Lesson 3.2.1.3.3

3.2.1.3.3 Piliavin's subway study Quiz: AQA Psychology, Unit 5

20 questions

Written by Revision Ninja · Last reviewed 11 October 2026

In partnership with Revision Ninja

Lesson 3.2.1.3.3, Piliavin's subway study: 20 multiple choice questions for the AQA GCSE Psychology (8182), Unit 5: Social influence, written with Revision Ninja.

Host it live on the board and students join with a game code on their own devices, or revise alone with Free Play. The answers are revealed in the game.

Host this setFree Play

The 20 questions

  1. Where did Piliavin's subway study take place?

    • London Underground
    • Paris Metro
    • New York City subway
    • Tokyo subway

  2. What was the staged event in Piliavin's study?

    • A passenger was asked for directions
    • A confederate stole a passenger's bag on a platform
    • A confederate pretended to collapse on a train
    • A passenger handed out leaflets to riders

  3. Which two victim conditions were used in Piliavin's study?

    • A victim who was a young child and a victim who was a frail elderly man
    • A victim who appeared to be drunk and a victim who appeared ill with a cane
    • A victim who was asking for money on the platform and a victim who was lost
    • A victim who appeared angry and shouting and a victim who appeared happy and calm

  4. What did Piliavin find about the victim with a cane compared with the drunk victim?

    • Neither victim received any help at all
    • The drunk victim was helped more quickly and more often
    • The victim with a cane was helped more quickly and more often
    • Both victims received identical help

  5. Who were the main subjects of Piliavin's study?

    • Police officers patrolling the station platform at the time
    • Children visiting the subway museum with their parents that day
    • Ordinary passengers who witnessed the staged collapse
    • Trained paramedics on duty in the subway station that day

  6. What did Piliavin's study add to understanding of helping?

    • Evidence that all victims receive the same help regardless of their appearance
    • Evidence that helping only happens in laboratories and controlled experiments
    • Evidence that the cost of helping, such as potential embarrassment, affects whether people help
    • Evidence that helping is random with no pattern across different types of victim

  7. What explanation did Piliavin give for the drunk victim receiving less help?

    • The helper expects the drunk victim to recover quickly without any help from others
    • The drunk victim looked more sympathetic to passengers who were seated nearby
    • The cost of helping may be higher, such as the risk of being associated with a drunk person
    • The drunk victim was more likely to pay the helper for their help on the train

  8. Which factor did Piliavin's study focus on in relation to helping?

    • Similarity to victim
    • Diffusion of responsibility
    • Group size
    • Cost of helping

  9. A subway rider helps a victim with a cane after a short time. What does this suggest?

    • The passenger was unaware of the emergency until the victim fell to the floor
    • The passenger was paid to help by the transport company that day
    • The victim asked the passenger to leave the carriage at the next stop
    • The victim's apparent illness made help seem appropriate and less costly

  10. A criticism of Piliavin's study concerns ethics. Which issue is most relevant?

    • Participants did not give informed consent
    • Participants were paid excessively to take part
    • Participants were asked to sign a form that was too long
    • Participants were tested in a laboratory setting

  11. Why did Piliavin's study use a field setting rather than a laboratory?

    • To reduce the number of confederates needed
    • To observe helping in a realistic everyday situation
    • To test whether helping depends on a laboratory bench
    • To avoid all ethical issues associated with observation

  12. Which is a strength of Piliavin's study?

    • It used a natural setting
    • It proved that helping never depends on the victim's appearance
    • It used written questionnaires to measure helping
    • It used a small sample of trained helpers only

  13. Why might the findings of Piliavin's study not generalise to all settings?

    • The study relied on participant self-report only
    • The study used one city and specific staged scenarios
    • The study was carried out by an unqualified team
    • The study used every possible victim type, so its findings are too general

  14. Which social factor might Piliavin's study examine?

    • Cost of helping
    • Obedience to authority
    • Personality of the helper
    • Expertise of the helper

  15. When was Piliavin's subway study published?

    • 1969
    • 1951
    • 1963
    • 1975

  16. Which conclusion is best supported by Piliavin's study?

    • Helping is always the same regardless of appearance
    • Helping can depend on how the victim appears
    • Helping is determined entirely by the helper's personality
    • Helping depends only on how many people are in the carriage

  17. A rider who helps a victim with a cane might reason, 'This person needs help.' Which factors does this reflect?

    • Perceived need of the victim and lower cost of helping
    • Deindividuation in the crowd of passengers on the platform
    • Conformity to other passengers who were also watching the victim
    • Obedience to a train official who asked passengers to help

  18. Why might a researcher question whether the drunk-victim result reflects prejudice?

    • The result may reflect perceived cost and risk, not necessarily hostility to a group
    • The drunk condition shows helpers are always paid to ignore victims in the subway
    • The drunk condition shows helpers always hate drunk people in public places
    • The drunk condition proves helping is impossible in subways and busy stations

  19. What term describes the victim condition in which the victim appeared to be intoxicated?

    • Matched condition
    • Cane condition
    • Drunk condition
    • Control condition

  20. Why did Piliavin's study change the field of helping research?

    • It showed that real-world costs and victim appearance can shape helping in natural settings
    • It ended all debate about bystander intervention forever in psychology
    • It showed that laboratory experiments always give correct results about helping
    • It proved helping is caused only by genetic traits and inherited personality

All AQA Psychology quizzes