Psychology (9990) | Piliavin et al. (subway Samaritans)

👋 Welcome to the Subway Samaritans! (Piliavin et al., 1969)

Hi there! This study is a classic piece of research from the Social Approach. It takes us out of the lab and onto a busy New York subway to investigate one of the most puzzling social phenomena: why do people sometimes stand by and do nothing when someone is clearly in trouble?

By the end of these notes, you will understand the factors that increase or decrease the likelihood of someone becoming a hero (a Samaritan) instead of a passive onlooker (a bystander).

Quick Review: The Social Approach

Remember, the Social Approach assumes that our behaviour, thoughts, and feelings are primarily influenced by our social context, social environment, and the presence of others (actual, implied, or imagined).

1. Psychology Being Investigated: Bystander Apathy

The main psychological concept Piliavin et al. investigated was Bystander Apathy (the failure to help a stranger in distress).

Latané and Darley’s Theory (The Background)

Before Piliavin's study, the most famous explanation for bystander apathy was Latané and Darley’s theory, which focused on the concept of:

• Diffusion of Responsibility: If you are the only witness to an emergency, you feel 100% responsible for helping. But if there are five other people present, you might assume they will help, or you share the responsibility with them (1/6th responsibility each). This 'diffusion' lowers your motivation to intervene.

Piliavin wanted to see if this Diffusion of Responsibility effect actually occurred in a realistic, face-to-face setting.

Aim(s) of the Study

The study had several aims, focusing on what affects a bystander's decision to help:

1. To investigate the effect of the victim's responsibility (drunk vs. ill/cane) on helping behaviour.
2. To investigate the effect of the race of the victim on helping behaviour.
3. To investigate the effect of group size (the number of bystanders) on the speed and frequency of helping, testing the Diffusion of Responsibility hypothesis.
4. To investigate the effect of a 'model' helper (someone who starts helping) on subsequent helping behaviour.

🔑 Key Takeaway: The study was designed to see if the factors that matter in real emergencies were situational (like who the victim is or how many people are around).

2. Procedure and Methodology

2.2.1 Design and Setting

The study used a Field Experiment. This means the setting was natural, giving it high ecological validity (it reflects real life).

• Location: A single, non-stop 7.5-minute journey on the New York City subway (IND A train).
• Method: Overt and structured observation (two female observers recorded data).
• Experimental Design: Independent Measures Design (each subway journey/trial only experienced one condition).

2.2.2 Participants and Sample

The participants were the unsolicited (non-recruited) passengers who happened to be on the train during the study.

• Sample Size: Estimated about 4,450 people over 103 trials.
• Demographics: Approximately 45% Black and 55% White.
• Sampling Technique: Opportunity Sample (whoever was there at the time).

2.2.3 The Roles (The Team)

Four teams of students carried out the 103 trials. Each team had four members:

• The Victim (Male): Always dressed alike (casual jackets, old trousers). He fell 70 seconds after the train left the station.
• Victim Conditions (IV 1):
  
  • The Cane Condition (Ill): The victim carried a black cane. (67 trials)
  • The Drunk Condition: The victim carried a bottle wrapped in a paper bag and smelled of alcohol. (38 trials)
• The Model (Male): Always dressed identically. He was instructed to wait a specific time (70 or 150 seconds) before helping.
• The Observers (Two Females): Sat in a different area and recorded the data (DVs).

2.2.4 The Procedure (What Happened Step-by-Step)

1. The team (Victim, Model, Observers) positioned themselves in the critical area of the carriage.
2. After 70 seconds (when the train hit the first stopping point), the Victim staggered, collapsed, and remained on the floor looking at the ceiling.
3. If no one helped, the Model was instructed to step in and help the Victim up after either 70 or 150 seconds.
4. The observers recorded the dependent variables (DVs) throughout the journey.
5. Once the train stopped, the team left the train, changed platforms, and repeated the procedure.

💡 Analogy Time: Think of this as a highly scripted play taking place in a real-world setting. The researchers controlled the timing and the victim's appearance, making it a very structured field experiment.

3. Results and Findings

3.3.1 Quantitative Findings (The Numbers)

• Spontaneous Helping: The victims were helped 100% of the time in the Cane condition (62 out of 62 trials that ran the full course) compared to only 50% in the Drunk condition (19 out of 38 trials).
• Speed of Helping:
  • Cane victim: 87% of initial help was offered before the model even intervened (spontaneous). The median helping time was 5 seconds.
  • Drunk victim: Only 17% of initial help was spontaneous. The median helping time was 109 seconds.
• Race: There was a slight tendency for 'same-race' helping, particularly in the Drunk condition. However, overall, race was not a significant factor.
• Group Size (Diffusion of Responsibility): Crucially, no evidence of diffusion of responsibility was found. In fact, the larger the group in the carriage, the faster the helping behaviour was.

3.3.2 Qualitative Findings (The Details)

The observers noted several interesting comments and behaviours:

• Many women commented things like, "It’s for men to help him," or "I wish I could help, but I’m not strong enough."
• On trials where no one helped quickly, passengers were highly distressed, showing signs of anxiety, like moving away or shielding their eyes.
• The observers noted comments from participants trying to justify their lack of intervention, such as *“You never know what they will do to you.”* (Cost-benefit thinking).

The Main Conclusion: A New Model of Helping

Piliavin et al. concluded that Latané and Darley's theory might only apply when the cost of helping is low or when the victim is less visible.

They proposed the Arousal: Cost-Reward Model (ACRM) to explain helping behaviour:

How the Arousal: Cost-Reward Model Works

Witnessing an emergency creates an unpleasant state of arousal (tension/distress) in the bystander. We want to reduce this negative feeling. We decide whether to help based on a rapid calculation of costs and rewards:

1. Observe Emergency: (e.g., someone falls down) ➡️ Arousal increases (anxiety, fear).
2. Evaluate Costs of Helping: (e.g., effort, danger, possible injury, embarrassment).
3. Evaluate Rewards of Helping: (e.g., praise, increased self-esteem, relief of guilt, reducing unpleasant arousal).
4. Evaluate Costs of Not Helping: (e.g., self-blame, social disapproval, continued high arousal).

The quicker and easier the calculation is, the more likely the person is to act. Since the drunk victim had a high cost associated with helping (smell, unpredictable behaviour, potential violence), people took longer to help or didn't help at all.

🧠 Memory Tip: Think of Piliavin's model like a mental T-chart in your head: 'Costs vs. Rewards'. If rewards outweigh costs, you help.

4. Evaluation: Strengths and Weaknesses

Strengths of the Methodology

• High Ecological Validity: Because it was a field experiment in a genuine public setting (subway), the participants were unaware they were being studied, meaning their helping behaviour was natural and not subject to demand characteristics.
• Large Sample: The huge sample size (4,450 passengers) increases the study's generalisability to the wider NYC population who use public transport.
• Objective Data: The use of two observers and clear behavioural categories (like time until help, race/gender of helper) ensured the quantitative data collected was relatively objective and the reliability could be checked (inter-observer reliability).

Weaknesses of the Methodology

• Lack of Control: As a field experiment, the researchers couldn't control all extraneous variables, such as passenger density, the temperature, or what passengers had just experienced before getting on the train.
• Ethical Issues: This is a major weakness. Since the passengers were unaware they were participating:
  • They lacked valid consent (they couldn't agree to participate).
  • They were deceived (they believed the collapse was genuine).
  • They were not given the right to withdraw.
  • They were subject to psychological harm/distress (increased arousal and anxiety from witnessing a collapse).
  • They were not properly debriefed afterwards.
• Sampling Bias: The sample consisted only of people who used the subway at specific times of day, mainly on a weekday, potentially limiting generalisability to people who never use public transport.

5. Issues and Debates

Individual vs. Situational Explanations

This study strongly supports the situational explanation for behaviour.

• Situational: The decision to help was heavily influenced by the situation, particularly the type of victim (drunk vs. ill) and the immediate consequences (costs/rewards) of intervening.
• (Less support for Individual): While individual factors like personal morals might play a role, the study showed that most people were consistently influenced by external situational cues.

Application to Everyday Life

The findings have significant real-world applications:

• Designing Public Spaces: Knowing that the risk associated with a victim reduces helping, public campaigns could focus on making victims seem less threatening.
• Emergency Response: The finding that people seek to reduce their own arousal suggests that if you are a victim, you should explicitly reduce the cost of helping for bystanders (e.g., pointing directly at one person and asking for help rather than shouting generally).
• "Model" Behaviour: The study showed that when a model helped, it encouraged further intervention, supporting the use of designated helpers or clear instructions during emergencies.

Did you know?

Piliavin's team used both Black and White victims (both ill and drunk). While race didn't affect overall helping rates significantly, the tendency for 'same-race' helping in the *drunk* condition suggested that when the cost of helping is high, people might be more likely to help those they identify with.

Key Takeaway Summary

Piliavin et al. used a field experiment on the subway to challenge the idea of Diffusion of Responsibility. They found that the **type of victim** (cost of helping) was the biggest factor in determining intervention, leading to the creation of the Arousal: Cost-Reward Model, which highlights that we help others primarily to reduce our own internal distress.