Welcome to Social Psychology: Responses to People in Need
Have you ever seen someone drop their shopping on a busy street and wondered why some people rush to help while others just walk on by? In this chapter, we explore one of the most fascinating questions in social psychology: Why, when, and where do people help strangers in need?
This chapter sits inside the Social Area of the OCR A Level specification under the core theme "Responses to people in need". We will study two landmark investigations:
1. Classic Study: Piliavin, Rodin, and Piliavin (1969) — Good Samaritanism: An underground phenomenon?
2. Contemporary Study: Levine, Norenzayan, and Philbrick (2001) — Cross-cultural Differences in Helping Strangers.
Don't worry if psychological studies feel overwhelming at first. We will break down each study step-by-step, uncover the exact numbers examiners look for, and bust the common myths that trip students up in exams.
---1. Background: Bystander Intervention and the Kitty Genovese Case
In 1964, a young woman named Kitty Genovese was murdered near her home in New York City. Initial media reports claimed that dozens of neighbours witnessed or heard the attack, yet none intervened or called the police in time. This tragic event sparked intense research into why groups of bystanders often fail to help.
Key Terms to Master:
Bystander Apathy: The phenomenon where individuals fail to offer help to a victim in an emergency, particularly when other people are present.
Diffusion of Responsibility: A psychological explanation proposed by Darley and Latané (1968). When multiple bystanders are present, the perceived personal responsibility to act is shared (or "diffused") among everyone. As group size increases, each individual feels less personally responsible, making helping less likely.
Quick Memory Hook: Think of a group project where no one takes charge because everyone assumes someone else is going to do it. That is diffusion of responsibility!
---2. Classic Study: Piliavin, Rodin, and Piliavin (1969) — The Subway Samaritan
Study Aim
Piliavin et al. wanted to investigate bystander helping behaviour in a realistic, non-laboratory setting. Specifically, they tested the impact of four independent variables on helping:
1. Type of victim: Ill (carrying a black cane) vs. Drunk (smelling of alcohol and carrying a brown paper bag).
2. Race of victim: Black vs. White.
3. Presence and timing of a model helper: Early vs. Late intervention from critical vs. adjacent areas.
4. Group size: Testing whether diffusion of responsibility occurs in a real-world emergency.
Method and Setting
Method: Field experiment using structured participant observation.
Setting: The New York City Subway (IND 8th Avenue Line). Trials were conducted on an express run between 59th Street and 125th Street, lasting a continuous \(7.5\) minutes without stopping.
Timing: Weekdays between 11:00 AM and 3:00 PM (April 15 to June 26, 1968).
The Sample
An estimated total of \(4,450\) men and women traveling on the subway cars.
The mean number of people per carriage was \(43\), with an average of \(8.5\) in the "critical area" where the incident took place.
Racial composition was approximately \(45\%\) Black and \(55\%\) White.
Procedure and Personnel
Four research teams of Columbia University students were deployed. Each team had four members: two male confederates (one victim, one model helper) and two female observers who recorded data discreetly from different vantage points.
The Victims: Four males aged \(26\) to \(35\) (three White, one Black), dressed identically in Eisenhower jackets, old trousers, and no tie.
The Conditions:
• Ill/Cane Condition: Victim appeared sober and carried a black cane (\(65\) trials).
• Drunk Condition: Victim smelled of liquor and carried a bottle in a brown paper bag (\(38\) trials).
• Total number of trials = \(103\).
The Collapse: Approximately \(70\) seconds after the train departed the station, the victim staggered forward and collapsed on the floor in the critical area, remaining motionless on his back looking at the ceiling.
The Model Conditions (Four Variations):
1. Critical Area – Early: Model stood in critical area and helped after \(70\) seconds.
2. Critical Area – Late: Model stood in critical area and helped after \(150\) seconds.
3. Adjacent Area – Early: Model stood in adjacent area and helped after \(70\) seconds.
4. Adjacent Area – Late: Model stood in adjacent area and helped after \(150\) seconds.
If no passenger helped before the designated time, the model stepped in to help the victim up.
Key Findings and Results
• Spontaneous Helping: Occurred in \(79.3\%\) of all trials. In \(93\%\) of trials where help was given, bystanders stepped in before the experimental model could intervene.
• Victim Condition (Ill vs. Drunk): The cane victim received spontaneous help in \(62 / 65\) trials (\(95.4\%\)), whereas the drunk victim received spontaneous help in \(19 / 38\) trials (\(50.0\%\)).
• Speed of Helping: Cane victims were helped significantly faster (median response time of \(5\) seconds) compared to drunk victims (median response time of \(109\) seconds).
• Gender of Helpers: Helpers were overwhelmingly male — \(90\%\) of first helpers were men.
• Race Effect: Cane victims received equal help regardless of race. In the drunk condition, a slight same-race effect occurred (passengers were more likely to help a victim of their own race).
• Diffusion of Responsibility: NOT observed! In fact, response times were slightly faster in larger groups (e.g., \(7\)-person groups helped faster than \(3\)-person groups).
• Passenger Reactions: In \(20\%\) of trials (mostly drunk condition), passengers moved away from the critical area. Observers recorded comments such as: "It's for men to help him" and "You feel so bad that you don't know what to do."
The Arousal: Cost-Reward Model
To explain why people helped so readily and why diffusion of responsibility did not happen, Piliavin et al. proposed the Arousal: Cost-Reward Model:
1. Arousal: Witnessing an emergency causes an unpleasant emotional and physiological arousal state.
2. Goal: The bystander wants to reduce this unpleasant arousal.
3. Cost-Reward Calculation: The bystander weighs:
• Costs of helping: Physical danger, embarrassment, effort, wasted time.
• Costs of not helping: Guilt, self-blame, social disapproval from others.
• Rewards of helping: Praise, self-satisfaction, relief.
• Rewards of not helping: Continuing journey unobstructed.
Why was the cane victim helped more? The cost of helping was low (no perceived danger) and the cost of not helping was high (intense guilt). For the drunk victim, the cost of helping was higher (fear of disgust or violence) and the cost of not helping was lower (blaming the victim for his own state).
Common Exam Mistake Alert!
Examiner Warning: Do NOT write that Piliavin confirmed diffusion of responsibility! Piliavin found no diffusion of responsibility. Because the subway was a confined space with no physical escape, bystanders could not ignore the situation and had to reduce their arousal by acting.
Key Takeaway for Piliavin: In a confined subway carriage, an ill victim with a cane will almost always receive rapid, spontaneous help from bystanders (predominantly men), whereas a drunk victim receives slower, less frequent help. Diffusion of responsibility does not apply in enclosed settings.
---3. Contemporary Study: Levine, Norenzayan, and Philbrick (2001) — Cross-Cultural Helping
Study Aims
Levine et al. wanted to test whether helping behaviour towards strangers varies across different world cities. They had three main aims:
1. Determine if helping rates vary systematically across international cities in non-emergency situations.
2. Test whether a city's helping rate is consistent across different helping scenarios.
3. Investigate the relationship between helping rates and four specific community characteristics:
• Population size: (City population).
• Economic well-being: Measured by Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) per capita GDP.
• Cultural values: Individualism vs. Collectivism rating, and the Latin cultural concept of simpatía / simpático.
• Pace of life: Measured by average pedestrian walking speed over a flat \(60\)-foot distance.
The Sample and Settings
• Conducted across \(23\) large international cities (all with populations over \(230,000\)).
• Opportunity sample of pedestrians during clear weather on weekday business hours.
• Excluded: Children under \(17\), visibly disabled people, and frail elderly individuals to ensure fair testing.
The Three Experimental Helping Situations
Experiments were carried out by local cross-cultural psychologists or students returning home, using standardized scripts and identical training:
1. Dropped Pen Situation (\(N = 424\)):
The experimenter walked at a moderate pace. When \(10\) to \(15\) feet from a solitary pedestrian, the experimenter accidentally dropped a pen from their pocket and continued walking. Helping was scored if the pedestrian called back or retrieved the pen for them.
2. Hurt Leg / Dropped Magazines Situation (\(N = 493\)):
The experimenter wore a visible leg brace and walked with a limp. Within \(20\) feet of a pedestrian, the experimenter accidentally dropped a pile of magazines and struggled to reach them. Helping was scored if the pedestrian offered help or picked up the magazines.
3. Blind Person Crossing Street Situation (\(N = 281\)):
The experimenter wore dark glasses and carried a white cane. They stepped up to a pedestrian crossing just before the light turned green and waited. Helping was scored if a passerby informed them the light was green or offered to guide them across within \(60\) seconds / before the light turned red.
Note: Two initial tasks (asking for change and dropped letters) were abandoned after pilot testing due to inconsistent cultural interpretations.
Key Findings and Results
Overall Helping Rates: Massive differences emerged between world cities:
• Top 5 Most Helpful Cities:
1. Rio de Janeiro (Brazil): \(93\%\)
2. San Jose (Costa Rica): \(91\%\)
3. Lilongwe (Malawi): \(91\%\)
4. Calcutta (India): \(89\%\)
5. Vienna (Austria): \(81\%\)
• Lowest Helping Cities:
1. Kuala Lumpur (Malaysia): \(40\%\)
2. Sofia (Bulgaria): \(42\%\)
3. New York City (USA): \(45\%\)
4. Singapore: \(48\%\)
Correlations with Community Characteristics
• Economic Productivity (PPP): Statistically significant negative correlation (\(r = -0.43\)). Cities with lower economic well-being / lower purchasing power were significantly more helpful than wealthier cities.
• Cultural Values (Simpatía): Cities in simpatía cultures (Brazil, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Mexico, Spain) had a significantly higher mean helping rate of \(82.87\%\) compared to non-simpatía cities (\(65.87\%\)).
• Individualism vs. Collectivism: No significant relationship. Collectivist cultures were not systematically more helpful than individualist cultures.
• Pace of Life (Walking Speed): Weak, non-significant negative correlation. Faster walking speed showed a slight trend toward less helping, but was not statistically significant.
• Population Size: No significant correlation with helping rates across the \(23\) cities.
• Gender: No significant difference in helping between male and female passersby.
What is Simpatía?
Simpatía (or simpático) is a socio-cultural value rooted in Latin American and Spanish-speaking cultures. It places special emphasis on warmth, interpersonal harmony, politeness, and a social duty to assist others in everyday interactions.
Common Exam Mistake Alert!
Examiner Warning: Students often assume collectivist cultures are always more helpful. Levine et al. found no significant difference between individualist and collectivist cultures. The cultural predictor that truly mattered was the specific cultural script of simpatía.
Key Takeaway for Levine: Helping in non-emergency situations varies significantly worldwide. People in cities with lower economic productivity (lower PPP) and in cultures emphasizing simpatía are significantly more likely to help strangers.
---4. Comparing the Core Studies
Examiners love asking how the contemporary study (Levine) changes or expands our understanding compared to the classic study (Piliavin).
Key Points of Comparison:
• Nature of Situation: Piliavin investigated an emergency situation (a dramatic physical collapse involving potential injury). Levine investigated everyday non-emergency situations (dropped pen, hurt leg, blind person crossing).
• Physical Confinement: Piliavin's participants were trapped in an enclosed subway car for \(7.5\) minutes with no escape. Levine's participants were on open city streets and could easily walk away.
• Cultural Scope: Piliavin sampled a single Western, individualistic city (New York City, USA). Levine expanded this to a cross-cultural comparison of \(23\) international cities across \(5\) continents.
• How Levine Changes Understanding: While Piliavin demonstrated that helping is heavily determined by immediate situational cues (victim characteristics, cost-reward calculation) within one Western city, Levine proved that helping is also shaped by broader macro-level cultural values (such as simpatía) and national economic factors (such as PPP).
5. Evaluation, Debates, and Perspectives
1. Individual vs. Situational Explanations
• Situational: Both studies show powerful situational effects. In Piliavin, the victim's situation (ill with cane vs. drunk with alcohol) drastically changed helping rates (\(95.4\%\) vs. \(50.0\%\)). In Levine, the economic environment and cultural atmosphere of a city dictated helping rates.
• Individual: In Piliavin, \(90\%\) of first helpers were men, showing individual gender differences in physical intervention. In Levine, individual empathy and personal values still played a role since helping was never \(0\%\) or \(100\%\) in any city.
2. Ethnocentrism
• Piliavin: Highly ethnocentric. Carried out entirely within one American city (New York) during the late 1960s; findings cannot be generalized to other world cultures.
• Levine: Low ethnocentrism. Explicitly designed to combat ethnocentrism by collecting standardized data from \(23\) diverse countries spanning North America, South America, Europe, Africa, and Asia.
3. Psychology as a Science
• Both studies feature high standardization (e.g., fixed collapse times and actor dress in Piliavin; standardized distance, dropped pens, and white canes in Levine).
• Both gathered objective quantitative data (frequencies, percentages, response times, walking speeds) allowing statistical analysis and replication.
4. Ethical Considerations
• Deception and Informed Consent: Both studies used field experiments with unsuspecting members of the public who could not give prior informed consent and were deceived by actors.
• Protection from Harm: In Piliavin, passengers experienced potential psychological distress/arousal from seeing a person collapse in an enclosed carriage. Levine created minimal distress as the situations were harmless everyday occurrences.
6. Summary Quick-Sheet
Piliavin et al. (1969):
• Sample: \(\sim 4,450\) subway passengers in NYC.
• Conditions: Cane (\(65\) trials) vs. Drunk (\(38\) trials); Black vs. White; Model timing.
• Key Results: \(79.3\%\) spontaneous help. Cane helped in \(95.4\%\) (median \(5\text{s}\)); Drunk helped in \(50.0\%\) (median \(109\text{s}\)). \(90\%\) male helpers. No diffusion of responsibility.
• Explanation: Arousal: Cost-Reward Model.
Levine et al. (2001):
• Sample: Pedestrians in \(23\) international cities.
• Tasks: Dropped pen, hurt leg/dropped magazines, blind person crossing street.
• Key Results: Rio de Janeiro highest (\(93\%\)), Kuala Lumpur lowest (\(40\%\)). Negative correlation with economic wealth/PPP (\(r = -0.43\)). Simpatía cities significantly more helpful (\(82.87\%\) vs. \(65.87\%\)). No link with collectivism or city population size.