Piliavin (1969) Good Samaritanism*
Piliavin et al.'s Study on Good Samaritanism
1. Theory of Bystander behaviour
- Pluralistic ignorance and diffusion of responsibility influence individuals' likelihood of defining a situation as an emergency and offering help.
- Diffusion of responsibility occurs when bystanders believe responsibility is spread among others, reducing personal responsibility and likelihood of helping.
- Bystander apathy refers to the belief that someone else will intervene, leading to a lack of action.
2. Background
- Inspired by the murder of Kitty Genovese in 1964, subsequent research explored factors influencing bystander intervention.
- Previous studies by Darley and Latané (1968) and Latané and Rodin (1969) suggested that the presence of others decreases likelihood of helping.
- Field experiments aimed to investigate real-life helping behaviour under various conditions.
3. Research Method
- Field experiment conducted on New York subway trains.
- Four independent variables: type and race of victim, presence of a model, size of witnessing group.
- Dependent variables: frequency and speed of help, race and sex of helper, movement out of critical area, verbal comments.
4. Sample
- Approximately 4,450 subway passengers during weekdays between April and June 1968, including 45% black and 55% white individuals.
5. Procedure
- Four teams of researchers: two observers, one victim, one model.
- Victims simulated either a drunk or sober individual with a cane.
- Models arrived in critical or adjacent areas at specified times.
- Observers recorded responses and interactions.
6. Key Findings
- Drunk victims received help 50% of the time, while cane victims received help 95% of the time.
- Cane victims received quicker assistance (median 5 seconds) compared to drunk victims (median 109 seconds delay).
- Majority of first helpers were males, and same-race helping was slightly more common.
- No diffusion of responsibility observed; larger groups led to faster response times.
- More comments made in drunk condition, especially when no help was given initially.
7. Possible Conclusions
- Ill-appearing victims are more likely to receive help than drunk-appearing ones.
- Men are more likely than women to help male victims.
- Same-race helping is more common, particularly for victims deemed responsible for their situation.
- Relationship between bystander number and helping speed is weak when the incident is visible.
- Face-to-face encounters with victims increase likelihood of help.
- Bystanders conduct cost-reward analyses before deciding to help.
- Subsequent spontaneous help is irrespective of race or victim type.