1.  “This presentation contains copyrighted material under the educational fair use exemption to the U.S. copyright law”
AICE AS Level Psychology
Piliavin et al. (1969)
Video 1

2. GOOD SAMARITANISM: AN UNDERGROUND PHENOMENON?
Piliavin, Rodin, & Piliavin (1969)
GOOD SAMARITANISM: AN UNDERGROUND PHENOMENON?

3. Background to the Study
“Kitty” Genovese murder in 1964 in Queens, NY
Stabbed twice in the back.. suspect ran away as someone yelled from an apt. window
After 10 minutes of no one showing up, suspect comes back and rapes her, stabs her (again), and stole $50- lasted ½ hour
Police investigation notes that 38 people heard or witnessed the attack but did not intervene b/c they “didn’t want to get involved”
Led to wave of research into
“bystander effect”

4. Background to the Study
Darley & Latane (1968) study- yielded the theory of “diffusion of responsibility” (aka “bystander effect” or “Genovese syndrome”)
In a lab setting, researchers staged emergencies with college Ps
Subject heard another 'subject' (really a tape recording of an actor) having an epileptic fit. This 'subject' was believed to be in a nearby room.
In some instances, the real subject was told he was the only one around. In other trials, he was told that there were other ppl listening as well.

5. Background the to Study
Results-
when alone= 80% helped
when 3 people=60% helped
when 4+ people=30% helped
Showed that the more people who are present in a
situation, the less likely that we are to help
Contend that in order for one to help, one must:
-notice the event
-interpret the event as an emergency
-assume personal responsibility
-choose a way to help
-implement the decision to help

6. Background to the Study
Latane and Rodin (1969) conducted another similar lab experiment
Found that few people in a large group would go to help an experimenter, who had pretended to fall off a chair in another room
The 2 studies lacked ecological validity
-experiments were in a laboratory
-the tasks were not that true to life
-the victim was not in sight
-the subjects were college students
From these 2 studies, Piliavins and Rodin
wanted to test the phenomenon in a more
natural setting

7. Aim of the Study
Aim of the study was to investigate whether diffusion of responsibility applies in all situations and what other factors might influence helping behavior
Specifically, wanted to see which variables made it more or less likely that someone would help a stranger who collapses in a public place.
1. Type of victim: ill victim or drunk victim
2. Race of victim: white or black
3. Effect of modeling: do people follow
a model?
4. Group size: what effect does group
size have?

8. Hypotheses of the Study
1- An individual would be more inclined to help
someone of their own race
2- Help would be offered more and in a quicker fashion for the ill (cane) victim over the drunk victim
“people who are responsible for their own plight will receive less help”

9. Video 1 Review Cues
1. The Piliavin et al. study (subway Submaritanism) was conducted as a field study.
(a) List two strengths of the field study method. [2]
(b) List two weaknesses of the field study method. [2]
(Refer to the Piliavin et al. study for the following questions)
2. Piliavin et al. note that the subway study done in the field was different than previous lab studies because of two reasons. Identify these two reasons. [4]
3. Describe the following terms: [6]
Diffusion of responsibility
Pluralistic ignorance
Empathy altruism model

10.  “This presentation contains copyrighted material under the educational fair use exemption to the U.S. copyright law”
AICE AS Level Psychology
Piliavin et al. (1969)
Video 2

11. Methodology- Location
Used NY Subway system-“a lab on wheels”
From 11am-3pm weekdays during April-June 1968 at random times
It was a 7 ½ minute, non-stop ride

12. Methodology- The 16 Stooges
4 teams of 4 stooges (2M, 2F)
All were college students
Males played the part of the victim & model
‘Victims’ (drunk or cane) were either black or white, aged 26-35
Models (helpers) were all white, aged 24-29
1 team had a black ‘victim’, other 3 teams had white victims
White females were the observers in all teams
All experimenters wore identical clothing
bomber jacket, old slacks, no tie (#losers)

13. Methodology- Participants
Subway ‘participants’
43- avg # of riders per section (carriage)
8.5- avg # of riders in ‘critical area’
roughly 55% white & 45% black
estimated 4,500 people overall (opportunity sample)

14. Methodology- Layout

15. Methodology- Terminology
Critical area- area in which the victim (stooge) collapsed
Stooges were either white or black, all aged 26-35
Adjacent area- area further away from the victim (stooge), at the other end of the subway train, in which the observers stood
‘Drunk condition’- victim smells of alcohol and carries a bottle wrapped in a brown paper bag
38 drunk condition trials were ran
‘Cane condition’- victim appears to be sober and carries a cane
65 cane condition trials were ran

16. Methodology- Procedure
Procedure for each trail (both drunk and cane)
(1) 70 seconds after the subway left the stop, victim
pretended to collapse
(2) Victim remained on floor until helped OR
(3) Model was instructed to help either after:
70 seconds (early trial) or 150 seconds (late trial)
to see if others would also help

17. Methodology- Procedure
Procedure for each trail (both drunk and cane)
(4) Observers recorded response time, info on race, gender,
sitting or standing, & location of passengers and those
who helped
(5) Observers also noted overheard comments or if the
passengers moved away
(6)Whether the victim (cane or drunk) was helped or not,
the team would exit the train at the new station and
cross over to another train going
back to the original station
(7) This procedure was done 6 to 8 times
on any given day

18. Methodology- Variables
Independent Variables:
Type of victim (drunk or cane)
Race of victim (white or black)
Manipulated actions of the model
Dependent Variables:
Race of the helper
Which victim was helped most
Speed of helping
Gender of helper
How many people helped
Whether bystanders moved away
Overheard comments

19. Video 2 Review Cues
4. The Piliavin study (good Samaritans) investigated helping behavior in the
New York subway system. Describe two advantages of the field study
methodology in investigating this phenomenon. [4]
5. (a) Identify two IVs of the Piliavin study investigating helping behavior by
good Samaritans. [2]
(b) Identify two DVs of the Piliavin study investigating helping behavior by
6. Describe two procedural controls that were used in the Piliavin study. [4]
7. The Piliavin study (subway Submaritanism) collected observational data.
(a) Identify two pieces of observational data collected in the study. [2]
(b) What is a weakness of collecting observational data in any study? [2]
(Refer to study for the following questions)
8. Explain why there was a small number of drunk,
black trials. [2]
9. Explain why the data collection period unexpectedly
concluded. [2]

20. AICE AS Level Psychology
 “This presentation contains copyrighted material under the educational fair use exemption to the U.S. copyright law”
AICE AS Level Psychology
Piliavin et al. (1969)
Video 3

21. Results- Quantitative Data
Overall…
there was 93% spontaneous help (before the model intervened)
60% of the trials had more than one helper
LOOK AT TABLE 1 IN STUDY
Cane victim- 100% help w/out model (62/62)
100% help when model had to intervene (3/3)
=95% spontaneous help of total trials (62/65)
Avg of 5 seconds to help
Drunk victim- 86% help w/out model (19/22)
75% help w/model (12/16)
=50% spontaneous help of total trials (19/38)
Avg of 109 seconds to help

22. Results- Quantitative Data

23. Results- Quantitative Data
Black victims received less help less quickly
especially true in the drunk condition
Statistically speaking, neither race was more helpful overall…
BUT there was a slight ‘same race effect’ where:
whites were more likely to help the white victim
Blacks were more likely to help the black drunk victim
Men were significantly more likely to help
90% of first helpers were men

24. Results- Quan & Qual Data
In 20% (34 people total) of the trials, subway riders moved away from the critical area
mostly females, noting their size/strength
Qualitative data collected included:
“It’s for men to help him”
“I wish I could help him – I’m not strong enough”
“I never saw this kind of thing before – I don’t know where to look”
"You feel so bad that you don't know what to do."

25. Results & Discussion No ‘diffusion of responsibility’ was found
Instead, there was a trend for more help being offered when with the larger group size
Piliavin et al. suggest this may be b/c the Ps were face to face with the victim unlike in the lab experiments
The longer that the victim went without help:
the less impact a model had on bystanders intervening
the more likely that bystanders were to leave the critical area
the more likely bystanders were to discuss
the incident

26. Discussion- ACR Model Arousal: Cost-Reward Model (ACR model)
“proposes that the decision to help others depends on the arousal and the costs and rewards of helping versus not helping”
According to Piliavin et al., the ACR model explains the behavior on the subway system:
1) When there is an emergency, bystanders have an unpleasant
experience of nervous arousal and they want to decrease this
2) We can reduce this arousal by either (a) helping the victim, (b)
going and getting help for the victim (not an option in this study),
(c) leaving the area, or (d) deciding not to offer help b/c you
think the victim doesn’t deserve it
3) Bystanders choose their response based on
a COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS.

27. Discussion- ACR Model
ACR Model may help explain some of the results from the study:
There was less help for the drunk-victim, because the costs were
higher (disgust, fear) and the benefits lower (it was his own
fault he fell)
Lower female help b/c they felt the costs were higher (danger) and
the benefits were lower (it's not a woman's role to be heroic)
There was more same-race help because of greater empathy for
the victim and the costs of not helping (disapproval for not
helping your own)
4) The longer the emergency lasted, the
more people moved away from the
critical area (reducing arousal)

28. Strengths & Weaknesses
High ecological validity
Though uneven trial runs, had numerous runs at various times
Standardized procedure
Proposed new theoretical explanation
Weaknesses
Less strict conditions in field than lab
Unequal trials (only 8 black cane)
Ethical considerations
Lack of informed consent
Deception
No debriefing took place
Possibly caused anxiety, inconvenience,
and/or lasting effects on subway riders

29. Video 3 Review Cues
10. (a) Identify two quantitative results of the Piliavin et al. study [2] (b) Discuss two qualitative findings documented by the observers. [2] 11. Discuss how the Arousal: Cost-Reward (ACR) Model helps to explain two findings from the study. [4] 12. Using the Piliavin et al. (subway Samaritanism) study, discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the field study methodology. [10]