piliavin, rodin & piliavin (1969) – good samaritanism: an underground phenemonon?
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: PILIAVIN, RODIN & PILIAVIN (1969) – GOOD SAMARITANISM: AN UNDERGROUND PHENEMONON?](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062713/56649cf45503460f949c1d49/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
PILIAVIN, RODIN & PILIAVIN (1969) – GOOD
SAMARITANISM: AN UNDERGROUND PHENEMONON?
![Page 2: PILIAVIN, RODIN & PILIAVIN (1969) – GOOD SAMARITANISM: AN UNDERGROUND PHENEMONON?](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062713/56649cf45503460f949c1d49/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
A Question...............
• A woman is being brutally attacked in the street where she lives. She screams for help. 38 of her neighbours witness the attack, how many of them will:-
• (a) Go to her assistance?• (b) Call the police?• KITTY GENOVESE – NEW YORK 1964. None
of them went to help and only one person called the police after about 20 minutes. It was too late. She was attacked, raped, robbed and killed.
![Page 3: PILIAVIN, RODIN & PILIAVIN (1969) – GOOD SAMARITANISM: AN UNDERGROUND PHENEMONON?](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062713/56649cf45503460f949c1d49/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
KEY TERMS
• Bystander Apathy.• Diffusion of responsibility.• Pluralistic ignorance.• Early research into helping behaviour was
done by laboratory experiments.• Irving Piliavin witnessed someone
collapsing on his way home on the New York subway and had an idea...............
![Page 4: PILIAVIN, RODIN & PILIAVIN (1969) – GOOD SAMARITANISM: AN UNDERGROUND PHENEMONON?](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062713/56649cf45503460f949c1d49/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Piliavin’s Plan!• Along with his wife
Jane and a colleague called Judith Rodin, Irving Piliavin wanted to stage an emergency on a New York Subway.
• It would be a FIELD EXPERIMENT involving participant observation.
![Page 5: PILIAVIN, RODIN & PILIAVIN (1969) – GOOD SAMARITANISM: AN UNDERGROUND PHENEMONON?](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062713/56649cf45503460f949c1d49/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
The aim of the study was to investigate factors affecting helping behaviour.
The TYPE of victim
The RACE of the VICTIM
The SPEED of helping
The FREQUENCY of helping
The RACE of the HELPER
The impact of the presence of a MODEL
![Page 6: PILIAVIN, RODIN & PILIAVIN (1969) – GOOD SAMARITANISM: AN UNDERGROUND PHENEMONON?](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062713/56649cf45503460f949c1d49/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
SAMPLE45% black and
55% white passengers
4450 men and women
The average number of passengers in the train carriage was 43. The average
number of passengers in the critical area where the emergency was staged was 8.5
![Page 7: PILIAVIN, RODIN & PILIAVIN (1969) – GOOD SAMARITANISM: AN UNDERGROUND PHENEMONON?](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062713/56649cf45503460f949c1d49/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Where?
• Two trains were selected. The trains travelled through Harlem to the Bronx in New York.
• The trains were chosen because they did not stop between 59th Street and 125th Street. This meant that for 7.5 minutes participants were a captive audience to the emergency.
![Page 8: PILIAVIN, RODIN & PILIAVIN (1969) – GOOD SAMARITANISM: AN UNDERGROUND PHENEMONON?](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062713/56649cf45503460f949c1d49/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Where?
• Train travelled through Harlem to the Bronx.
• No stop between 59th and 125th street – 7.5 minutes.
![Page 9: PILIAVIN, RODIN & PILIAVIN (1969) – GOOD SAMARITANISM: AN UNDERGROUND PHENEMONON?](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062713/56649cf45503460f949c1d49/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
The Experimenters
• 4 teams of 4 students
• Each team had 2 males and 2 females
OBSERVERS MODEL
VICTIM
![Page 10: PILIAVIN, RODIN & PILIAVIN (1969) – GOOD SAMARITANISM: AN UNDERGROUND PHENEMONON?](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062713/56649cf45503460f949c1d49/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
VICTIMS
• The four victims (one from each team) were males, aged between 26 and 35, three white and one black.
• All were identically dressed in jackets, trousers and no tie.
• DRUNK VICTIM• On 38 trials the victim smelled of
alcohol and carried a bottle of alcohol in a brown bag.
• CANE VICTIM• On 65 trials, the victim appeared
sober and carried a black cane.
![Page 11: PILIAVIN, RODIN & PILIAVIN (1969) – GOOD SAMARITANISM: AN UNDERGROUND PHENEMONON?](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062713/56649cf45503460f949c1d49/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
layout
• Figure 1: Layout of adjacent and critical areas of subway car
•
•
![Page 12: PILIAVIN, RODIN & PILIAVIN (1969) – GOOD SAMARITANISM: AN UNDERGROUND PHENEMONON?](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062713/56649cf45503460f949c1d49/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
THE STAGED EMERGENCY
• The victim stood next to the pole in the critical area.
• As the train passed the first station the victim staggers forward and collapses.
• Until receiving help he remains motionless on the floor looking at the ceiling.
• If the victim received no help by the time the train was stopping, the model would help him up.
![Page 13: PILIAVIN, RODIN & PILIAVIN (1969) – GOOD SAMARITANISM: AN UNDERGROUND PHENEMONON?](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062713/56649cf45503460f949c1d49/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
MODELS
• The models (white males aged 24 to 29) were all dressed casually. There were 4 different model conditions used across both drunk and cane conditions.
• Critical area early – helped 70 seconds after the collapse.
• Critical area late – helped 150 seconds after the collapse.
• Adjacent area early – helped after 70 seconds• Adjacent area late – helped after 150 seconds
![Page 14: PILIAVIN, RODIN & PILIAVIN (1969) – GOOD SAMARITANISM: AN UNDERGROUND PHENEMONON?](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062713/56649cf45503460f949c1d49/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
DATA COLLECTED
• 103 trials over 2 months. Trials ran between 11am and 3pm on weekdays during the period of April 15th to June 26th, 1968. 6-8 trials per day.
• 4 teams collected the data. The female observers recorded the data.
![Page 15: PILIAVIN, RODIN & PILIAVIN (1969) – GOOD SAMARITANISM: AN UNDERGROUND PHENEMONON?](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062713/56649cf45503460f949c1d49/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
DATA RECORDED
• The female observers sat in the adjacent area and noted down:
• *The total number of passengers who helped the victim (including their race, sex and location)
• *The race, sex, and location of every passenger in the critical and adjacent areas.
• *A second observer noted down the time it took for help to be given
• *Observers also recorded comments made by the passengers.
![Page 16: PILIAVIN, RODIN & PILIAVIN (1969) – GOOD SAMARITANISM: AN UNDERGROUND PHENEMONON?](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062713/56649cf45503460f949c1d49/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
RESULTS
• Diffusion of responsibility was not evident, in fact the quickest help came from the largest groups.
• Helping behaviour was very high.
• In the majority of trials, the victim was helped before the model acted.
![Page 17: PILIAVIN, RODIN & PILIAVIN (1969) – GOOD SAMARITANISM: AN UNDERGROUND PHENEMONON?](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062713/56649cf45503460f949c1d49/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
RESULTS – CANE VICTIM
• Cane victim received spontaneous help on 62 out of 65 trials
![Page 18: PILIAVIN, RODIN & PILIAVIN (1969) – GOOD SAMARITANISM: AN UNDERGROUND PHENEMONON?](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062713/56649cf45503460f949c1d49/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
RESULTS – DRUNK VICTIM
• Drunk victim received spontaneous help on 19 out of 38 trials.
![Page 19: PILIAVIN, RODIN & PILIAVIN (1969) – GOOD SAMARITANISM: AN UNDERGROUND PHENEMONON?](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062713/56649cf45503460f949c1d49/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
WHO HELPED?
• 90% of helpers were male
• 64% of helpers were white.
![Page 20: PILIAVIN, RODIN & PILIAVIN (1969) – GOOD SAMARITANISM: AN UNDERGROUND PHENEMONON?](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062713/56649cf45503460f949c1d49/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
RESULTS
• On 21 of the 103 trials, a total of 34 people left the critical area. This happened mostly when the victim appeared to be drunk.
![Page 21: PILIAVIN, RODIN & PILIAVIN (1969) – GOOD SAMARITANISM: AN UNDERGROUND PHENEMONON?](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062713/56649cf45503460f949c1d49/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
RESULTS – COMMENTS MADE BY FEMALE 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”
![Page 22: PILIAVIN, RODIN & PILIAVIN (1969) – GOOD SAMARITANISM: AN UNDERGROUND PHENEMONON?](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062713/56649cf45503460f949c1d49/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
EXPLANATION
• Piliavin et al developed the Arousal: Cost-Reward Model to explain their results
• Emotional AROUSAL is created when bystanders observe an emergency situation.
• This arousal may be perceived as fear, disgust or sympathy.
![Page 23: PILIAVIN, RODIN & PILIAVIN (1969) – GOOD SAMARITANISM: AN UNDERGROUND PHENEMONON?](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062713/56649cf45503460f949c1d49/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
EXPLANATION
• Arousal may be increased by empathy with the victim, being close to the emergency and the length of time the emergency continues for.
• Arousal can be reduced by helping, seeking help, leaving the scene or deciding the victim doesn’t need help. Therefore we are motivated to help as a way of reducing our arousal.
![Page 24: PILIAVIN, RODIN & PILIAVIN (1969) – GOOD SAMARITANISM: AN UNDERGROUND PHENEMONON?](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062713/56649cf45503460f949c1d49/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
EXPLANATION
• The Cost-reward analysis part of the model involves weighing up the costs of helping/not helping against the rewards of helping/not helping.
COSTSBENEFITS
![Page 25: PILIAVIN, RODIN & PILIAVIN (1969) – GOOD SAMARITANISM: AN UNDERGROUND PHENEMONON?](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062713/56649cf45503460f949c1d49/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
EXPLANATION
• COSTS OF HELPING• Effort• Embarrassment• Physical harm• COSTS OF NOT
HELPING• Self-blame• Frowned upon by
others
• REWARDS OF HELPING
• Praise• Peace of mind• REWARDS OF NOT
HELPING• Get on with own
business• Save time and effort
![Page 26: PILIAVIN, RODIN & PILIAVIN (1969) – GOOD SAMARITANISM: AN UNDERGROUND PHENEMONON?](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062713/56649cf45503460f949c1d49/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
EXPLANATIONCosts of helping = disgust, embarrassment or harm.
Costs of not helping is less because nobody would blame another for not helping a drunk.
DECISION = NOT TO HELP BECAUSE THE COSTS OUTWEIGH THE BENEFITS.
![Page 27: PILIAVIN, RODIN & PILIAVIN (1969) – GOOD SAMARITANISM: AN UNDERGROUND PHENEMONON?](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062713/56649cf45503460f949c1d49/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
EXPLANATIONCost of helping is LOW. No perceived risk of danger or no disgust or embarrassment
Cost of not helping is HIGH – would feel guilty, others may judge you.
DECISION = WILL HELP BECAUSE THE BENEFITS OUTWEIGH ANY COSTS
![Page 28: PILIAVIN, RODIN & PILIAVIN (1969) – GOOD SAMARITANISM: AN UNDERGROUND PHENEMONON?](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062713/56649cf45503460f949c1d49/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
EXPLANATION
Why did women help less?
Costs of helping are HIGHER for women – greater effort, risk of danger.
Costs of not helping are LESS for women – others may not see it as a woman’s role to offer help in these circumstances
DECISION = NOT TO HELP BECAUSE THE COSTS OF HELPING OUTWEIGH THE BENEFITS.
![Page 29: PILIAVIN, RODIN & PILIAVIN (1969) – GOOD SAMARITANISM: AN UNDERGROUND PHENEMONON?](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062713/56649cf45503460f949c1d49/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
EVALUATION ISSUES
• Ecological Validity• Sample Size
• Ethics• Lack of Control
![Page 30: PILIAVIN, RODIN & PILIAVIN (1969) – GOOD SAMARITANISM: AN UNDERGROUND PHENEMONON?](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062713/56649cf45503460f949c1d49/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
Strengths
![Page 31: PILIAVIN, RODIN & PILIAVIN (1969) – GOOD SAMARITANISM: AN UNDERGROUND PHENEMONON?](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062713/56649cf45503460f949c1d49/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
Weaknesses