Pilavin et. al. (1969) (Subway Samaritans) Flashcards
What was the aim of the study?
To investigate bystander behavior in a natural setting and examine the effects of type of victim, race of the victim, model behavior, and size of bystander group on helping behavior.
What background event inspired this study?
The murder of Kitty Genovese in 1964, where 38 witnesses did not intervene, leading to research on diffusion of responsibility.
What research method was used in the study?
A field experiment conducted in a New York City subway.
What was the research design?
Independent groups design, as different passengers were exposed to different conditions.
What were the independent variables in the study?
Type of victim (drunk or ill), race of victim (black or white), model behavior (close or distant proximity and early or late helping), and size of bystander group.
What were the dependent variables in the study?
Time taken for a passenger to help, total number of passengers who offered help, and recorded verbal remarks.
What was the sample size and demographic?
Estimated 4450 passengers on weekdays between 11 AM - 3 PM; 45% Black, 55% White; around 43 passengers per carriage.
What sampling technique was used?
Opportunity sampling.
What was the role of the observers in the study?
Two female confederates recorded race, gender, location of each helper, and any verbal comments made.
What was the role of the victim in the study?
Four different men (1 Black, 3 White) played the victim, dressed identically; either appearing drunk or carrying a cane.
What was the role of the model in the study?
White males aged 24-29 who helped the victim after 70 or 150 seconds, depending on the condition.
How did the procedure unfold on each trial?
At approximately 70 seconds into the journey, the victim staggered forward and collapsed, lying on the floor until helped.
What were the five model conditions?
Critical/early (help after 70s), Critical/late (help after 150s), Adjacent/early (help after 70s), Adjacent/late (help after 150s), No model condition (no help until train stopped).
What were the main results regarding helping behavior?
80% of victims received spontaneous help, 60% were helped by more than one person, and cane victims were helped more often (62/65) than drunk victims (19/38).
Did race influence helping behavior?
Yes, Black drunk victims received less help overall, and same-race helping was more common in the drunk condition.
Did the study support the diffusion of responsibility theory?
No, contrary to expectations, larger groups responded faster than smaller ones.
What were the gender differences in helping behavior?
Men were more likely to help than women.
What conclusion was drawn about situational factors influencing helping behavior?
People are more likely to help if the victim appears less threatening, is of the same race, or if another model demonstrates helping behavior.
What conclusion was drawn about the duration of the emergency?
The longer an emergency continues, the less likely someone is to intervene.
What were the strengths of the study?
High ecological validity due to the field experiment setting, large and diverse sample, objective quantitative data, and qualitative insights from verbal remarks.
What were the weaknesses of the study?
Lack of control over extraneous variables, potential for demand characteristics, lack of informed consent, deception, and possible psychological distress.
What ethical issues were present in the study?
Participants were not informed or debriefed, were deceived, and may have experienced psychological distress from witnessing the event.
How does this study contribute to understanding bystander behavior?
It identifies key situational factors that influence helping behavior, such as race, perceived vulnerability, and model intervention.
How does this study relate to the nature vs. nurture debate?
Helping behavior may be influenced by situational factors (nurture), such as group size and victim characteristics, rather than innate tendencies (nature).
How does this study relate to individual vs. situational explanations?
The study suggests that situational factors, such as the victim’s appearance and the presence of a model, significantly impact whether people help.
What real-world applications does this study have?
Understanding what factors encourage helping behavior can inform public safety campaigns and emergency response training.
