BACKGROUOND:






One area of interest to social psychologists is the cause of bystander behaviour (in terms
of the social and situational factors which influence helping behaviour).
DIFFUSION OF RESPONSIBILITY- People are less likely to offer help when others are
present because the responsibility becomes shared or ‘diffused’ amongst the group.
PLURALISTIC IGNORANCE- It is the tendency for people in a group to mislead each other
about an emergency situation. E.g. a person might perceive an emergency as a nonemergency because others are remaining calm and not taking action
Piliavin et al carried out a field experiment to investigate helping behaviour towards
different types of victims. The behaviour of bystanders became interesting to social
psychologists following the case of the murder of Kitty Genovese in New York in 1964.
Attracted interest from psychologists because not one person out of the several people
who witnessed the attack (which lasted over half an hour) tried to help. This maybe
because all witnesses thought another bystander would report it. Many laboratory
studies were carried out by social psychologists to test bystander apathy.
BYSTANDER APATHY- A lack of concern, interest or enthusiasm in helping others when
a bystander to an event.
Piliavin recognised that Latane and Darley 1968 laboratory experiments lacked
ecological validity in that they did not demonstrate how people would react in a realistic
situation. Therefore planned to investigate helping behaviour using a field experiment
where they could observe behaviour as it is in the real everyday world.
AIM:
Investigate factors affecting helping behaviour.
METHOD:
DESIGN:
 field experiment using participant observation.
IVS IN THE STUDY:



IV1: VICTIM CONDITION:
o Ill - Sober and carry a cane
o Drunk - smell of alcohol and carry a bottle wrapped in a brown bag
IV2: VICTIM RACE:
o Black or White.
IV3: MODEL POSITION/TIMING:
o model stand same train compartment as the victim (critical area) OR in the next
compartment (adjacent area)
o The model would either wait until the 4th station before he helped the victim,
approx 70 seconds after the collapse (early) OR wait until the 6th station, which was
approx 150 seconds after the collapse (late).

IV4: BYSTANDERS:
o Number of people present in the train carriage.
DV: HELPING:



Measured the time taken for the first passenger to help
The total number of passengers who helped
Observers also recorded:
o Race of participants in the compartment
o Race of helpers
o How many people moved out of the critical area
o Spontaneous comments made by the passengers
PARTICIPANTS:









4450 men and women (participants in total)
New York subway
11 a.m. and 3 p.m. - weekdays - April 15th to June 26th 1968.
The average racial composition of the passengers on the train:
o 45% black and 55% white
The average number of people in the train carriage - 43
The average number of people in the critical area - 8.5
Two particular trains were selected - chosen because they did not make any stops between
59th Street and 125th Street
7.5 minutes the participants were a captive audience to the emergency (i.e. not get off the
train and escape the situation).
A single trial was a non-stop, 7.5-minute journey in either direction.
PROCEDURE:
PEOPLE INVOLVED:



VICTIM:
o A male would pretend to collapse during the train journey. Depending on the trial, the
victim would be black or white, and ill or drunk.
MODEL:
o Who helped the victim to his feet IF no one else on the train had helped (‘early’ or ‘late’
depending on the condition).
OBSERVERS:
o Two females sat in the next compartment and recorded what happened (i.e. who
helped, how long it took them to help, etc.)
PROCEDURE:
On each trial, Four students of 2 males and 2 female worked together in a team (there were four
teams in total) boarded the train using different doors. Collected data for a total of 103 trials. The
female confederates sat outside the critical area (where the ‘emergency’ would happen) and
recorded data as unassumingly as possible during the journey. While the male model and victim
remained standing. The victim always stood next to a pole in the centre of the critical area. As train
passed the first station (approx. 70 seconds), victim staggered forward and collapsed. Until receiving
help, he remained motionless on the floor, looking at the ceiling. If no help by when passed either
the 4th station or 6th station, then model would help the victim. At the final stop, the team off the
train, waited separately until other passengers had left the station and then board a train going in
the opposite direction for the next trial. 6-8 trials were run on any given day and all trials on a given
day were in the same ‘victim condition’.
VICTIMS:




The 4 victims (one from each team) all males
aged between 26 and 35
3 white AND 1 black
All identically dressed:
o Eisenhower jackets
o old slacks
o no tie (this was a form of control).
 38 TRIALS DRUNK CONDITION - the victims smelled of alcohol and carried a bottle of alcohol
wrapped in a brown bag
 65 TRIALS ILL CONDITION - they appeared sober and carried a black cane
 The victims behaved identically in the 2 conditions
 Each victim participated in drunk and ill trials
 There were more ill than drunk trials because one of the students ‘didn’t like’ playing the
drunk victim
MODELS:



white males
aged 24 to 29
all casually dressed, NOT IDENTICAL
TEAM OF 4 ENTER USING DIFFERENT DOORS
DRUNK – SMELT OF ALCOHOL, CARRIED
BROWN BAG WITH A BOTTLE IN IT (38
TRIALS)
ILL – SOBER, CARRIED BLACK CANE (65
TRIALS)
ALL VICTIMS:
FEMALE OBSERVER ALWAYS SAT IN
ADJACENT AREA
RECORD: - TOTAL NUMBER OF
PEOPLE IN THE CARRIAGE - THE
NUMBER OF HELPERS - THEIR
GENDER - RACE – LOCATION - SPEED
OF THE HELP
THE MODEL WOULD
STAND IN EITHER THE
CRITICAL AREA, OR IN THE
ADJACENT AREA, AND
WOULD RESPOND ‘EARLY’
OR ‘LATE’.
-
70s – VICTIM
STAGGER AND
COLLAPSE
VICTIM STAND CENTRE OF THE
‘CRITICAL AREA’ NEXT TO A POLE IN THE
CENTRE OF THE CARRIAGE.
MALE
26-35
WEARING A JACKET
AND SLACKS
CONDITIONS (MODEL POSITION AND TIMING): 4 different model conditions used across both drunk
and cane victim conditions.
1. CRITICAL AREA - EARLY:
o Model would stand in the critical area and wait until passing the 4th station before he
helped the victim (approx. 70 secs after the collapse).
2. CRITICAL AREA - LATE:
o Model would stand in the critical area and wait until passing the 6th station before he
helped the victim (approx. 150 secs after the collapse).
3. ADJACENT AREA - EARLY:
o Model would stand in the adjacent area and waited until passing the 4th station
(approx. 70 seconds) before he helped the victim.
4. ADJACENT AREA - LATE:
o The model would stand in the adjacent area and waited until passing the 6th station
(approx. 150 seconds) before he helped the victim.
When the model intervened, helped the victim to a sitting position and stayed with him for the
remainder of the trial.
DATA RECORDED:

THE OBSERVERS NOTED:
o The total number of passengers who came to the victim’s assistance also their race,
sex and location.
o The race, sex and location of every passenger seated or standing, in the critical and
adjacent areas
o How long it took for help to arrive
o comments made by nearby passengers and also tried to extract comments from a
passenger sitting next to them.
RESULTS:
Helping behaviour was very high. Therefore, it was not possible to investigate the effect of the
model’s helping because majority of the trials the victims were helped before the model acted.
TYPE OF VICTIM:




The ill victim received help on 62/65 trials
The drunk victim received help on 19/38 Trials
On 60% of 81 trials, more than one person offered help
Once one person had started to help, there were no differences for the different victim
conditions (black/white, ill/drunk) on the number of extra helpers that appeared.
RACE OF VICTIM: The race of the victims made no significant difference to helping behaviour, but
there was a slight tendency for same-race helping in the drunken condition.
GENDER OF HELPERS: 90% of helpers were male
RACE OF HELPERS: 64% of the helpers were white
SPEED/FREQUENCY OF HELPING: Diffusion of responsibility was NOT evident. The diffusion of
responsibility hypothesis predicts that helping behaviour would decrease as the number of
bystanders increases. Quickest help came from the largest groups. Nobody left the carriage during
the incident (mainly because the train was moving), but on 21/103 trials a total of 34 people left the
critical area, particularly when the victim appeared to be drunk.
QUALITATIVE DATA: More comments on drunk trials and most were when no one helped after 70
seconds; Maybe due to the discomfort passengers felt in sitting inactive, perhaps hoping that others
would confirm that inaction was appropriate. The following comments came from women
passengers: ‘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.’
EXPLANATION OF RESULTS:
developed a model to explain their results called the Arousal: Cost- Reward Model. They argue that
firstly, observation of an emergency situation creates an emotional arousal in bystanders. This
arousal may be perceived as fear, disgust or sympathy, depending on aspects of the situation.
THIS STATE OF AROUSAL CAN BE INCREASED BY A NUMBER OF FACTORS INCLUDING:
 Empathy with the victim (i.e. perceive yourself in the victim’s situation).
 Being close to the emergency
 The length of time the emergency continues for
THIS STATE OF AROUSAL CAN BE REDUCED BY A NUMBER OF FACTORS INCLUDING:




Helping
Seeking help from another source
Leaving the scene
Deciding the person doesn’t need or deserve help
ACCORDING TO THIS MODEL we are motivated to help people not by self-sacrifice (acting in the
interest of others) but as a way of reducing unpleasant feelings of arousal in ourselves.
Piliavin goes on to argue that the chosen response depends on a cost-reward analysis by the
individual.
These include:




Costs of helping:
o such as effort, embarrassment and possible physical harm.
Costs of not helping:
o such as self-blame and perceived disapproval from others.
Rewards of helping:
o such as praise from self, bystanders and the victim.
Rewards of not helping :
o such as no possible danger and no inconvenience
According to Piliavin, the results can be explained using their Arousal: Cost Reward Model. For
example:




The drunk was helped less because the perceived cost is greater;
o helping a drunk is likely to cause disgust, embarrassment or harm
o The cost of not helping is less because nobody will blame another because he is
perceived as partly responsible for his own victimisation.
Diffusion of responsibility was not found in the cane-carrying situation;
o because the cost of not helping is high and the cost of helping is low.
Women helped less often than men;
o because the cost to them (effort and danger) was greater and ‘not be seen as a
woman’s role’ to offer assistance under these circumstances, the cost of not helping
is less.
As time without help increased, so did the arousal level of the bystanders
o A late model was not copied because people have already chosen an alternative
way of reducing arousal; they leave the area or engage in conversation with others
in order to justify their lack of help.
EVALUATION OF EXPLANATION:
A criticism of the Arousal: Cost – Reward Model is that it takes a very negative view of people.
Denies that people act unselfishly and assumes that behaviour is always measured in some form of
cost or benefit. Altruism refers to behaviours which are unselfish and motivated by another
person’s needs. Arousal: Cost Benefit model assumes that we therefore never behave unselfishly.
There is still considerable debate in New York about the accuracy of the original reporting of the
events from the murder of kitty. Perhaps not as many witnesses as the newspaper claimed, and
some people may actually called the police.
STRENGTHS:



High level of ecological validity:
o Done in a real-life environment and consisted of a realistic incident. However, some
participants were very close to the victim and were in a situation where they could
not escape. This may be one of the reasons why diffusion of responsibility did not
occur.
The sample size was very large:
o A fairly representative sample of New Yorkers
o Researchers are able to generalise their findings to people in general with much
more certainty
Both quantitative and qualitative data was collected:
o Quantitative data allowed the researchers to make comparisons between the
number of people who helped the different types of victims
o Qualitative data gave an insight into the thoughts and feelings of the passengers,
and helped understand why people didn’t help.
o Collecting a combination of quantitative and qualitative data gives a fuller picture of
how and why the passengers behaved as they did.
LIMITATIONS:
-
-
Unethical:
o Could not give consent, because they did not know that they were participants in an
experiment (field experiment)
o participants were deceived because they were unaware that it was not a genuine
emergency
o Participants were not debriefed as this would have been almost impossible
o It is possible that participants suffered long-term feelings of guilt, distress, and
anxiety, as they thought they had witnessed a genuine emergency.
Problem with field experiments is more difficult to control:
o Question whether travellers on the trains saw more than one trial - participants
would have likely worked out the aim of the experiment - not helped as they knew
it wasn’t a real emergency - lower the validity of the results
o more difficult to replicate and more time consuming and more expensive
IMPROVEMENTS:
METHOD:
(identify weakness)
A field experiment was used therefore the study lacks control, such as control over participant
variables.
(how can we improve)
The study could be conducted as a controlled laboratory experiment. Participants could volunteer
for a study into an unrelated topic, and then the experimenter could set up an emergency situation
like on the train, and see how the participants respond.
(How is it/is not effective)
We could imply cause and effect relationships due to control. However the study would still be
unethical and would lack ecological validity
SAMPLE:
An opportunity sample of people on the train between 11am-3pm was used, which means that the
participants may all have similar characteristics and would not be likely to include people with
professional occupations.
The study could have been conducted on different trains each time, or have been conducted at
different times of the day.
It would be difficult to maintain the ‘captive audience’ the trains would be more crowded
earlier/later in the day and they may not help due to rushing off to work, and nothing to do with
whether the victim was ill/drunk.
DATA COLLECTION METHOD:
Participant observers may have missed some data when recording their observations, or recorded
some inaccurately. They could have video-recorded the scenes in the carriage and reviewed it later
to check the accuracy of their observations. This method would increase the reliability and validity
of the observations, but would have been unethical.