Piliavin, Rodin and Piliavin (1969) Good
samaritanism: An underground
phenomenon?
1
Introduction
Are people by nature helpful?
 Has society changed to a point where
nobody helps others?
 Social psychologists were prompted
to investigate after the case of Kitty
Genovese

2
Terms
Bystander Intervention
When a passer by or observer helps a
person in need
 Cost-Benefit Analysis
A cognitive judgement based on an
assessment of the relative rewards/
benefits and relative costs / loss of
following or engaging in a particular
behaviour.

3

Prosocial / Atruistic / Helping
behaviour
• acting out in interest of other people and not of self.

Diffusion of responsibility
• the theory that the more people that observe an
incident, less likely that any one is to help as the
responsibility for helping is shared out (diffused)
among all the observers

Pluralistic ignorance
• the tendency for people in a group to mislead each
other about a situation. For example an individual
might define an emergency situation as non
emergency because others are remaining calm and not
taking action
4
Aim of Investigation

To study the factors affecting helping behaviour
More specifically, to investigate under real life
conditions the effect of:
1. The type of victim
2. Race of the victim
3. Size of the group
4. Modelling help
On
 The speed of helping
 The frequency of helping
 The race of the helper
 The sex of the helper

5
Participants







Approximately 4450 men and women
Travellers on New York subway train (8th Avenue)
Between 11 am and 3pm (i.e. not rush hour)
Dates from April 15 to June 26 in 1968
Racial composition: 45% Black and 55% White
Average no. of people per compartment 43
Average no. of people in the critical area , where
the incidence was staged was 8.5
6
THE LAY OUT
7
Procedure
Method: Field experiment
 Situation: non stop 7.5 min journey on
subway carriage between 59th street and
125th street .
 End of a carriage used that had a door
leading to next carriage
 13 seats plus standing room

8
Procedure
On each trial, a team of four Columbia General
Studies students, two males and two females,
boarded the train using different doors
 Four different teams, whose members always
worked together
 103 trials
 Location varied from trial to trial
 2 female observers sit in adjacent
area
 Male victim and model stand
in critical area

Independent Variables
1.
Type of victim (drunk or ill)
2.
Race of victim (black or white)
3.
Presence of helping models (present
or absent)
4.
Size of the witnessing group
10
Dependent Variables
recorded
Frequency of help
 Speed of help
 Race of helper
 Sex of helper
 Movement around area
 Verbal comments

11
Procedure
4 teams of 4 researchers (2 female who recorded
reactions & 2 male one acting victim & 1 model)
 Victims 3 white, 1 black, aged between 26-35
dressed & acted identically
 Victims pretended to collapse after 70 seconds
and remain on floor until helped
 Waited for ‘help’ ….
 If no-one ‘helped’ the
‘model’ helped 70 seconds
after collapse (VICTIM helped
off at the next stop)

12
The victims





The four victims (one from each team) were males
between the ages of 26 and 35.
Three were white and one was black.
All were identically dressed in Eisenhower jackets,
old slacks, and no tie.
On 38 trials the victims smelled of liquor and
carried a liquor bottle wrapped tightly in a brown
bag (drunk condition), while on the remaining 65
trials they appeared sober and carried a black
cane (cane condition).
In all other aspects, victims dressed and behaved
identically in the two conditions. Each victim
participated in drunk and cane trials.
13
The models

There were four different model conditions used across
both victim conditions (drunk or cane).

1.
Critical area-early.

2.
Critical area-late.

3.
Adjacent area-early.

4.
Adjacent area-late.
– Model stood in critical area and waited until passing
fourth station to assist victim (approximately 70 seconds
after collapse).
– Model stood in critical area and waited until passing sixth
station to assist victim (approximately 150 seconds after
collapse).
– Model stood in middle of car in area adjacent to critical
area and waited until passing fourth station.
– Model stood in adjacent area and waited until passing
sixth station.
14
Observations



On each trial one observer noted the race, sex and location
of every passenger, seated or standing, in the critical area,
together with the total number of passengers and the total
number who came to the victim’s assistance, plus their race,
sex and location.
A second observer coded the race, sex and location of all
passengers in the adjacent area, plus the latency of the
first helper’s arrival after the victim had fallen and , on
appropriate trials the latency of the first helper’s arrival
after the model had intervened.
Both observers recorded comments spontaneously made by
nearby passengers and also tried to elicit comments from a
passenger sitting next to them.
15
Results
93% of people helped spontaneously (There
was no diffusion of responsibility-Note:
people could not ‘get away’)
 Victim who appeared ill received
spontaneous help 95% of the time (62/65)
while the drunk victim received
spontaneous help 50% of the time (19/38)
 Overall there was 100% help for cane
victim and 81% for drunk
 Men helped more than women (90%)

16
RESULTS






Help was offered more quickly to cane victim
(median of 5 seconds compared to 109 seconds for
drunk victim)
On 60% of the 81 trials where spontaneous help
was given, more than one person offered help.
The race of the victims made no significant
difference to helping behaviour, but there was a
slight tendency for same-race helping in the
drunken condition.
34 people moved to the adjacent area in 21/103
trials
Most comments were made by passengers in the
drunk condition
Response times were faster with larger groups
than with smaller ones


Far more comments were obtained on drunk than cane trials
and most of these were obtained when no one helped until
after 70 seconds; this could be due to the discomfort
passengers felt in sitting inactive in the presence of the
victim, perhaps hoping that others would confirm that
inaction was appropriate.
· Among the comments recorded, the following
came from the women passengers: “It’s for men to
help him”; “I wish I could help him - I’m not strong
enough”; “I never saw this kind of thing before - I
don’t know where to look”; “You feel so bad that
you don’t know what to do”.
18
Discussion of results






Same race helped each other more as more
empathy
No diffusion of responsibility as couldn’t
ignore or walk on by
Drunk victim seen as responsible for
predicament
Drunk victim more unpredictable so helpers
more cautious
Men expected to help due to physical
aspect of situation
Helping driven by selfish desire to rid self
of unpleasant emotional state
19
Strengths of study

High ecological validity

Highly standardised procedure

Yielded lots of detailed data

Proposed a theoretical reason to
account for levels of helping in the
experiment i.e cost-reward Model
20
Weaknesses of study
Methodological weaknesses – less
control in field experiments,
experiment not balanced enough e.g.
only 8 black cane carriers & fewer
drunk victims
 Ethical problems – deception, lack of
consent, no debriefing, inconvenience
for bystanders, produced anxiety

21
In summary
The diffusion of responsibility hypothesis
not supported
 Piliavin found out that bystanders
likelihood to help was based on the costreward model i.e. people feel aroused &
respond to the plight of others however
they only really do it because it makes
them feel better about themselves
 The more people there were the more they
helped

22
Explanation


The emergency created
a ‘state of emotional
arousal’
arousal heightened by
– empathy with victim
– being close to
situation
– length of time of
emergency
This arousal state will be interpreted
as fear, sympathy or disgust
 Can be reduced by -moving away,
helping, deciding the victim is
undeserving of help
 Characteristics of the victim may
contribute to the our decision as to
which option we choose
