in attempting to understand bystander intervention -- why people may or may not intervene as a...

In attempting to understand bystander intervention -- why people may or may not intervene as a bystander to an emergency situation in a public place with an innocent victim, we could:

1. put forward ideas as we did last week


1.put forward ideas as we did last week

2.ask other people for their ideas


1.put forward ideas as we did last week


3.analyze why we intervened or did not when we had been a bystander to such an emergency situation


1. put forward ideas as we did last week


3.analyze why we intervened or did not when we had been a bystander to such an emergency situation

4.ask others why they had intervened or not when they had witnessed an emergency situation


5.ask people who have intervened in an emergency about themselves and about the circumstances and compare their responses to individuals who had not intervened when they had witnessed an emergency



6.analyze public records concerning bystanders who had intervened



6.analyze public records concerning bystanders who had intervened

7.stage an emergency and record whether people help or not

8. stage an emergency and systematically manipulate some aspect of the circumstances or of the nature of the bystanders

that is, have different levels of that circumstance or of the nature of the bystanders.

As we will see, one major advantage of this approach addresses

The question of alternative interpretations and certainty about any interpretation.

We will want to understand the basic concepts of these methods?

Independent and dependent variables.

Random assignment concerning the levels of the independent variable.

Situational independent variables and individual difference independent variables.

Generating correlational data and experimental data. Inferring a causal relation between two variables. Generalizing to other populations of research participants or to other situations. Debriefing session in laboratory experiments.

Research Methods in Social Psychology

1.Laboratory experiment: e,g, Darley and Latane's study concerning size of group related to bystander intervention. Conducted in their laboratory with a staged emergency involving a confederate (apparent epileptic seizure).



2.Field experiment: e.g., Piliavin, Rodin, and Piliavin's study concerning the physical condition of the victim (ill or drunk) and bystander intervention on a subway car.



2.Field experiment: e.g., Piliavin, Rodin, and Piliavin's study concerning the physical condition of the victim (ill or drunk) and bystander intervention on a subway car.

3.Survey and interview study: e.g. participants were recipients of the "Good Samaritan" award in the state of California.


4.Archival study: e.g. concerning the recipients of the "Carnegie Hero Medal" award.


1.Laboratory experiment:

e,g, Darley and Latane's study concerning size of group related to bystander intervention. Conducted in their laboratory with a staged emergency involving a confederate (apparent epileptic seizure).

Results of the Darley and Latane Laboratory Experiment

Independent Variable Dependent Variable

Size of Group Helping Behaviour

2 3

6




2 85% 3 62%

6 31%




2 85% 3 62%

6 31%

1.Was there a relation between the independent and the dependent variables in this study?




2 85% 3 62%

6 31%


2.If so, a positive or a negative relation?




2 85% 3 62%

6 31%


•If so, a positive or a negative relation?

•Is there a causal relation? Degree of certainty by eliminating other possible causes.

Situational Independent Variables

Individual Difference Independent Variables

Some dimension on which people vary that can be measured – they vary on this dimension prior to coming to participate in your study.

Trait Social Responsibility Speed of Helping Scores Scores

Subject 1 14 1.2 2 15 .7 3 7 1.3 4 8 .6 5 12 .7 . . . 90

Compute a correlation coefficient,designated as r

For example, the computed correlation coefficient between trait social responsibility and speed of helping could approach +1.00, or -1.00, or could approach 0.00.

This would indicate, respectively,

a high positive association between the two variables,

or a high negative association,

or the lack of any association.

2. Field experiment:

e.g., Piliavin, Rodin, and Piliavin's study concerning the physical condition of the victim (ill or drunk) and bystander intervention on a subway car.

Example of Field Experiment (Subway Car Study)


Physical condition of Helping Behaviour Victim ill drunk

Example of Field Experiment (Subway Car Study)


Physical condition of Helping Behaviour Victim ill 95% (62/65) drunk 50% (19/38)

Survey and Interview Study

e.g. Good Samaritans of the State of California

32 individuals cited by the State program were interviewed.

Results

1. 31 were male, one was female

Results

2. 62.5% of those cited had taken life- saving training.

Results

2. 62.5% of those cited had taken life- saving training.

31% of a matched comparison group of 32 individuals had life-saving training.

Archival Study

e.g., Carnegie Hero Medal Recipients

Carnegie Hero Medal Recipient

Hannah Goorsky rescued Chad Summers from an attacking tiger, Sacramento, California, March 23, 2003. While attempting to close the door to a den of the tiger cage at the zoo where he was employed, Summer, 30, was attacked by a 320-pound tiger that had rushed the door. Wounded, he went to the floor, where the tiger began to maul him. Starting her third day as a volunteer at the zoo, Ms. Goorsky, 23, was standing nearby and witnessed the attack. She grabbed a shovel, approached the tiger, and struck it on the head repeatedly with the shovel. The tiger retreated into its den, Ms. Goorsky securing the door. Summers was hospitalized for treatment of numerous bite wounds.

Archival Study


101 recipients examined (one-half of one year’s sample)

Archival Study


1. 96 were male and 5 were female

Archival Study


2. 44% lived in towns of less than 10,000 pop. 66% lived in towns of less than 60,000 pop. Only 15% of the recipients lived in cities of greater than 500,000 pop.

Carnegie Hero Medal Recipients

2004: 105 recipients, 10 were female.

2005: 92 recipients, 9 were female.

**********************************

2005: Current members of the Commission

21 members, 6 were female

Case investigations: 3 staff, 2 were female

Do we now understand the basic concepts of these methods? 1. Independent and dependent variables.

2. Situational independent variables and individual difference independent variables.

3. Random assignment

4. Correlational data and experimental data.

5. Inferring a causal relation between two variables. 6. Generalizing to other populations of research participants or to other situations. 7. Debriefing session in laboratory experiments.

6. Suggested research procedure for your own proposed laboratory or field experiment.

A study by Darley and Batson in which research

participants came to building A and were later asked to go to building B. On route, a research confederate in an alleyway pretended to be ill (the emergency).

The importance of situational factors in determining bystander intervention.

7. Illustration of an interaction between two independent variables: e.g., a follow-up study by Batson.

Darley and Batson Study (Building A to Building B)


Degree of Hurriedness Helping Behaviour

low

moderate

high

Darley and Batson Study (Building A to Building B)


Degree of Hurriedness Helping Behaviour

low 63%

moderate 45%

high 10%

Follow-Up Study by Batson

Degree of Hurriedness

low high low Degree of importance to researcher

high



low high low 80% 70% Degree of importance to researcher

high 50% 10%




high 50% 10%

1.What was the nature of the relation between degree of hurriedness and helping behaviour in this study as indicated in the table?




high 50% 10%


•Your answer is “It d------




high 50% 10%


•Your answer is “It d------

•On what? This is an interaction between two independent variables!




high 50% 10%

PercentWho Helped

Degree of Importance

Low High

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

PercentWho Helped


Low High

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

.

PercentWho Helped


Low High

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

.

.

PercentWho Helped


Low High

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

.

.

.

PercentWho Helped


Low High

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

.

.

.

.

PercentWho Helped


Low High

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

.

.

.

.

Low hurriedness

High hurriedness


low high

low 80% 70% (75%)Degree of importance

to researcher

high 50% 10% (30%)

(65%) (40%)

Note: Assessment of two main effects are in parentheses.

Main effect of degree of hurriedness involves the comparison of 65% to 40%.

Main effect of degree of importance to researcher involves the comparison of 75% to 30%

Time of Day

Day Night

Female 70% 15% (42.5%)Sex of Bystander Male 70% 50% (60%)

(70%) (32.5%)

Illustration of predicted main effects are shown in parentheses.

Note interaction as well.

Time of Day

Day Night

Female 70% 15% (42.5%)Sex of Bystander Male 70% 50% (60%)

(70%) (32.5%)

The question of correlational data or experimental data in this example

Points to be Careful About

1.Make certain that you have two independent variables in your proposed study (with two levels of each variable).

2.Remember, your individual difference variable concerns some dimension on which people vary prior to coming to your study to witness an emergency.

3.We strongly encourage you to use the building A to B procedure. Among other advantages, this will allow you to control for your individual difference independent variable. Remember, this involves elements of both a field and a lab experiment.

4You may have both experimental data and correlational data in your study (depending on the nature of your individual difference variable).

5. You are encouraged with your individual difference independent variable to generate experimental data, if possible.

6. Randomly assign (but not randomly select).

7. You have all the resources you need, within reason, to conduct the study (but, of course, you will not be carrying it out).

8. You will not lose marks for not being original; you may gain marks for being original.

9. Follow the guide to the writeup. Even if you worked with others, you must submit your own paper (and put the

names of the others on the front page).

in attempting to understand bystander intervention -- why people may or may not intervene as a...

Documents