Piliavin et al. (subway Samaritans)

Introduction: Why do we help?

Welcome! Today we are looking at a classic study by Piliavin et al. (1969), often called the "Subway Samaritans" study. Have you ever seen someone in trouble in a public place and wondered why some people rush to help while others just walk past? This study belongs to the Social Approach because it looks at how the people around us and the situation we are in influence whether we become a "Good Samaritan" or a "Bystander."

Don't worry if this seems like a lot of information at first. We will break it down into small, easy steps!

Background: The Sad Story of Kitty Genovese

The inspiration for this study was a real-life tragedy. In 1964, a woman named Kitty Genovese was murdered in New York while 38 neighbors reportedly watched or listened and did nothing to help. This led psychologists to investigate Bystander Apathy (when people fail to help those in need).

Before Piliavin, researchers thought Diffusion of Responsibility was the main cause. This is the idea that the more people there are, the less "responsible" each individual feels to help. Piliavin wanted to see if this was true in a real-world setting.

Quick Review: Key Terms

Bystander: A person who is present at an event but does not take part.
Diffusion of Responsibility: The belief that "someone else will do it" because there are many people around.

The Aim of the Study

Piliavin and his team wanted to test several factors that might affect helping behavior:
1. The type of victim (Are we more likely to help an ill person or a drunk person?)
2. The race of the victim (Are we more likely to help someone of our own race?)
3. The presence of a model (If we see someone else help, does it encourage us?)
4. The number of bystanders (Does a bigger crowd really mean less help?)

The Method: A Field Experiment

This was a field experiment, which means it took place in a real-world setting (the New York Subway) rather than a lab. This gives the study high ecological validity because the participants were acting naturally.

The Participants (The Sample)

The participants were about 4,450 men and women traveling on the New York subway between 11 a.m. and 3 p.m. This is an opportunity sample because the researchers just used whoever happened to be on the train at that time.

The Procedure: What actually happened?

Imagine you are on a train. About 70 seconds after the train leaves the station, a man (the victim) suddenly collapses and lies on the floor looking at the ceiling. Here is how the experiment was set up:

1. The Team: There were 4 teams of researchers. Each team had 2 females (observers) and 2 males (one victim, one model).
2. The Victim: The victim was always a man. Sometimes he carried a cane and looked "ill"; other times he smelled of alcohol and carried a bottle in a brown bag, looking "drunk."
3. The Model: If no one helped the victim, a "model" (another researcher) would step in to help after a certain amount of time to see if others would follow.
4. The Observers: The two women sat in the "adjacent area" and secretly took notes on how many people helped, how fast they helped, and what they said.

The Results: Who helped?

The results were quite surprising and actually contradicted the "Diffusion of Responsibility" theory!

1. Ill vs. Drunk: The "ill" victim received help 95% of the time, while the "drunk" victim received help 50% of the time. We are much more likely to help someone we think "deserves" it.
2. Race: People generally helped both races. However, in the drunk condition, people were slightly more likely to help someone of their own race.
3. Gender: Men helped more than women. (In the 1960s, it was often seen as the man's "role" to handle physical emergencies).
4. Speed: Most people helped very quickly, usually before the "model" even had a chance to act.
5. Group Size: This is the big one! There was NO diffusion of responsibility. In fact, people were slightly faster to help when there were more people on the train.

Analogy: Think of it like a group project. Sometimes, if the project is huge (like a person's life), everyone jumps in because they can't ignore it, unlike a small task where you might hope someone else does the work.

Key Takeaway:

People are more likely to help an "ill" person than a "drunk" person, and in this specific setting, more witnesses did NOT mean less help.

The Conclusion: The Cost-Reward Model

Piliavin explained these results using the Cost-Reward Model. He argued that seeing someone collapse creates emotional arousal (stress/anxiety). To get rid of this uncomfortable feeling, we quickly weigh the costs and rewards of helping.

Costs of helping: Effort, embarrassment, or physical danger.
Costs of NOT helping: Guilt or blame from others.
Rewards: Feeling like a hero or praise.

People helped the "ill" man because the cost of helping was low and the cost of NOT helping (guilt) was high. They helped the "drunk" man less because the cost of helping was higher (he might be messy or aggressive).

Evaluating the Study (Strengths and Weaknesses)

Strengths

1. High Ecological Validity: Because it was a field experiment in a real subway, people acted naturally. They didn't know they were in a study.
2. Large Sample: With over 4,000 participants, the results are quite generalisable (representative of New York subway riders).

Weaknesses

1. Ethical Issues: This is a major point! The participants did not give consent, they were deceived (the victim wasn't really hurt), they could not withdraw from the situation, and they might have felt psychological distress after seeing someone collapse.
2. Lack of Control: Because it was a public subway, many situational variables couldn't be controlled (e.g., how crowded the train was, if the train jolted, if some people saw the "collapse" twice).

Common Mistakes to Avoid

1. Mixing up the numbers: Don't worry about memorizing every single percentage, but remember the big gap between help for the ill victim (almost always) and the drunk victim (half the time).
2. Forgetting the "No Diffusion of Responsibility" result: Many students assume diffusion of responsibility happened because it happens in other studies. In this study, it did not happen!

Memory Aid: The "S.U.B.W.A.Y." Samaritan

S - Social Approach (Looking at groups)
U - Unexpected collapse (The procedure)
B - Bystander Apathy (What they were testing)
W - Weighing costs/rewards (The conclusion)
A - Alcohol vs. Ailment (The two victim types)
Y - You help more if you're a man (Gender results)

Final Tip: When answering exam questions, always bring it back to the Social Approach. Mention how the environment (the closed subway carriage) made it harder for people to leave, which might be why help was so high compared to a busy street!