evaluation of research studies in psychology into altruism/bystander behaviour by moriaty & piliavin et al?

Answer 1

Jane and Irvin Piliavin did a study in 1972 exploring whether fear of personal danger impacted the bystander reaction (challenging Latane and Darby’s idea that the bystander effect primarily came from diffusion of personal responsibility in a crowd).

They hypothesized that an observer could respond by helping directly, helping indirectly, or leaving the scene, and that personal risk was the primary motivator on which one was chosen.

To test the theory, they had someone collapse on a crowded subway, sometimes with no blood and sometimes blood involved. The results were that passengers were less likely to help a bleeding victim directly and more likely to offer indirect help.

As far as this particular study goes compared to Latane and Darby’s, one significant difference is that the Piliavins’ study occurs with the victim in close proximity to the observers, whereas in the other study, the subjects were not in direct proximity nor could observe the responses of other people.

[Personally, I think both factors are at play here and are not exclusionary. When confronted with the decision to help, people weigh a lot of factors -- including the probable cost of their involvement along with how many other people are likely to become involved. Risk is balanced against necessity against the observer’s natural sense of altruism, and a decision is made accordingly. Piliavin should also weigh helping at all [directly or indirectly] vs not helping at all, in order to test the bystander effect accurately.]

You can find some info about Piliavin around the 'net.

Moriarty’s experiment (1975) -- for which there seemed to be less information -- involved exploring altruism and what would happen if a person specifically attached responsibility to an individual. Moriarity tested this by having someone approach strangers on a beach and asking them to temporarily watch their stuff.

He found that if someone was asked directly to help, they were much more prone to take responsibility; if they were not asked, then the bystander effect ruled the outcome.

It pretty much seems common sense that, if someone takes ownership for a responsibility up-front, there's more change they'll actually carry through on it. When responsibility is not given up front and "doesn't belong to anyone," the bystanders must evaluate risk and balance it against the likelihood others will respond and how much risk the victim is in.