Piliavin et al. (1969) subway Samaritans: conclusions, the cost-reward model and evaluation

Overview

Recall questions on Piliavin et al.'s arousal: cost-reward model and how it explains helping the drunk victim, and the evaluation of the field setting, method, ethics, sample, observer reliability and balance of conditions.

What you need to know

Answer each one before you reveal it.

Questions from this subtopic

Each one with the model answer underneath.

1. 1

   Name the model of helping behaviour that Piliavin proposed.

   Model answer

   The arousal: cost–reward model.

2. 2

   Explain the arousal element of Piliavin's model.

   Model answer

   Witnessing an emergency produces unpleasant physiological arousal, which the bystander is motivated to reduce.

3. 3

   Explain the cost–reward element of Piliavin's model.

   Model answer

   The bystander weighs the costs of helping, such as effort, disgust or danger, against the costs of not helping, such as guilt and disapproval, and chooses whichever reduces arousal at the lowest net cost.

4. 4

   Use the arousal: cost–reward model to explain why the drunk victim was helped less.

   Model answer

   A drunk man raises the costs of helping through disgust and unpredictability, and lowers the costs of not helping because he seems responsible for his own condition.

5. 5

   Give one strength of Piliavin's field setting.

   Model answer

   The emergency happened in a genuine everyday environment with people who did not know they were being studied, so the behaviour has high ecological validity and no demand characteristics.

6. 6

   Give one methodological weakness of Piliavin's study.

   Model answer

   As a field experiment it had little control over extraneous variables such as the mix of passengers, the time of day or how crowded the carriage was.

Other ways to work this

The same content, four other ways.

What is inside Levo

Six ways to work the same material.