Piliavin et al. (1969): subway Samaritanism

The most-corrected error here, still recorded five years on. Candidates write "Piliavin showed the bystander effect — more people, less help." In fact the victim was usually helped, and help did not get rarer as passengers rose — the conditions that spread responsibility were absent (victim visible, doors shut). Safe: diffusion of responsibility was not found.

"Most helpers were men, so they help their own gender" cannot be drawn: every victim was male. A same-gender claim needs both halves — men helping a man AND women a woman — so you cannot separate it from "men readier to lift a stranger." Safe: men helped more than women, where a man had to be lifted (~90%). Anything held constant can't be a conclusion variable.

A result is what was observed ("cane victim helped on 62 of 65 trials"). A conclusion is what Piliavin inferred ("an ill victim is helped more readily than a drunk one"). Rewriting the observation, or quoting the table back, is not a conclusion and earns nothing. Asked for a conclusion add the inference; for an improvement say what you would change.

"Nobody helps a drunk man; cities walk past emergencies" — every clause is wrong. The drunk victim was helped about half the time (19 of 38), just less often and slower than the cane victim. Overall the picture is helping on most trials. The cause is costs, not character: hesitating over a drunk-seeming man judges the situation, not the person.

"A weakness is that passengers did not consent" identifies but does not justify — half the mark. Add the consequence: "so a distressed passenger could not avoid the scene or withdraw before the next station — a question about protection from harm." Use point → why → consequence; it rescues a strength too, as no consent means no demand characteristics.

A 2-mark findings question wants two unique results, not one restated. "The cane victim was helped more" then "the drunk was helped less" is the same result twice. A genuine second result is a different measure: the speed of help (~5 s vs ~109 s), ~90% male first helpers, or help not falling away as the carriage filled. Pick different variables.

The study is a field experiment, and two mislabels recur. Not an observation: observers recorded behaviour, but the deciding feature is the manipulated IV — cane versus smell of alcohol, trial by trial. Not a natural experiment: that needs an IV the researcher cannot control, but this was staged. Manipulated IV plus everyday setting = field experiment.