Piliavin , Rodin and Piliavin (1969) Good samaritanism: An underground phenomenon?

1. Piliavin, Rodin and Piliavin (1969) Good samaritanism: An underground phenomenon?

2. 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

3. 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.

4. 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

5. Aim of Investigation To study the factors affecting helping behaviour More specifically, to investigate under real life conditions the effect of: The type of victim Race of the victim Size of the group Modelling help On The speed of helping The frequency of helping The race of the helper The sex of the helper

6. 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

7. THE LAY OUT

8. 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

9. 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

10. Independent Variables • Type of victim (drunk or ill) • Race of victim (black or white) • Presence of helping models (present or absent) • Size of the witnessing group

11. Dependent Variables recorded • Frequency of help • Speed of help • Race of helper • Sex of helper • Movement around area • Verbal comments

12. 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)

13. 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.

14. The models • There were four different model conditions used across both victim conditions (drunk or cane). • 1.       Critical area-early. • Model stood in critical area and waited until passing fourth station to assist victim (approximately 70 seconds after collapse). • 2.       Critical area-late. • Model stood in critical area and waited until passing sixth station to assist victim (approximately 150 seconds after collapse). • 3.       Adjacent area-early. • Model stood in middle of car in area adjacent to critical area and waited until passing fourth station. • 4.       Adjacent area-late. • Model stood in adjacent area and waited until passing sixth station.

15. Observations • Oneach 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.

16. 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%)

17. 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

18. 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”.

19. 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

20. 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

21. 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

22. In summary • The diffusion of responsibility hypothesis not supported • Piliavin found out that bystanders likelihood to help was based on the cost-reward 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

23. Explanation • The emergency created a ‘state of emotional arousal’ • arousal heightened by • empathy with victim • being close to situation • length of time of emergency

24. 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