JMR

1
Piliavin, Rodin Piliavin (1969)

• JMR

Good Samaritanism an underground phenomenon?
2
The Kitty Genovese Murder (1964)

• Kitty Genovese murdered in New York in 60s -
  many people heard her screams but nobody called
  the police until it was too late
• Why no Good Samaritan? (Luke 10 25-37)
• ALTRUISM high-cost low-cost

3
Darley and Latane (1968)

• Laboratory experiment
• P hears someone in another room (really a tape
  recording) having an epileptic fit.
• When P thought he was the only one listening he
  was MORE likely to help then when he believed
  there were other listeners in nearby rooms.
• DIFFUSION OF RESPONSIBILITY

• Problem these experiments lack ecological
  validity (mundane realism)

4
The Field Experiment

• To conduct an experiment that was more true to
  life, Piliavin et al used express trains of the
  New York 5th Avenue Subway (Harlem ? Bronx)
• (Can New Yorkers be generalised to other people?
  Can subways be generalised to other places?)

5
Procedure

• VICTIM (age 26-35) collapses on train during
  non-stop 7½-minute journey, 11 a.m. - 3 p.m.
  weekday - between 59th Street 125th Street
  stations of 8th Avenue branch of New York subway.
• 4,450 unsolicited participants (OPPORTUNITY
  SAMPLE) witness event (45 black, 55 white, mean
  45 on each train and 8.5 in critical area)

6
Procedure (contd)

• Helped (i) after a short while or (ii) after a
  number of minutes, by 24-29 yr old bystander (the
  MODEL).
• Victim is either a black or white
• In one condition, victim is acting drunk (smells
  of liquor, carries liquor bottle in brown paper
  bag)
• In other condition, victim acts sober, but
  unsteady, and carried a black cane
• Two female observers record what happens

7
Plan of Train

• Adjacent Area Critical Area

8
Independent Variables

• Drunk or cane
• Black or White
• Early, Late or No model
• Model initially sitting in the critical area or
  adjacent area
• The number of people on the train

9
Dependent Variables

• Time taken to help.
• Race of the helper.
• of trials in which passengers (subjects) left
  the critical area
• The number of comments made

10
Results

• 1.  Cane victim (any race) helped MORE OFTEN and
  SOONER than drunk victim (cane, 100 help,
  av.5secs drunk 82 help, av.109secs).
• 2. Tendency for same-race help in drunk
  condition.
• 3. Significantly more men helped than women
• 4.The more people on the train the greater chance
  of somebody helping.
• (AGAINST diffusion of responsibility)
• 5. Initial position of model had no effect on
  helping behaviour.

11
Results (contd)

• 6. As time went by more comments and more people
  left the critical area.
• 7. EARLY MODEL more likely to encourage help than
  LATER MODEL
• 8. When SPONTANEOUS help was given, victim
  received it from 2 or more helpers 81 of time
  observers had difficulty recording times
• 9.Once one person helped, drunk condition did
  not affect others helping
• 10. Few drunk trials carried out (35 compared
  to 68 cane trials) models didnt like acting
  drunk!

12
Comments by Female Passengers

• Its for men to help him
• I wish I could help him Im not strong enough
• I never saw this kind of thing before I dont
  know where to look
• "You feel so bad that you don't know what to do."

13
Conclusions

• Piliavin suggests a COSTREWARD model of
  EMOTIONAL AROUSAL
• 1.  empathy
• 2.  being close to the emergency
• 3.  the length of time the emergency continues)
• People try to REDUCE arousal
• 1.  by helping
• 2.  going to get help
• 3.  leaving the scene
• 4.  believing victim does not deserve help

14
Cognitive Appraisal

• Costs/Rewards of helping or not helping
• cost of helping might be embarrassment or
  physical harm
• cost of not helping might be guilt or blame from
  others
• rewards of helping might be praise
• rewards of not helping would be getting on with
  one's own business

15
Think About It

• Are the results explained by this theory?
• Is this study TIME-LOCKED? Whats changed since
  1969?
• Where else could this research be carried out?
• What other method could be used?