Piliavin (1969)

- Although pluralistic ignorance and/or genuine ambiguity make it less likely that the individual will define a situation as an emergency, in many situations the reason an individual may not help is because they diffuse responsibility

- Diffusion of responsibility is where the responsibility for the situation is spread (diffused) among the people present, the more the bystander believes the responsibility is spread out so they feel less likely to help 

- Another explanation for not helping a victim in need is that a bystander may believe that someone else will do what's necessary so there is no need for them to offer assistance. This is known as 'Bystander Apathy'. 

- Since the murder of Kitty Genovese in 1964 (a woman stabbed to death over a period of 30 minutes in front of a reported 38 unresponsive witnesses), many social psychologists have studied the concept of good Smaritanism.

- Research by Darley and Latané (1968) found that bystanders hearing an epileptic fit over earphones led to those who believed other witnesses to be present being less likely to help the victim than those who were alone

- Subsequent research by Latané and Rodin (1969) on the response to the victim of a fall confirmed this finding and suggested that assistance from bystanders was less likely if they were strangers than if they were acquaintances

- Field experiments conducted by Byran and Test (1967) showed that individuals are more likely to be good Samaritans if they have just observed another individual performing a helpful act

 - Much of the work on victimisation has been conducted in laboratory settings, using non-verbal emergency situations

- This study was designed to investigate, under real life conditions, the effect of several variables on helpful behaviour 

The study was a field experiment. The situation was the A and D trains of the 8th Avenue New York Subway between 59th and 125th street. The journeys lasted about 7.5 minutes. 

The experiment had four independent variables: type of victim (drunk or carrying a cane), race of victim (black or white), effect of model (after 70 or 150 seconds, from the critical or adjacent area), or no model at all, size of the witnessing group (a naturally occurring independent variable)

The dependent variable recorded by two females observers seated in the adjacent area: frequency of help, speed of help, race of helper, sex of helper, movement out of critical area, verbal comments by bystanders

Participants were about 4,500 men and women who used the New York subway on weekdays between 11 am and 3 pm between April 15th and June 26th, 1968. About 45% were black and 55% white.

There were 4 teams of 4 researchers: 2 female observers, 2 males - one acting as the victim, one the model. The victims (3 white, 1 black) were all male, General Studies students, aged 26-35 years, and dressed alike. They either smelled of liquor and carried a liquor bottle wrapped in a brown bag or appeared sober and carried a black cane. In all aspects, they acted identically in both conditions. The models (all white) were males aged 24-29 years. There were 4 model conditions: critical area - 70 seconds, critical area - 150 seconds, adjacent area - 70 seconds, adjacent area - 150 seconds

The observers recorded the dependent variables. On each trial, one observer noted the race, sex and location of every rider seated or standing in the critical area. In addition, she counted the total number of individuals who came to the victim's assistance. She also recorded the race sex and location of every helper. The second observer coded the race, sex and location of all persons in the adjacent area. She also recorded the latency of the first helper's arrival after the first helper's arrival after the victim had fallen and on appropriate trials, the latency of the first helper's arrival after the programmed model had arrived. Both observers recorded comments spontaneously made by nearby passengers and attempted to elicit comments from a rider sitting next to them. 

The victim stood near a pole in the critical area. After about 70 seconds he staggered forward and collapsed. Until receiving the help he remained supine on the floor looking at the ceiling. If he received no help by the time the train stopped the model helped him to his feet. At the stop, the team disembarked and waited separately until other passengers had left the situation. They then changed platforms to repeat the process in the opposite direction. 

Between 6-8 trials were run a day, all using the same victim condition. 

There were more cane trials than drunk trials which were distributed unevenly across black and white victims because Team 2 violated instructions by running cane rather than drunk trials because the victims "didn't like" playing drunk. Subsequently, students strikes prevented additional trials to correct this.  

The cane victim received spontaneous help 95% of the time (62/65 trials) compared to the drunk victim 50% of the time (19/38 trials). Overall, there was 100% help for the cane victim compared to 81% help for the drunk victim. 

Overall, there was 100% help for the cane victim compared to 81% help for the drunk victim. 

Help was offered more quickly to the cane victim ( median of 5 seconds compared to 109 seconds delay for the drunk victim)

90% of the first helpers were males

There was a slight tendency for same race helping especially in the drunk condition 

No diffusion of responsibility was found, in fact, response times were faster with larger groups than smaller

More comments were made by passengers in the drunk than the cane condition and most comments were made when no help was given within the first 70 seconds. 

An individual who appears ill is more likely to receive help than one who appears drunk

With mixed groups of men and women, men are more likely than women to help a male victim

With mixed-race groups, people are more likely to help those of the same race as themselves, particularly if they deem the victim's situation to be of his own making e.g drunk. 

There is no strong relationship between the number of bystanders and speed of helping when an incident is visible.

When escape is not possible and bystanders are face to face with a victim, help is likely to be forthcoming 

Bystanders conduct a cost-reward analysis before deciding whether or not to help a victim

Subsequent spontaneous help from others was irrespective of race or victim type.