問 1
1 点In the Piliavin et al. (subway Samaritans) study, what was the primary difference in the operationalisation of the 'ill' victim versus the 'drunk' victim?
Cambridge International AS Level · Psychology (9990)
Piliavin et al. (subway Samaritans)：練習問題
その場で採点される選択問題 5 問と、解説つきの記述問題 5 問。すべて「Piliavin et al. (subway Samaritans)」からの出題です。
10 問29 点無料・登録不要
問 2
1 点In the study by Piliavin et al. (subway Samaritans), which of the following describes the role of the two female observers?
問 3
1 点Piliavin et al. found that helping behavior did not decrease as the number of bystanders increased. Which of the following best explains why the diffusion of responsibility effect was not observed in this field experiment?
問 4
1 点In the study by Piliavin et al. (subway Samaritans), which of the following is a correct description of the victims used in the experiment?
問 5
1 点Regarding the results of the Piliavin et al. study, what was the observed relationship between the number of bystanders and the speed of helping?
問 6
3 点Identify two quantitative measures of the dependent variable that were recorded by the observers while the victim was collapsed on the floor.
まず自分で答えを書いてから、解説と照らし合わせましょう。
問 7
5 点Explain why the use of qualitative data, such as the recorded comments of female passengers, was necessary to supplement the quantitative findings in this study.
まず自分で答えを書いてから、解説と照らし合わせましょう。
問 8
4 点Explain one reason why the study by Piliavin et al. is categorized as a field experiment rather than a naturalistic observation.
まず自分で答えを書いてから、解説と照らし合わせましょう。
問 9
5 点Piliavin et al. conducted a field experiment to investigate bystander behavior on a New York subway.
(a) Describe the standardized behavior of the 'victim' during the trials. [2]
(b) Explain one way in which the study attempted to control for the variable of 'diffusion of responsibility'. [2]
(c) Identify one qualitative finding recorded by the observers during the study. [1]
まず自分で答えを書いてから、解説と照らし合わせましょう。
問 10
7 点The study by Piliavin et al. (subway Samaritans) utilized a field experiment to observe bystander intervention.
(a) Identify two of the four independent variables manipulated in this study. [2]
(b) Explain one strength and one weakness of using a field experiment to investigate bystander apathy in this study. [2]
(c) Based on the findings regarding the 'ill' and 'drunk' conditions, describe how the cost-reward model explains the differences in the speed of helping. Refer to specific results in your answer. [3]
まず自分で答えを書いてから、解説と照らし合わせましょう。
※ thinkaのコンテンツはAIにより生成されているため、内容が正確でない場合があります。補助教材としてご使用いただき、公式の教材と合わせてご確認ください。
模範解答は見ました。次はあなたの答案を採点します。
このページは良い答案の形を示せますが、あなたの答案に何が足りないかは教えられません。thinka は実際の採点基準に沿って記述答案を約 15 秒で採点します。
同じような問題をもっと解きたい？このトピックの新しい問題を、解きながら採点。
練習を始める