1. Background
1.1. "From Empathy to Apathy:The Bystander Effect Revisited"- In this study diffusion of responsibility was tested by having an old lady pass out and then seeing since there was a lot of people it took longer for someone to help her.
1.1.1. "Young Children show the bystander effect in helping situations"- In this study the bystander effect was tested by putting kids in a group. When they were in a group and the teacher dropped the paint they reacted to help slower. When a kid was alone and the teacher dropped the paint, the helping time was faster.
2. Aim
2.1. The aim was to investigate the influence of many different variables on who responded to the assistance, the speed of response and the probability of responding.
3. Questions the study is trying to answer
3.1. What causes individuals to not help?
3.2. What triggered this type of psychologcial research?
3.3. When may we not help others?
3.4. Why do we sometimes help each other
4. Independent Variables
4.1. Type of victim
4.1.1. race of victim
4.1.1.1. models
4.1.1.1.1. number of people in the carriage
5. Dependent Variables
5.1. number of helpers
5.1.1. time taken for help
5.1.1.1. gender of helper
5.1.1.1.1. race of helper
6. Procedures
6.1. The field experiment was conducted over two months. 2 students board the train, two girls (observers) and two boys (one victim, one model). The victim would then wait until the train had left the station before acting like he would collapse. he then would lay on his back until help came or they reached the next station. The model would either wait for 70 seconds or 150 seconds before he would help or not help.
6.2. The two observers would then be placed in the adjacent area. They would observe what happened in the train car and record what they saw. The victim would be located in the critical area in front of the entrance to the next car.
7. Results
7.1. 62 of the 65 trials the "cane" victim was helped immediately. 95%
7.1.1. 19 of the 38 trials the "drunk" victim was helped immediately
7.1.1.1. On 49 of the 81 trials help came from more then one person.
8. Conclusions
8.1. A person that seems ill is more likely to receive help then someone that appears drunk.
8.1.1. There was some tendency for same race helping.
8.1.1.1. Diffusion of responsibility was not able to be proved in the study due to the fact that participants were in an enclosed area and coudlnt go anywhere. Also the cost of helping was low since there were a lot of people around.
9. Strengths
9.1. The study is reliable since it was done in a real life scenario with people that weren't aware it was an experiment. This means that the experiment was more realistic.
9.1.1. Since the participants were not aware that they were in an experiment, they're actions were natural and not faked for a specific result.
10. Sampling Method
10.1. One of the sampling methods is volunteer because 4 students, 2 males and 2 females, were the model and victim in this experiment. They said they wanted to be a part of the experiment making it volunteer.
10.1.1. The other sampling method is opportunity because the researchers used people that were in the subway already as participants.
11. Why it was conducted ?
11.1. This study was conducted in order to analyze what impacts those who would reply to assistance. Also to see the level of response and probability of the response.
12. Vocabulary
12.1. Altruism: when someone acts out of concern for another's well-being
12.1.1. Diffusion of Responsibility: where by a person is less likely to take responsibility for action or inaction when others are present.
12.1.1.1. The Bystander Effect :The greater number of people the less likely for any of them to help someone in distress.
13. Main research method
13.1. One of the research methods is Field Experiment because it is conducted in a subway station
13.1.1. The other research method is observation since the experimenters are observing what the people are reacting in the situation presented
14. Teams
14.1. Models: The team of models was made up of males aged 24-29 who were Caucasian who wore clothing that was casual. The models conditions were drunk and cane.
14.2. Victims: In this study there were 4 victims. On each of the four teams there was one victim.The victims were males 26-35. Of the four victims one was black and the rest white. They all had the same clothes on too.
14.3. Observers: they would sit down and write down what they saw happening.
15. Data Collection
15.1. In total there was 103 trials in 2 months.
15.1.1. The trials were held on weekdays from 11 am to 3 pm.
15.1.1.1. The trials were held on trains between 59th street and 125th street which is from Harlem to the Bronx and then back to Harlem.
15.1.1.1.1. During April 15 and June 26th of 1968.
16. Qualitative data
16.1. The gender of every passanger in the critical and adjacent area
16.1.1. The location of every passenger in the critical and adjacent areas.
17. Cost Reward Model
17.1. the cost reward model says that a person will choose to engage in the arousal-decreasing response associated with the fewest net costs.
17.1.1. Example One: When a person is drunk they will most likely not get help as fast since it can be more embarrassing for the person helping.
17.1.1.1. Example Two: If two men are fighting it is less likely that a women intervenes because there is a higher chance for the women to get hurt.
18. Weaknesses
18.1. A weakness was that there situational variables. These situational variables sometimes could potentially affect the results like if a person did not notice what was happening then the type of victim was not the problem.
18.1.1. Another weakness was that it wasnt ethical. It was not ethical because since it was a field experiment, the participants did not give consent since they