Introduction to the "Good Samaritan" Study

Have you ever seen someone trip in the street or look like they need help, but noticed that everyone else just walks past? This is called the bystander effect. In 1969, researchers Piliavin, Rodin, and Piliavin wanted to see what makes people decide to help (or not help) a stranger in a real-life setting. This study is often called the "Good Samaritanism" study, and it is a classic piece of research in social influence.

The Aim: What were they looking for?

The main goal of the study was to investigate how different situational factors affect whether people help a victim in an emergency. Specifically, they wanted to see if:

  • The type of victim (whether they appeared "ill" or "drunk") changed how much help they received.
  • The race of the victim (Black or White) affected helping behavior.
  • The speed of the help was affected by these factors.

Quick Review: Remember that "Topic 5: Social Influence" looks at how the people around us and the situation we are in change our behavior. This study focuses on bystander intervention.

The Procedure: How did they do it?

The researchers conducted a field experiment on the New York subway. This means it happened in a real-world environment, and the people being studied didn't know they were part of an experiment!

1. The Setting: They used a specific train route in New York where there was a 7.5-minute gap between stops. This meant the passengers (the participants) were "trapped" in the carriage and couldn't just walk away from the emergency.

2. The Participants: Roughly \( 4,450 \) men and women traveling on the subway. This was an opportunity sample because the researchers just used whoever happened to be on the train at the time.

3. The Roles: There was a team of four researchers on each train:

  • The Victim: A man who would collapse on the floor about 70 seconds after the train started. Sometimes he carried a cane (the "Ill" condition), and sometimes he smelled of alcohol and carried a bottle in a brown bag (the "Drunk" condition).
  • The Model: Another man who would step in to help if no one else did.
  • The Observers: Two women who sat in the carriage and secretly recorded everything that happened, including how many people helped and how long it took.

The Findings: What did they discover?

The results showed that people were much more helpful than previous laboratory studies had suggested!

Victim Type (Ill vs. Drunk)

The "Ill" victim (with the cane) received help 95% of the time (\( 62 \) out of \( 65 \) trials). However, the "Drunk" victim only received help 50% of the time (\( 19 \) out of \( 38 \) trials). People were also much faster to help the ill victim.

Race of the Victim

In general, both Black and White victims were helped equally. However, there was a slight "same-race" effect in the "Drunk" condition. This means that if the victim appeared drunk, people were slightly more likely to help someone of their own race.

Other Observations

  • Men were more likely to help than women.
  • The more people there were in the carriage, the faster the help came. This actually goes against the idea of "diffusion of responsibility" (the idea that we help less when in a big crowd).

Conclusions

Piliavin et al. concluded that people are more likely to help if they feel the victim deserves help (like someone who is ill) compared to someone they feel is responsible for their own trouble (like someone who is drunk). The study suggests that we weigh up the costs and rewards of helping before we step in.

Key Takeaway: The "type of victim" is a major situational factor that determines whether a bystander will intervene.

Evaluating the Study: Strengths and Weaknesses

In your exam, you need to be able to "AO3" this study by looking at what was good and what was bad about it.

Strengths

  • High Ecological Validity: Because it was a field experiment in a real subway, the participants behaved naturally. They didn't know they were being watched, so their behavior was "true to life."
  • Large Sample Size: With over \( 4,400 \) participants, the results are more likely to be generalisable (meaning we can apply the findings to the wider population of New York subway riders).

Weaknesses

  • Ethical Issues: The participants did not give informed consent to be in the study. They were also deceived (the emergency was fake), and they may have felt psychological distress or guilt from seeing someone collapse and not helping. They also didn't have the right to withdraw their data.
  • Lack of Control: Because it was in a busy, public place, many extraneous variables could have affected the results (e.g., how busy the train was, if there was a delay, or if the same passengers saw the experiment twice).

Did you know? This study challenged the idea that people are always "cold" in big cities. It showed that, given the right circumstances, humans are actually quite likely to help a stranger in need!

Quick Summary Box

Aim: To see if victim type (ill/drunk) and race affect helping behavior.
Method: Field experiment on the NYC subway.
Result: Ill victims were helped almost always (\( 95\% \)); drunk victims were helped half the time (\( 50\% \)).
Conclusion: Helping depends on how "deserving" the victim seems.
Big Strength: Real-life setting (Ecological validity).
Big Weakness: Ethical problems (Deception and lack of consent).