Piliavin et al (Subway Samaritan) – Social Approach
Psychology investigated:
Bystander apathy – actions of bystanders who don’t help others in event of emergency.
Good Samaritans - Someone who voluntarily helps someone else who is in distress.
Diffusion of responsibility
Aims : To study bystander behaviour in a natural setting.
To investigate the effect four situational independent variables on helping of Good Samaritans.
Hypothesis: N/A
IV :
1.type of victim (ill/cane and drunk)
2.race of victim (black or white)
3.model conditions – helped after 70s/150s.
4.number of bystanders – naturally occurring from passengers present at that time. /diff. every trials
DV : the level of bystander helping the victim.
Background : Many studies have been conducted about bystander behavior. The commencement of
these studies followed the murder of Kitty Genovese and the apathy of 38 witnesses.
Design and MethodologySample : 4450 Ps. Via Opportunity sampling.
New York subway. Station travelling from Harlem to Bronx.
55% white & 45% black.
Research Method : Field experiment and Naturalistic, non-participant observation.
Experimental Design : Independent groups.
Controls/Standardisation :
Each trial used same route of 7minute gap between two station.
Victims wear the same clothes
All victims collapse after 70 seconds into journey.
Model helped if no one helps after 70s or 150s of victims collapsed.
Apparatus :
- Cane for ill condition.
- Bottle wrapped in paper bag for drunk condition.
Data collection – through observation. By 2 female observers (from adjacent area)
Quantitative : time taken for first Ps. to help, total no. of Ps helped and the race ,gender of helper.
Qualitative : recorded in verbal remarks from Ps. during each incident.
Procedure :Field experiment on a 7 minute non-stop journey on a New York underground train.
1. Four members of the team – (male victim, male model, 2 female observers) position themselves in a
specific location on the subway train
A ‘victim’ staged an ‘emergency’ by collapsing. The IVs were: victim type (drunk or ill) and race
(black or white). Also IV of model (helper or not / early or late help / critical or adjacent area).
2. Train leaves the station. 70 seconds later, the victim collapses. After collapsing the victim lay on his
back on the floor. If not helped earlier in the journey,the model assisted the victim.
3. If no one helps, a model intervenes;
The victims were: aged 26-35; three white, one black; identically dressed in a US army-style jacket, old
trousers, no tie. The ‘drunk’ smelled of alcohol, carried a spirits bottle wrapped in a brown paper bag (38
trials). The ‘ill ‘victim appeared sober and carried a black cane (65 trials).
The models were: aged 24-29, wore casual but not identical clothes and helped by raising the victim to a
sitting position and staying with him.
They either: stood near the victim and helped after about 70 seconds (critical area – early), stood in the
same place but helped after 150 seconds (critical area– late), or stood further away and helped quickly
or slowly (‘adjacent – early’ and ‘adjacent – late’).
1. Critical area - early: the model stood in the critical area and waited until passing the fourth station
before helping the victim (approximately 70seconds after the collapse).
2. Critical area - late: the model stood in the critical area and waited until passing the sixth station
before helping the victim (approximately 150seconds after the collapse).
3. Adjacent area - early: the model stood in the adjacent area and waited until passing the fourth station
before helping the victim. (approximately70 seconds after the collapse).
4.Adjacent area - late: the model stood in the adjacent area and waited until passing the sixth station
before helping the victim. (approximately150 seconds after the collapse).
4. 2 female observers record what happens - During 103 victim trials, observers recorded number and
race of participants (approximately 4,450men and women travellers, approximately 45% black, 55%
white), latency (time) to help, race and
sex of helper, number of helpers, movement away from ‘critical area’ and comments made.
6-8 trials per day, on journeys in alternating directions, all the same victim type in any day.
Results :
Cane, ill victim – 62/65 trials was helped. (95%) > Drunk victim – 19/38 trials helped. (50%)
90% of Passenger who helped the victims were male.
64% of helpers were white.
Model intervention after 70s victim collapsed , more likely to result in helping behaviour then 150s.
20% of passengers moved away from critical area during incident.
More comments were made during trials with drunk victim.
Conclusions :
Those who appeared to be ill were more likely to receive help than those who appeared to be drunk.
Men were more likely to help than women and same-race helping was more likely.
There is also no strong relationship between the number of bystanders and the speed of helping.
Evaluation –
Strengths
High ecological validity – more naturalistic setting as it is field exp. – Ps. would behave normally, the are
unaware of the research being conducted.
Large sample – could be representative to target populations / high generalisability.
Weaknesses
Low controls over extraneous & confounding variables – less confidence of causal relationship.
-could also lowers validity of study. & lowers reliability.
Sample could be unrepresentative – all may came from New York. & there is a chance of same Ps. being
exposed to more than one condition of variables - same route & train station was used.
Ethics / Ethical guideline –
No informed consent nor debriefring to Ps./ Passengers.
Ps. deceived by victims and stooge actions.