25