Pilliavin et al.
Pilliavin et al. (1969)
The subway samaritan
Aim:
The aim of this field experiment was to investigate the effect of various variables on helping behavior.
Procedure:
- Teams of students worked together with a victim, a model helper, and observers. The IV was whether the victim was drunk or ill (carrying a cane), and black or white.
- The group performed a scenario where the victim appeared drunk or a scenario where the victim appeared ill.
- The participants were subway travelers who were observed when the “victim” staged a collapse on the floor short time after the train had left the station. The model helper was instructed to intervene after 70 seconds if no one else did.
Results:
The results showed that a person who appeared ill was more likely to receive help than one who appeared drunk. In 60% of the trials where the victim received help more than one person offered assistance.
Conclusion:
The researchers did not find support for “diffusion of responsibility”. They argue that this could be because the observers could clearly see the victim and decide whether or not there was an emergency situation. Pilliavin et al. found no strong relationship between the number of bystanders and speed of helping, which is contrary to the theory of the unresponsive bystander.
Evaluation:
This study has higher ecological validity than laboratory experiments and it resulted in a theoretical explanation of factors influencing bystanderism.
Based on this study the researchers suggested that the cost-reward model of helping involves observation of an emergency situation that leads to an emotional arousal and interpretation of that arousal (e.g. empathy, disgust, fear). This serves as motivation to either help or not, based on evaluation of costs and rewards of helping:
- costs of helping (e.g. effort, embarrassment, physical harm)
- costs of not helping (e.g. self-blame and blame from others)
- rewards of helping (e.g. praise from victim and self)
- rewards of not helping (e.g. being able to continue doing whatever one was doing).
Evaluation of the model:
The model assumes that bystanders make a rational cost-benefit analysis rather than acting intuitively on an impulse. It also assumes that people only help for egoistic motives. This is probably not true.