notes, Pilavin et al

Pilavin et al 1969

1. The aim of the study is to find out if people want to help someone if they have an injury or are just drunk, also to see if the person is from different race makes any change in their want to help.
2. Informed consent – the participants didn’t know they were in an experiment.
Deception- information has been withheld e.g. the man was an actor
Right to withdraw- the participants didn’t have to choice to withdraw at the beginning

3. If the man was on a cane or drunk.
If the man was black or white.

4. The amount of people that came to help
The race of the people helping (similar to the man or different)

5. The man with the cane received the most help as he received help on 62/63 occasions. Even if the drunken trial had been repeated 63 times only about 32 people would of helped.

6. The same helping race was about 58% of the helpers in the cane trial and about 84% in the drunken trial. Looking at the results it is evident that especially in the drunken situation the same race helped each other more than a different race, this could be because back in 1969 maybe own races kept to themselves more and lot more racial tension in New York at this time.

7. One advantage of having participants in their natural environment is that you can get a natural reaction and there are not thinking that it is for an experiment so do not feel forced to do something they would not usually do. A disadvantage for this experiment is that it would be very hard to catch up with these participants and inform them what has happened and to ask for their consent in taking part in the study.

8. Stand outside of a bar and see how many people would help a drunken person although it would be harder to find someone on a cane falling over and seeing who helps.