Summary
Highlights
This video serves as the final installment in the AS Cambridge A-Level Psychology series, focusing on the social psychology chapter. The topic is the 1969 subway samaritan study by Piliavin et al., investigating helping behavior in a natural setting. The introduction also includes testimonials from students who achieved excellent results thanks to the channel's videos, emphasizing the importance of smart study methods like active recall.
The study was inspired by the tragic 1964 murder of Kitty Genovese, where it was initially reported that 38 witnesses did not intervene or call the police. This incident sparked research into the 'bystander effect' and 'diffusion of responsibility,' concepts where the presence of others reduces an individual's likelihood of helping. Past research by Darley and Latane demonstrated this with experiments on epileptic seizures and smoke-filled rooms, showing that larger group sizes decrease the frequency and increase the latency of helping.
Key terms discussed include 'diffusion of responsibility' (reduced responsibility in groups), 'bystander effect' (failure to help in emergencies when others are present), 'Good Samaritanism' (helping others in trouble), and 'latency' (time taken for a response). The study's aims were to investigate bystander behavior in a natural setting, using visual cues of an emergency, and to examine the effect of four situational variables: type of victim, race of victim, behavior of a model helper, and size of the bystander group.
This was a field experiment conducted on New York City subway express trains, chosen for its enclosed and consistent environment. The 7.5-minute non-stop train ride allowed for sufficient observation time. Participants were approximately 4450 commuters (opportunity sampling), with a diverse racial mix. The independent variables included the victim's type (drunk vs. ill/cane-carrying) and race (black vs. white), and the model's helping behavior (early vs. late, critical vs. adjacent area). The dependent variables measured were the time taken to help, total number of helpers, and qualitative data like verbal remarks.
Four teams of four university students participated: one victim (stooge), one model (stooge), and two observers. The victim would stagger and collapse 70 seconds after the train left the first station. The model would intervene either early (70 seconds) or late (150 seconds) from either the critical or adjacent area. Observers recorded detailed quantitative and qualitative data. Trials were conducted between 11 am and 3 pm, with teams varying conditions daily but consistently for a given day.
Results showed that victims with a cane received spontaneous help in 62 out of 65 trials, while drunk victims received help in 19 out of 38 trials. This indicates spontaneous help is more likely and faster for ill victims. The group size did not significantly impact helping behavior for either condition. There was a trend for same-race helping, especially for drunk victims, though this wasn't statistically significant due to limitations in the number of black actors. Males were significantly more likely to be the first to help (90% of first helpers were male).
The median time for help in the cane condition was 5 seconds, compared to 109 seconds for the drunk condition, a significant difference. Early models (intervening at 70 seconds) elicited more help from other passengers than late models (150 seconds). In conditions with no model, observers tended to leave the immediate area or make comments, especially in the drunk condition or after 70 seconds, likely to reduce their discomfort and justify inaction.
Piliavin et al. proposed a cost-reward model, suggesting that observing an emergency creates emotional arousal in a bystander (fear, disgust, sympathy). This arousal is reduced by either helping, seeking help, leaving the scene, or re-evaluating the victim as undeserving. The chosen response is based on a cost-reward analysis: balancing the costs of helping (effort, embarrassment, harm) and not helping (guilt, judgment) against the rewards of helping (praise) and not helping (continuity of activities). This model suggests that helping is often a selfish desire to reduce unpleasant emotional states.
Strengths include high ecological validity due to the natural setting and unawares participants. The large sample size also improved generalizability. However, limitations include reduced reliability due to inability to control all extraneous variables in a field experiment. Ethical concerns are significant, as participants were deceived, not debriefed, and potentially experienced psychological distress without consent. The potential for repeat participants on the subway line could also introduce demand characteristics, reducing validity.