Piliavin's study

?

Background

The murder of Kitty Genovese. She was murdered over a period of 30 minutes in front of 38 unresponsive witness. Many psychologists have since studied the concept of a good Samaritan. 

Field experimenter have shown that individuals are more likely to be good Samaritans if they have just observed another individual performing a helpful act.

Lots of studies on victimisation has been conducted in laboratory settings but not field experiments. 

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

1 of 13

Area

Social

2 of 13

Aim

To investigate helping in face to face real life settings and the influence of many different variables on the amount of helping. 

3 of 13

Sample

4,500 men and women.

Using the subway on weekdays between 11am and 3pm between April 15th to June 26th.

45% Black and 55% white.

They were recruited through an opportunity sample. 

4 of 13

Research Method

It was a field experiment with a covert observation

5 of 13

Procedure

1. The team boarded the subway train. The victim stood near a pole on the critical area. The model varied between areas depending on the condition. The two observers sat in the adjacent area.

2. After 70 seconds on the train the victim staggered forward and collapsed. He lay on the floor, staring at the ceiling until he received help. 

3. The model would help the victim if no one else did. This would either be after 70 or 140 seconds.

4. The team disembarked the train and waited separately until the passengers left the station. 

5. They changed platforms and repeated the process. 

6 of 13

The Teams

Victims; 

  • All male
  • 3 white, 1 black
  • Students
  • 26-35 years old
  • Drunk or ill condition

Models;

  • All male
  • All white
  • Students 24-29 years old
  • Early or Late helpers (70 seconds or 140 seconds)
  • In the critical or adjacent area depending on the condition
7 of 13

The Teams 2

Observers;

  • Both female
  • In adjacent area
  • Both recorded spontaneous comments made by nearby passengers

Observer 1 (Recorded);

  • Race, sex, location of all passengers in the critical area
  • The total number of helpers
  • Race, sex, location of every helper

Observer 2 (Recorded);

  • Race, sex, location of passengers in adjacent area
  • Time for helpers after the victim falls or model arrives
8 of 13

Cost-benefit Arousal

9 of 13

Data

Quantitative; 

Amount of people who helped or helped after the introduction of the model.

Qualitative; 

Spontaneous comments made by other passengers.

10 of 13

Findings

Quantitative; 

90% of the first helpers were male

Qualitative; 

People made more comments in the drunk condition and most were when no help was given

11 of 13

Findings + Conclusions of the IV's

Type of victim; 

  • ill = 95% + 100% after the model
  • Drunk = 50% + 81% after the model

People are more likely to help those who are not to blame for their condition.

Race of victim; 

People help the same race as themselves especially in the drunk condition = People have more sympathy for people of the same race.

Behaviour of model;

Participants are more likely to help ill victim after the early model = For someone who is ill a model is more influential but has little impact when the condition is drunk.

Size of group; 

Responses were faster for larger groups = Diffusion of responsibility doesn't necessarily occur.

12 of 13

Conclusions

Incident provides state or arousal (fear, disgust, sympathy) which people try to minimise by; 

1. Helping

2. Getting help

3. Leaving

4. Deciding victim doesn't deserve help

Also suggests;

  • Same race will empathise and help the other
  • Victims helped faster when there were more people in the critical area than the adjacent area

No evidence for diffusion of responsibility.

13 of 13

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Psychology resources:

See all Psychology resources »See all Core studies resources »