good samaritanism

7/30/2019 Good Samaritanism

1/11

Journal oj Personality an d Social Psychology1969, Vol . 13, No. 4, 2 8 9 - 2 9 9

GOOD SAMARITANISM:A N U N D E R G R O U N D P H E N O M E N O N ? 1

I R V I N G M. PILIAVINUniversity of PennsylvaniaJUDITH R O D I N

Columbia UniversityA N D J A N E A L L Y N P I L I A V I N 2

University of PennsylvaniaA f ie ld e x p e r i m e n t w a s p e r f o r m e d to inves t iga te th e e f f e c t o f s eve r a l va r i ab l e son he lping behav ior , us ing the express t r a ins of the New Y ork 8th A ve nu eI nd epend en t Subw ay a s a l abor a to r y on w h ee l s . Four t e ams o f s t ud en t s , e ac hone m a d e up of a vic t im, model , and tw o obs e r ve r s , s t aged s t and a r d c o l-lapses in which type of v ic t im (d runk or i l l ) , r ace of v ic t im (black or whi te )and p r es ence o r abs enc e o f a mo d e l w e r e va r i ed . D a t a r ec or d ed by obs e r ve r sinc luded n u m b e r and race of observers , l a tency of the helping response andrace of h e l p e r , n u m b e r o f h e lpe r s , movement out of the "cr i t ical area," an ds pon t an eous c omm ent s . M a jo r f ind i ngs o f t h e s tud y w e r e t h a t (a ) an appa r -ent ly il l person is more l ike ly to receive a id t h an i s one who appea r s to bed r u n k , (b ) race of vict im h as l i t t le e f f e c t on r ace of h e lpe r exc ep t w h en th ev i c t i m i s d r unk , (c ) t h e l onge r t h e em er genc y c on t i nue s w i t h o u t h elp be i ngof fered , the more l ikely i t i s that s o m e o n e wil l l eave the a rea of the em ergen cy,and (d) the expec ted decrease in speed of respo nd ing as grou p size increasesth e "diffus ion o f r espons ibi l i ty e f fec t" found b y Dar ley an d L a t a n e d o e s n o to ccu r in th i s s i tua t ion. Impl ica t ions of th i s d i f f erence be tw een l abor a to r y andfield results are discussed , and a b r i e f mod e l f o r t h e p r ed i c t i on o f beh av i o rin e m e r g e n c y s i t u a t io n s is pr e s en t ed .

Since th e m u r d e r of Kit ty Genovese inQueens , a rapidly increas ing number of socialscientists have t u rned the i r a t t en t ions to thes tudy of the good Samari tan 's ac t and anassocia ted phenomenon, th e evaluat ion ofvic tims by b ys tand ers and agents . Some ofth e f indings of this research have been pro-vocative and nonobvious . For example , thereis evidence that agents , and even bys tanders ,will somet imes derogate th e character of thevic t ims of misfor tune , instead of fee l ing com-pass ion (Berscheid & Wals te r , 1 9 6 7 ; Lerne r& Simmons , 1966) . Fur thermore , recent f ind-1This r esearch was c ond uc t ed w h i l e the first au-t h o r w a s a t Columbi a U n i ve r s i t y a s a Spec ia l N a -t iona l Ins t i tu te of Menta l Hea l t h Res ea r c h Fellowu n d e r G r a n t 1-F3-MH-36, 328-01. Th e s tud y w aspa r t i a l l y s uppor t ed by f u n d s suppl i ed by th i s granta n d par t i a l ly b y f u n ds f r o m Nat i ona l Sc i enc eFound a t i on G r an t GS-1901 to the t h i r d a u t h o r . Th eau th or s t h an k V i r g in i a Joy fo r a l low i ng t h e expe r i -m e n t a l t e a m s to be r ec r u i t ed f r o m h e r class , a n dP e r c y T a n n e n b a u m for h is r e ad i ng of the m a n u s c r i p tand h i s h e lp fu l c o m m e n t s .2 Reques t s fo r r epr ints should be sent to J a n eAllyn Pi l i avin , De par tm ent o f Psycho logy, Un iver s ityof Pennsylvania , 3813-1S Walnut S t ree t , Ph i lade lph ia ,Pennsylvania 19104.

ings indicate t h a t under cer ta in c i rcumstancesthere i s not "safety in numbers , " bu t r a the r"di f fus ion of responsibility." Dar ley andLatane (1968) have repor ted t h a t among by -s tanders hear ing an epi lept ic se izure overearphones, those w ho believed other witnessesw e r e present were less l ikely to seek as-s is tance for the vic t im than were bys tandersw ho bel ieved they were a lone . Subsequentresearch by Latane and R o d i n ( 1 9 6 9 ) onresponse to the victim of a fall confirmed thisf ind ing and sugges ted f u r t h e r t h a t assistancef rom a group of bystanders was less l ikelyto come i f the group members were s t rangersthan if they were pr ior acquaintances . Thefield exper iment s of Bryan and Test ( 1 9 6 7 ) ,on th e other hand, p rovid e in teres t ing f ind ingst ha t fit common sense expecta t ions ; namely,one is more l ikely to be a good Samari tanif one has jus t observed another individualper fo rming a he lpfu l act.

Much of the work on vic t imiza t ion to da tehas been per fo rmed in the laboratory. It iscommonly argued tha t th e ideal researchstrategy over th e long haul is to move backand fo r th between th e l abora tory, wi th i ts289


2/11

290 I. M . P I L I A V I N , J. R O D I N , A ND J . A . P I L I A V I Nadvan tage of greater cont rol , and the f ie ld ,w i t h i ts advantage of greater rea l i ty . Thepresen t s tudy w as des igned to p r o v i d e m o r ei n fo rma t ion f rom th e lat ter set t ing.The p r i m a r y focus of the s tudy was on theeffect of type of v i c t i m ( d r u n k or i l l ) andrace of vict im (black or w h i t e ) on speed ofresponding, f requency of r e s p o n d i n g , and therace of the he lpe r . On the bas is of the largeb o d y of research on s imilar i ty and l ik ing aswell as t h a t on race and social dis tance, itw as assumed t h a t an ind iv idua l would bem o r e inc l ined to he lp someone of his racet h a n a person of ano the r r ace . Th e expecta-t ion r ega rd ing type of vic t im w as that helpwould be accorded more f r equen t ly andrapidly to the apparent ly il l vict im. Thisexpecta t ion w as der ived f ro m tw o cons idera-t ions . Firs t , i t was as sumed t ha t people w h oare regarded as par t ly respons ible for the irpl ight wo uld rece ive less sym pathy and conse-q u e n t l y less help than people seen as notrespons ible fo r t he i r c i r cums tances (Schopler& M a t t h e w s , 1 9 6 5 ) .Secondly, i t was as sumed t h a t w h a t e v e rsympa thy ind iv idua l s may expe r ience wh enthey observe a d r u n k collapse, their incl ina-t i on to he lp him wil l be dampened by thereal izat ion t h a t t he v ic t im may become d i s -gus t ing, embarrass ing, and/or violent . Thisreal izat ion may, in fa ct , not o nly constrainhelping but also lead observers to t u rn awayf rom the vic t im that i s , to leave the sceneo f th e emergency.Aside f rom examining the effects of r aceand type of v ic t im, the present researchsough t to invest iga te the impa ct of mo delingin emergency s i tua t ions . Severa l inves t iga torshave found t h a t an individual ' s ac t ions in agiven s i tua t ion lead others in t h a t s i tua t ionto engage in similar act ions. This mode l ingphenomenon has been observed in a varietyo f con tex t s inc lud ing those invo lv ing goodSamar i t an i sm (Bryan & Test, 1 9 6 7 ) . I t wasexpected t h a t th e phenomenon would beobserved as well in the present s tu d y . A f ina lconcern of the s t u d y was to examine th erelat ionsh ip be tween s i ze of group and f r e -quency and la tency of the he lping response ,wi th a vic t im w h o w as both seen and h e a r d .In p rev ious l abo ra to ry s tud ie s (Dar l ey &Latane , 1968; La ta n e & Rodin , 1969) in -

creases in group s ize led to decreases in f r e -quency and increases in l a tency of responding.In these s tudies , however , the emergency w asonly heard, no t seen. Since visual cues arel ikely to make an emergency much morearous ing for the obse rve r , i t is not clear t h a t ,given these cues, such considerat ions ascrowd s ize wi l l be r e l evan t de t e rminan t s ofthe observer ' s response to the emergency.Visual cues also pro vide c lear inf orm at io n asto whether anyone has ye t helped th e vict imor if he has been able to help himself . Thus ,in the l abora tory s tudies , observers lackingvisual cues could ra t ional ize no t helping byassuming assis tance was no longer neededw h e n th e vict im ceased cal l ing for help .Staging emergencies in full view of ob-servers el iminates the possibil i ty of suchra t ional iza t ion.To c o n d u c t a f ield inves t iga t ion of theabove ques t ions under th e des ired condi t ionsrequired a se t t ing which would a l low the re-peated s taging of emergencies in the mids to f reasonably large groups which remainedfa ir ly similar in composi t ion f rom inc iden t toinc ident . I t was also desirable t ha t eachgroup re t a in the same c om posi t ion over th ecourse of the inc iden t and t h a t a reasonablea m o u n t of t ime be available a f t e r the emer -gency occurred for good Samaritans to act .To meet these r e q u i r e m e n t s , th e emergenciesw er e s t aged dur ing the approx ima te ly 7 - J -minute express run between the 59th St ree tand 125th Street s tat ions of the Eighth A v e -nu e Independen t ( I N D ) branch of the NewYork subways .

M E T H O DSubjectsA b o u t 4,450 m e n a n d w o m e n w h o traveled o n t he8 th A v e n u e I ND i n New Y o r k City , weekdays b e -tween the ho urs o f 11 :00 A .M. and 3 :00 P .M. d ur i ngthe pe r iod f r o m A pri l 15 to J u n e 2 6, 1968, w e reth e u n so l i c i t e d p a r t i c ip a n t s in th is s t u d y . The rac ia lco m p o s i t i o n o f a typ ica l t r a in , w h ich t r a v e l s t h ro u g hHar l em to t h e B r o n x , w a s a b o u t 45 % black a n d

55% white. The mean n u m b e r of people per card u r i n g t h e se ho u r s w a s 4 3 ; th e m e a n n u m b e r o fpeople in the "cr i t i cal a r ea , " in w hich th e s tagedincid ent took p lace , wa s 8 .5 .Field situation. T h e A a n d D t r a in s of the 8thA v e n u e IN D were se lec ted because t h e y m a k e n os tops be tween 59th S t ree t and 125th St r ee t . T h u s ,fo r a b o u t H m in u t e s t he r e w a s a capt ive a u d ie n cew h o , a f t e r the firs t 70 seconds of their r ide , became


3/11

G O O D SAMARITANISM: A N U N D E R G R O U N D PH E N O M E N O N ?Adjacent Area Critical Ares

291

Observer 2

RemainderofCar

O ExitDoors

e

cExitDoors

)bserveri0

i

ExitDoors

tfAExitDoors

D\Vicim

Motor-man' sbox

DoorstoNextCar

F I G , I . L a y o u t o f a d j a c e n t and c r i t i ca l a r e a s o f su b w a y ca r .

b y s t a n de r s t o a n e m e rg e n cy s i t u a t io n . A s in g l e t r i a lw a s a n o n s t o p r i de b e t w e e n 59 t h a n d 125th Stree ts ,going in e i the r d i rec t ion . A l l t r ia l s were run onlyo n the old New Y o rk su b w a y ca r s w h ich s e rv i ce dth e 8 th A v e n u e l i ne s in ce t he y h a d t w o - p e r s o ns ea t s i n g r o u p a r r a n g e m e n t r a t he r t ha n e x t e n de dseats. Th e de s ig n a t e d e x p e r im e n t a l or crit ical areaw a s t h a t e n d sect ion of any c a r w h o s e d o o r s ledto the n e x t c a r . T h e r e a r e 13 s e a t s an d s o m estanding room in th is a rea on a l l t ra ins ( seeF i gur e 1 ) ,Procedure

O n each t r ia l a t e a m of f o u r C o l u m b i a G e n e r a lS tudies s tudent s , tw o males a n d t w o females , b o a r d e dth e t ra in us ing di f f e ren t d o o r s . F o u r d i f f e r e n t t e a m s ,w ho se m e m b e r s a l w a y s w o rk e d t o g e t he r , w e re u se dto co l lec t da ta for 103 t r ia ls . Each t e am v ar ied thel o c a t i o n of the e x p e r i m e n t a l c a r f r o m t r i a l to t r ia l .T h e f e m a l e c o n f e de r a t e s t o o k s e a t s o u t s ide t he c r i ti -c a l a r e a a n d re co rde d da t a a s u n o b t r u s i v e l y a s pos-sible for the d u r a t i o n of the r i de , w h i l e th e m a l em o d e l a n d vic t im r e m a i n e d s t a n d i n g . Th e vic t imalways s tood next to a pole in the cente r of thecr i t ica l a rea (see F igure 1) . A s the t r a in passed th ef i r s t s t a t i o n ( a p p ro x im a t e l y 70 s e co n ds a f t e r de p a r t -ing) the v ic t im s taggered f o r w a r d a n d co l l a p se d .Un t i l r e ce iv in g help , t h e v i c t im r e m a in e d su p in e o nthe f loor look ing a t the ce i l ing . I f the v ic t im re -ce ived n o ass is t ance by t h e t i me th e t ra in s lowedto a s top , th e m o de l he l p e d h im t o h i s f e e t . At t hes t o p , th e t e a m d i s e m b a r k e d a n d w a i t e d s e p a ra t e l yu n t i l o t he r r i de r s ha d lef t t h e s t a t i o n . They t h e np r o c e e d e d to a n o t h e r p l a t f o r m to b o a r d a t ra ingoing i n t h e oppos i t e d i rec t ion fo r t h e next t r ia l .F rom 6 to 8 t r ia l s were run on a g iven da y . A Htr ia l s on a g iven day were in the same "victimco n d i t i o n . "Victim. T h e f o u r v ic t im s (o n e f r o m e a ch t e a m )w e re m a l e s b e t w e e n th e ages of 26 and 35 . T h r e ew e re w h i t e a n d o n e w a s b l a ck . A l l w e re i de n t i ca l lydressed in Eisenhower j acke t s , o ld s l acks , and no t ie .O n 38 t r ia l s the v ic t ims smel led of l iquor and ca rr ieda l i q u o r b o t t l e w ra p p e d t i g h t l y in a b r o w n b ag( d r u n k co n d i t i o n ) , w h i l e o n t he r e m a in in g 6 5 t r i a ls

t h e y a p p e a re d so b e r a n d c a r r i e d a b l a ck ca n e ( ca n ec o n d i t i o n ) . In a l l o th e r a spect s , v ic t im s dressed andb e h a v e d i d e n t i ca l l y i n t he t w o co n d i t i o n s . Ea chvic t im par t ic ipa ted in d r u n k an d cane t r ia l s .3Model. F o u r w h i t e m a l e s b e t w e e n t he a g e s o f 2 4and 29 a s s u m e d th e ro l e s o f m o d e l in e a ch t e a m .A ll m o d e l s w o r e i n f o r m a l c lo thes , a l t ho u g h t he y w e ren o t i de n t i ca l l y a t t i r e d . T h e r e w e r e f o u r d i f f e r e n tm o de l co n d i t i o n s u sed a c ro s s b o t h v i c tim co n d i t i o n s( d r u n k o r c a n e ) .1. Critical area early. Model s tood in cr i t ica l a reaa n d w a i t e d u n t i l p a s s in g f o u r t h s ta t ion to a ss is tv i c t im ( a p p ro x im a t e l y 70 s e c o n d s a f t e r co l l a p se ) .2. Critical area late. M odel s tood in cr i t ica l a reaand wa i t ed un t i l pass ing s ix th s t a t ion to a ss is t v ic t im( a p p r o x i m a t e l y 1 5 0 s e co n ds a f t e r c o l l aps e ) .3. Adjacent area early. M o de l s t o o d in m id d l e o fca r i n a r e a a d j a ce n t t o c r i t i c a l a re a a n d w a i t e d u n t i lpass ing f o u r t h s t a t i o n .4. Adjacent arealate. Model s tood in a d j a c e n ta re a a n d w a i t e d u n t i l p a s s in g s ix t h s t a t i o n .W h e n th e m o de l p ro v ide d a s s i s t a n ce , h e r a i s e d th evic t im to a s i t t ing pos i t ion a n d s t a y e d w i t h h imfo r th e r e m a i n d e r of the t r ia l . A n e q u a l n u m b e r oft r i a l s i n the n o -m o de l co n d i t i o n a n d in e a ch o f t hef o u r m o d e l c o n d i t i o n s w e r e p r e p r o g r a m m e d b y a

r a n d o m n u m b e r t a b l e a n d a s s ig n e d t o e a ch t e a m .3 I t wi l l b e n o t e d l a t e r t ha t n o t o n l y w e re t he r em o r e c a n e t r i a l s t ha n d ru n k t r i a l s , t h e y w e re a l sod i s t r i b u t e d u n e v e n l y a c ro s s b l a ck a n d w h i t e v i c t im s .Th e r e a so n fo r th is i s eas ie r to e x p l a in t h a n to cor-rec t . T e a m s 1 a n d 2 (b o t h w h i t e v i c t im s ) s t a r t e dt he f i rs t d a y in t he ca n e co n d i t i o n . T e a m s 3 (b l a ck )a n d 4 ( w h i t e ) b e g a n i n t h e d r u n k c o n d i t i o n . T e a m sw e re t o l d t o a l t e rn a t e t he co n d i t i o n s a c ro s s da y s .T h e y a r r a n g e d t he i r ru n n in g da y s t o f i t t h e i r s che d -ules . O n t h e i r f o u r t h d ay , T eam 2 viola ted th ei n s t ru c t io n a n d r a n ca n e t r ia l s w he n t he y sho u l d

h a v e ru n d r u n k t r i a l s ; th e v ic t im " d i d n ' t l ike" p lay-in g t he d r u n k ! T he n th e C o l u m b ia s t u de n t s t r i k eo c c u r r e d , t h e t e a m s d i sb a n de d , a n d t he s t u dy o fnecessity w a s o v e r . A t this p o in t , T e a m s 1 and 3h ad r un on only 3 da y s e a ch , w h i l e 2 and 4 hadrun on 4 days each .


4/11

292 I . M. PILIAVIN, J. RODIN, A ND J . A. PILIAVINT A B L E 1

P E R C E N T A G E O E TRIALS O N WHICH HELP W A S G I V E N ,B Y RACE A N D C O N D I T I O N O F V I C T I M , A N D T O T A LN U M B E R O F TRIALS R U N I NEACH C O N D I T I O N

N o m o d e lN u m b e r o f t r i a ls runM odel t r ia l sN u m b e r o f tr ials ru nTota l n u m b e r of tr ials

W h i t e v i c t i m sC a n e

100%54100%357

D r u n k100%11771324

B la ck v ic t imC a n e

100%808

D ru nk73%1167%,314

N o t e . D i s t r i b u t i o n o f mod e l t r i a l s f o r t h e d r u n k w a s a sf o l l o w s : c r i t i c a l area: e a r l y , !; l a te , 4; a d j a c e n t a r e a : e a r l y , 5 ;l a t e , 3. The t h r e e mod e l t r i a l s compl e t e d for the ca ne v i c t i mw e r e a ll e a r l y , w i t h 2 f r o m th e cr i t ica l a rea a nd 1 f r o m th ea d j a c e n t a r e a .Measures. O n eac h t r i a l on e obse rve r no ted th erace , sex , an d locat ion of every r ider seated or s t a n d -in g in the cr i t i cal area . In a ddi t ion , she coun ted thet o t a l n u m b e r o f i n d i v i d u a l s in the car and the t o t a ln u m b e r o f i n d i v i d u a l s w h o c a m e to the victim'sa s s i s t anc e . S h e also r eco rded th e race, sex , a n d l oca -t ion of every he lpe r . A s econd obse rve r coded th er ace , sex , and l o c a t i o n of a l l p e r s o n s in the a d j a c e n ta r ea . Sh e also recorded th e l a t ency of the f i rs the lper ' s a r r i v a l a f t e r th e victim h a d fa l len and ona p p r o p r i a t e t r i a ls , th e l a t e n c y of the f irst he lpe r ' s

a r r i va l a f t e r th e p r o g r a m m e d m o d e l h a d a r r i v e d .Both observers recorded comments spontaneous lym a d e b y nearby pas s enger s a n d a t t e m p t e d to elicitc o m m e n t s f r o m a r i de r s i t t i ng nex t to t h e m .RESULTS A N D D I S C U S S I O N

A s can be seen in Table 1 , the f requ enc yof help rece ived by the v ic t ims was impres-sive, a t least as compared to ea r l i e r l abora to ryresu l t s . Th e v ic t im wi th th e cane rece ivedspon taneous help , t h a t is , befo r e th e m o d e lacted, on 62 of the 65 t r i a ls . Even the drunkreceived spontaneous help on 19 of 38 tr ia ls .The di f ference i s no t expl icable on the bas i so f gross di f ferences in the n u m b e r s of poten-t i a l he lpe rs i n the ca r s . (M ean num ber o fpassengers in the car on cane trials w as45 ; o n d r u n k t r ia ls , 40 . Total r a n g e w a s 15-120. )O n th e basis of past research, relativelylong la tencies of spontaneous helping wereexpec ted ; thus , i t was assumed that mode l swould have t ime to he lp , and the i r effectscould be assessed. However , in a l l but threeof the cane trials planned to be model t r i a ls ,the v ic t im rece ived help b e fo re t h e m o d e l w a sscheduled to o f f e r assistance. This w as less

l ikely to happen with th e drunk v i c t im. Inm a n y cases, th e ear ly model w as able toi n t e rvene , and in a few, even th e delayedmodel could act (see Table 1 for f r equenc ie s ) .A d i rec t compar i son be tween th e latencyof response in the d r u n k and cane conditionsm i g h t be misleading, s ince on mode l trialson e does not k n o w h ow long it migh t havetaken for a helper to a r r i v e w i t h o u t th es t imulus o f the mode l . Omi t t i ng the mode lt r ia ls , however , would reduce the n u m b e r ofdrunk t r ia ls dras t ica l ly . In o r d e r t o ge ta round these p rob lems th e t r i a ls have beend icho tomiz ed in to a g r o u p in which someonehelped bejore 70 seconds ( the t ime a t whichth e ear ly model w as p r o g r a m m e d to help)and a g r o u p in which no one had he lped byth i s t ime. Th e second group inc ludes sometrials in which people he lped th e mode l anda very few in w h i c h no one helped at all.4It is qui te c lear f rom the f irst section ofTable 2 that t he re w as more immedia te ,spontaneous helping of the v ic t im wi th thecane than of the d r u n k . Th e effect seems tobe essentially th e same for the black victimand fo r the whi t e vict ims.5

What o f the to ta l number o f peop le whohe lped? O n 60% of the 81 trials on which th evic t im rece ived help , h e rece ived i t not f romone good Samari tan bu t f rom two, three , o reven more .0 T h ere a re no s ign i f i can t d i f fe r -4 If a c o m p a r i s o n of l a t enc i es is m a d e b e t w e e nca n e a n d drunk nonmode l t r i a l s on ly , th e m e d i a nlatency for cane t r i a ls is 5 s econds and the m e d i a nfo r d r u n k t r i a ls is 109 s econds ( a s s i gn i ng 40 0 secondsas the l a t ency fo r nonr e s pond en t s ) . Th e M a n n -W h i t n e y U for t h i s compar i son is s ign i f i can t a t

p < .0001.5 A mo ng the w h i t e v i c t im t eam s , the d a t a f r o mTeam 2 d i f f e r to some ex ten t f rom t ho se for Teams1 and 4. All of the cane- a f t e r 70 seconds t r i a ls a rea cco u n t e d for by Team 2, as are 4 of the S d r u n k -b e f o re 70 t r i a ls . M edia n la tency fo r cane t r i a ls isl onge r fo r Team 2 t han for the o t h e r t e a m s ; fo rd r u n k t r i a ls , shor ter . This i s the same team that vio-l a t ed th e "a l t e rna t e days" i n s t ru c t io n . I t w o u l d a p -p e a r t ha t t h i s t eam i s be i ng r a the r l e s s c a r e fu l th a tthe v ic t im may be get t ing out o f h i s ro le . The dataf r o m t h i s t eam have been i nc luded in the analys i sa l t h o u g h they tend to r e d u c e th e r e l a t i on sh i p s t ha twere f o u n d .6 Th e da ta f r o m th e mode l t r i a l s a r e no t i nc ludedin this analysis because th e model w as prog rammedto b e h a v e r a t h e r di f fe ren t ly f rom the way in whi chmos t r ea l he lpe r s behaved . T h a t is , his role was tora ise th e victim to a s i t t ing pos i t ion a n d then appear


5/11

G O O D S A M A R I T A N I S M : A N U N D E R G R O U N D P H E N O M E N O N ? 2Q3T A B L E 2

TIME A N D R E S P O N S E S T O T H E I N C I D E N T

Trials o n w h i c hhe lp w as offered :

Before 70 sec.CaneD r u n kTotalAf t e r 70 sec.CaneD r u n kTotal

x aP

T o t a l n u m b e rof t r ia l sW h i t ev i c t i m s

52S57519

2436.83C001

B l a c kv i c t i m

7411110

11a


6/11

294 I. M . P I L I A V I N , J. RODIN, A ND J. A. P I L I A V I NTABLE 3

S P O N T A N E O U S HELPING O P C A N E A N D DRUNK B Y RACE O P HELPER A N D R A C E V I C T IM

Same as vict imD i f f e r e n t from vict imTotal

W h i t e v i c t i m sC a n e

342054

D r u n k101

11

Total4421

65

Black v ic t imC a n e

268

Drunk628

T o t a l88

16

A ll v i c t i m sC a n e

362662

D r u n k163

19

T o t a l522981

N o t e . C h i - s q u a r e s a r e c o r r ec t ed fo r c o n t in u i t y . Whi t e v i c t im s , x~ = 2 . 1 1 , p. =16; black v i c t i m , p = .1 6 ( two- ta i l ed es t i -m a t e f r o m Fisher's ex ac t p r o b ab i l i t i e s test); a ll v i c t i m s , x 2 = 3.26, p = .08.

split , With th e d runk , on the othe r hand , itw as main ly members of his own race w hocame to his aid.7This in teres t ing tendency toward same-racehelping only in the case of the drunk vic t imm ay reflect more empa thy , sympa thy , andt rus t toward vic t ims of one 's own rac ia lgroup . In the case of an innocent vict im(e.g. , t he cane v ic t im) , when sympa thy ,though differentia l ly experienced, is relat ivelyuncomplicated by other emotions, assistancecan readily cut across group l ines. In the caseo f th e d r u n k (and potent ia l ly dangerous)vict im, complicat ions are presen t , p robab lyblarne, fear, and disgus t . When th e vic t im isa m e m b e r of one's ow n g r o u p w h e n th econdi t ions for empathy and t rus t a re morefavorable-assistance is more l ikely to beoffered. A s w e have seen, however , th is doesnot happen without the pass ing of t ime tothink th ings over .Recen t f indings of Black and Reiss ( 1 9 6 7 )in a s tudy of the behavior of whi te pol iceofficers t owards apprehended pe r sons o f f e r aninterest ing paral lel . Observers in th is s tudyrecorded very li ttle evidence of pre jud i cet oward sobe r ind iv idua l s , w he the r w hi t e orblack. There wa s a large increase in pre jud iceexpressed towards drunks of both races , bu t

7 I t is u n f o r t u n a t e f r om a d es i gn s t and po i n t t h a tt h e r e w a s only one black vic t im. H e w a s t h e onlyblack s tudent in the c las s f r o m which our c rewswere recrui ted. While it is t enuous to general ize froma s ample o f one, th e pr ob l ems a t t end an t upon a t-t r ibut ing resul t s to h i s r ace r a ther than to h i s ind i -vidual per sonal i ty charac ter i s t i c s a re v i t i a t ed s ome-w h a t by t h e f ac t t h a t r e s pons e l a t enc i e s and fre-quenc ies of he lp to h im in the cane cond i t ion fa l lbetween responses to Teams 1 and 4 on the oneh a n d and Team 2 on the o the r .

th e increase in pre judice towards blacks w asmore than twice that t owards w hi te s .Modeling E f f e c t sNo extensive analysis of the response tothe programmed model could be made, s incethe re were too few cases for analysis. Twoanalyses were , however , per fo rmed on theeffects of adjacent area versus cr i t ica l a reamodels and of ear ly versus la te models wi thinth e drunk condi t ion. Th e data a re presentedin Table 4. While th e area var iable has noeffect, the early m o d e l el icited help signifi-cant ly more than did the late mode l .Other Responses to the Incident

W h a t other responses do obse rve r s maketo the inc iden t ? Do the passengers leave thecar, move out of the area, m a k e c o m m e n t sabou t t he inc id en t ? No one le f t the car onany of the tr ials . However, on 21 of the 103trials , a to ta l of 34 people d id leave th ecrit ical area. The second sect ion of Table 2presents th e percentage of trials on whichsomeone le f t th e crit ical area as a funct iono f t h ree va r iab l e s : t ype of vic t im, race ofv ic t im, and t ime to receipt of help (be fo reor a f t e r 70 seconds ) . Peop le left the area ona h ighe r p ropor t ion of trials with th e d r u n kthan w i t h th e cane vic t im. They also were fa rmore l ikely to leave on trials on which helpwas not offered by 70 seconds, as comparedto t r ials on which help was received beforethat t ime.8 Th e frequencies are too small to

8 Ind iv idua l s a re also somewhat more l ikely toleave th e a r ea with th e black vic t im than wi th th ewhi te v ic t ims (x2 = 3.24,


7/11

G O O D S A M A R I T A N I S M : A N U N D E R G R O U N D P H E N O M E N O N ? 295TABLE 4

F R E Q U E N C Y OF H E L P A S A FUNCTION O F E A R L Y (7 0 SECONDS) VEKSUS L A T E ( I SO SECONDS)A ND ADJACENT VERSUS C R I TI C AL A R E A PR OGR A MME D M O D E L S

H e l p

ReceivedNot receivedTotal

Critical area

E a r l y404

Late224

B o t h628

A d j a c e n t areaEarly

505

L a t e123

Both62

8

B ot h a r e a sE a r l y

909

L a t e347

Tot a l12416

Note .-Ear ly ve r s us l a t e : p < .04 ( two- ta i led es t imate f r o m Fisher ' s e xa c t test). Al l t h r e e ca ne - mod e l t r i a l s we r e e a r l ym o de l t r ia l s ; two cr i t ica l area , o ne a d j a c e n t . H e l p w a s r e ce ive d on all . Table i n c l u d e s d r u n k t r i a l s on l y .

make compar isons wi th each of the var iab lesheld constant.Each observer spoke to the person seatednext to her a f t e r th e incident took place. Shealso noted spontaneous comments and act ionsby those around her. A content analysis ofthese data w as per fo rmed , with li t t le in theway o f in te r es t ing findings, The d i s t r ibu t ionof number of comments over different sorts

o f t r ia ls , however , d id prove in te r es t ing (seeSection 3 of Table 2). Far m o r e c o m m en t swere obtained on drunk t r ia ls than on canetr ials. Similarly, most of the commen ts wereobtained on trials in which no one helpedun t i l a f t e r 70 seconds. Th e d i s c o m f o r t ob-servers fe l t in si tt ing inactive in the presenceo f the v ict im may have led them to ta lkabout th e incident , perhaps hoping o therswould conf i rm the fa c t that inact ion w as

approp r i a te . Many w o m e n , fo r example, madecomments such as, "It's for m en to help him,"or "I w i s h I could help h i m I ' m no t s trongenough," "I never saw th is k ind of th ingb e f o r e I d o n ' t k n o w w h e r e to look," "Youfeel so bad t h a t you d o n ' t k n o w w h a t t o do,"A Test o f the Diffusion of ResponsibilityHypothesis

In the Dar ley and Latane exper imen t i tw as predicted and fo u n d t ha t as the n u m b e ro f bys tander s inc reased , the l ikel ihood thatany ind iv idual would help decreased and thelatency of response increased. Their s tudyinvolved bystanders who could not see eachother or the victim. In the Latane and Rodinstudy , the effect was again fo u n d , wi th by -s tander s w h o were face to face, but w i t hth e vict im s t i l l on ly heard . In the present

TABLE SM E A N A ND M E D I A N L A T E N C I E S AS A FUNCTION OP NUMBER OF M A L E S IN TH E C R IT IC AL AR E A

N o. m a l e s in cr i t ica l a rea

1-3MMdn.N4-6MMdn.,. N1 and upMMdn.NKruskal-Wallis Test (H)P

C a n eW h i t ev i c t i m s

1671720523

3114

Bl ac kvic t im

1 2122644

52522

T o t a l

15719

1852791.5165.08.08

DrunkW h i t ev i c t i m s

15510541071027

B l a c kv i c t i m

3093124143704

74653

Tota l

30931241497389784106.01.05

N o t e , M e a n s and m e d i a n s in seconds . Mode l tr ials o m i t t e d ; no r e s pons e ass igned 40 0 s e cond s .


8/11

296 I . M. PILIAVIN, J. RODIN, A ND J. A. PILIAVINLegend, 6 Hypothetical 3-person groups Natural 3-person groups, , , . . . Hypothetical 7-person groupse,.__, Natural 7-person groups

C naH- 0fiawBU lP.

4 - 10c0H4 JHaft* _| 1 1 1 f,! j , 1 r , 1 1 , r| 1 j

1 2 3 4 5 6 1 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Seconds from occurence of collapse tohelping response from one member of group

FIG. 2 . C um ula t i ve p r op or t i o n o f g r oups p r od uc i ng a h e lpe r ove r t i m e ( c an e t ri a ls , wh i t e v ic t i m s , m a lehe l p e r s f r o m i n s id e c r i t i c a l a r ea ) .

s tudy, bys tanders saw both th e victim andeach other . Wi l l th e diffusion of responsibi l i tyf inding still occur in th i s s i tua t ion?

In o r d e r to check th i s hypo thes i s , tw oanalyses were p e r f o r m e d . Firs t , a ll n o n m o d e lt r ia ls were separa ted in to three groups ac-cord ing to the n u m b e r of males in the cr i t ica larea ( the assumed r e f e r ence g r o u p fo r spon-taneous f irst he lpe rs ) . Mean and medianla tencies of response w e r e then calculated fo reach group , separa te ly b y type and race ofvic t im. Th e resu l t s a re presen ted in Table 5 .There is no ev idence in these data for d i f -fus ion of respons i ib l i ty ; in fac t , responsetimes, using ei ther m easure , are consistently

fas ter for the 7 or more g roups compared tothe 1 to 3 groups .9A s Darley and Latane pointed ou t , h o w -ever , different-s ize rea l groups cannot b emean ingfu l l y compared to one another , s inceas group s ize increases the l ike l ihood tha t oneor more pe rsons w i l l help also increases. Asecond analysis as s imi lar as possible to thatused b y those authors w a s t h e r e f o r e p e r -f o r m e d , comparing la tenc ies ac tual ly obta ined

9 Th e t o t a l n u m b e r o f peop le in the ca r wasstrongly related to the n u m b e r of males in thecr i t ical a r ea . S i m i l a r r e s u l t s a re o b t a i n e d i f l a t enc i e sa re e x a m i n e d as a f u n c t i o n of the t o t a l n u m b e r o fpeop le in the c a r .


9/11

G O O D S A M A R I T A N I S M : A N U N D E R G R O U N D P H E N O M E N O N ? 297fo r each size group with a base line of hypo-thet ical groups of the same size made up bycombining smaller groups. In order to haveas much cont rol as possible th e analysis w asconfined to cane t r ia l s wi th whi te v ic t ims andmale firs t helpers coming f rom the crit icalarea. Within this set of trials, the most f re-que nt ly occurr in g natura l groups (of malesin th e cr i t ica l area) were those of s izes 3(n = 6) and 7 (n = 5 ) . H y p o th e ti ca l groupso f 3 (n = 4) and 7 (n= 25 ) were composedo f all combinat ions of smaller s ized groups.F or example, to obta in th e hypothe t ica llatencies for groups of 7, combinat ions werem a d e of (a ) all real size 6 groups wi th allreal size 1 groups , plus (b ) all real size Sgroups with all real size 2 groups, etc. Thelatency assigned to each of these hypothet ica lgroups was that recorded for the faster of thetw o real groups of w h i c h i t was composed.Cumulat ive response curves for rea l and hypo-thet ical groups of 3 and 7 are presented inFigure 2 .A s can be seen in the f igure, the c u m u l a -t ive he lping response curves for the h y p o -thet ical groups of both s izes are lower thanthose for the corresponding rea l groups . Thatis , members of rea l groups responded morerapidly than would be expected on the bas isof th e fas te r of the two scores obtained f romthe combined smal ler groups . While theseresul t s together wi th those summarized inTable 5 do not necessa rily contradict thediffus ion of respons ibi l i ty hypothes is , theydo not follow the pat tern of f indings obta inedby Darley and Latane and are clearly a t var i -ance wi th the t enta t ive conclus ion of thoseinvest igators t h a t "a vic t im ma y b e morel ikely to rece ive he lp . . . the fewer peoplethere are to t ake action [Latane & Da rley,1968, p. 2 2 1 ] . "Tw o explanations can be suggested to ac-count for the dispar i ty be tween the f ind ingso f Table 5 and Figure 2 and those of Dar leyand Latane and Latane and Rodin . A s ind i -cated earlier in this paper , th e conditions ofth e present s tudy were qui te dif ferent f romthose in previous inves t iga t ions . Firs t , thefac t t h a t observers in the present s tudy couldsee th e victim may no t only have cons t ra inedobservers ' abil i t ies to conclude there was noemergency, but may also have overwhelmed

with other considerat ions any tendency todiffuse responsibil i ty. Second, the presentf ind ings may indicate that even if diffusionof responsibil i ty is experienced by peoplew ho can actually see an emergency, whengroups are l a rger than two the increment inde te r r ence to act ion result ing f ro m increasingthe number of observers may be less than theincrease in probabi l i ty t h a t with in a givent ime in terval a t least one of the observerswil l take act ion to assis t the vict im. Clearly,m o r e w o r k is needed in both natura l andlaboratory set t ings before an unde r s t and ingis reached of the cond i t ions unde r which d i f -f u s i o n of respons ibi l i ty will or wil l not occur ,

CONCLUSIONSIn th is field s tudy, a personal emergencyoccurred in wh ich escape for the bystande rw as virtual ly impossible. I t was a public,face-to-face situat ion, and in this respect dif-fe red f rom previous lab s tudies . Moreover ,s ince general izat ions f rom field s tudies to labresearch must be made with caut ion, fewcomparisons will be draw n. How ever, severa lconclusions m a y b e p u t f o r t h :1 . A n ind iv idua l w ho appears to be ill ismore l ikely to receive aid than is one whoappears to be drunk, even when th e immedia t ehelp needed is of the same kind.2. Given mixed groups of men and women,and a male vic t im, men are more l ike ly tohelp than are w o m e n .3. Given mixed racial groups, there is sometendency for same-race helping to be moref r equen t . This t endency is increased when the

victim is d r u n k as c o m p a r e d to apparently ill .4. There is no s t rong re la t ionship betweenn u m b e r of bys tanders and speed of he lp ing ;the expected increased "diffusion of respon-s ibi l i ty" wi th a grea ter number of bys tande r swas not obta ined for groups of these s izes.That is , help is not less frequent or s lowerin coming f rom larger as compared to smallergroups of bys tanders ; w h a t effect there is, isin the oppos i te d i rec t ion.5. The longer the emergency cont inueswithout he lp be ing offered (a) the less impacta model has on the he lping behavior of ob-

servers ; (b) th e more l ike ly it is that indi-viduals wil l leave th e immedia te a rea ; that


10/11

298 I. M. P l L I A V I N , J. R O D I N , AND J. A. P l L I A V I Nis , they appear to move purposive!}' to an-o ther a rea in o r d e r to avoid th e s i tua t ion ;(c) th e more l ikely it is t h a t observers willdiscuss th e incident and its imp l i ca t ions fort h e i r behav io r .

A model of response to emergency s i tua-tions consistent with th e prev ious findings iscurren t ly being developed by the au th o r s . I tis briefly presented here as a possible heu-r i s t ic device. Th e model includes the fol lowingassumptions: Observat ion of an emergencycreates an emotional arousal s ta te in thebys tander . This s ta te will be dif ferent ly in ter -preted in di f fe ren t s i tuat ions (Schach te r ,1 9 6 4 ) as f ea r , disgust, sy mp a th y , etc. , andpossibly a combina t ion of these. This s ta teo f arousa l is h i g h e r (a) th e more one canempath i ze wi th the v ic t im (i.e., the more onecan see oneself in his s i tua t ionSto t l and ,1 9 6 6 ) , (b) th e closer one is to the emergency ,and (c ) the longer the sta te of emergency con-t i nues w i t h o u t th e i n te rven t ion o f a h e lp e r .I t can be reduc ed by one of a nu m be r ofpossible responses: (a) he lp ing d i r ec t ly , (b)going to get he lp , (c) l eav ing th e scene of theemergencv, and (d) r e jec t ing the v ic t im asundese rv ing of he lp ( L e r n e r & Simmons ,1 9 6 6 ) . The response t h a t will be chosen isa func t ion of a cost- reward m a t r i x t ha t in -cludes costs associated wi th help ing (e .g . ,e f f o r t , embar r assmen t , poss ib le d i sgus t ing ord i s t a s t e fu l exper iences , poss ib le physicalh a r m , e t c . ) , costs associated wi th not help ing(ma in ly self -b lam e and perceived ce nsuref r o m o ther s ) , r ewards assoc ia ted wi th he lp ing(main ly praise f ro m se l f , v i c t i m , a n d o ther s ) ,a nd r ewards assoc ia ted wi th n ot help ing(main ly those s temming f ro m con t inua t ion ofo ther ac t i v i t i e s ) . N o te t h a t th e majo r mo t iva-t ion implied in the model is not a posi t ive"al truis t ic" one, bu t r a t h e r a selfish d es i r e torid oneself of an unp leasan t emot iona l s ta te .In te rms of this model, th e fo l lowing af ter-the - fac t i n te rp re ta t ions can be made o f thef i n d i n g s o b t a i n ed :

1 . Th e d r u n k is helped less because costsf o r he lp ing a r e h igher (g r ea te r d i sgus t ) andcosts for not help ing a re lower ( less self-b lame and censure because he is in p a r tresponsib le for h is own v ic t imiza t ion ) .

2. W o m en help less because costs for help-ing are h igher in th is s i tuat ion (effort ,main ly ) and costs for not help ing are lower(less censure f ro m o ther s ; i t i s not her r o l e ) .3. Same-race help ing , par t icu lar ly of thed r u n k , can be explained by dif ferent ia l costsf o r not helping ( less censure if one is of op-posi te race) and , wi th th e d r u n k , dif ferent ia lcosts for help ing (more fear if of di f fe ren tr a c e ) .4. Diffus ion of responsibility is not f o u n don cane trials because costs for helping ingenera l are low and costs for not help ing arehigh (mo re self -b lam e because of possiblesever i ty of p r o b l e m ) . That is , the suggestionis m a d e t ha t th e diffusion of responsibili tye f f e c t will increase as costs for help ing in -crease and costs for not helping decrease.This i n te rp re ta t ion is consistent with th ewel l -known public incidents, in which possiblebod i ly harm to a he lper is almost a lwaysinvolved, and thus costs for help ing are veryh igh , and also wi th prev ious research donew ith nonvis ib le v ic t ims in w hich ei ther (a) i tw as easy to assume someone h ad a l r eadyhelped and thus costs for not h elp ing we rereduced ( B a r l e y & L a tan e ) or (b) i t waspossible to t h i n k t h a t th e emergency w asminor , which also reduces the costs for nothe lp ing (La tane & R o d i n ) .5. All of the effects of t ime are also con-s is ten t wi th th e model . Th e longer th e emer -genc}' continues, th e more likely it is thatobservers will be aroused and t h e re fo re willhave chosen among the possib le responses .Thus , (a) a la te model will elici t less help-ing, s ince people have already reduced thei rarousal by one of the o ther methods; (b)unless arousa l is r ed u c ed by other methods,people wi l l leave more as t ime goes on, be-cause arousal is s t il l incre as in g; and (c) ob-servers will discuss th e incident in an a t t em p tto r educe se l f -b lame a nd ar r ive at the fou r threso lu t ion , namely a jus t i f ica t ion for nothelp ing based on rejection of the v ic t im.

Qu i te obv ious ly , the model was der ivedf rom these da ta , along with da ta of o thers tud ies in the area. Needless to say, f u r t h e rw o r k is being p lanned b}' th e au tho r s to testth e implications of the model systematica l ly .


11/11

G O O D S A M A E I T A N I S M : A N U N D E R G R O U N D P H E N O M E N O N ? 299REFERENCES

B E R S C H E I D , E., & WALSTEE, E . Whe n d o e s a h a r m -d o e r c o m p e n s a t e a v ic t im ? Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 1967, 6, 43S-441.B L A C K , D. J., & REISS, A. J. Studies in crime and

la w enforcement in major metropolitan areas.(R e p o r t su b m i t t e d t o t he P re s ide n t ' s C o m m is s io non L aw E n f o r c e m e n t a nd A d m i n i s t r a t i o n o fJ u s t i c e ) W a s h i n g t o n , D . C . : U n i t e d S t a te s G o v e r n -m e n t P r in t in g Office, 1967.B R Y A N , J. H., & TEST, M. A . M o de l s r . n d he l p in g :

Naturalistic studies in a iding behavior. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 1 9 6 7 , 6, 400-4 0 7 .

DABLEY, J., & L A T A N E , B . B y s t a n d e r i n t e r v e n t i o n inemergenc ies : Dif fus ion of r e sp o n s ib i l i t y . Journal ofPersonality an d Social Psychology, 1968, 8 , 377-3 8 3 .L A T A N E , B ., & D A R L E Y , J. G r o u p i n h i b i t i o n of by-s t a n de r i n t e rv e n t io n in e m e rg e n c i e s . Journal ofPersonality an d Social Psychology, 1968, 10, 215-2 2 1 .

L A T A N E , B ., & RODIN, J. A l ady in d i s t r e s s : In h ib i t -ing effects of f r i e n d s an d s t r a n g e r s o n b y s t a n d e rin t e rv e n t io n . Journal of Ex perim ental Social Psy-chology, 1969, 5, 189-202.L E R N E R , M . J., & SIMMONS, C. H . Observer ' s r e a c t i o nt o t he " in n o ce n t v i c t im " : C o m p a ss io n o r r e j e c t i o n ?

Journal oj Personality and Social P sychology,1966, 4, 203-210.S C H A C H T E R , S. The i n t e r a c t i o n of co g n i t i v e andphys iologica l d e t e r m i n a n t s of e m o t i o n a l s t a t e . InL. B e r k o w i t z (Ed.), Advances in experimentalsocial psychology. V o l . 1. New Y o r k : A c a d e m i cPress, 1964.S C H O P L E R , J., & MATTHEWS, M. W. The in f luence ofth e p e rce iv e d ca u sa l locus o f p a r t n e r ' s d e p e n d e n c eon the use of in te rpe rsona l power . Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 1965, 4, 609-

6 1 2 .S T O T L A K D , E . A t h e o r y a n d e x p e r i m e n t s i n e m p a t h y .

P a p e r p r e s e n t e d a t the m e e t i n g of t h e A m e r i c a nP s yc h o log i c a l A s s o c i a t i o n , N e w Y o r k , S e p t e m b e r1 9 6 6 .

( Re c e i v e d O c t o b e r 21 , 1968)

good samaritanism

Documents