AS AS ΨΨCore studiesCore studies

The Social ApproachThe Social Approach

Piliavin, Rodin & Piliavin Piliavin, Rodin & Piliavin (1969)(1969)

Good SamaritanismGood Samaritanism: an : an underground phenomenon?underground phenomenon?

Journal of Personality and Social PsychologyJournal of Personality and Social Psychology, 13, 289-299, 13, 289-299

Good Samaritanism: an underground phenomenon?

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 13, 289-299

12.04.23 3

The GOOD SAMARITANThe GOOD SAMARITAN Luke 10: 25-37Luke 10: 25-37

Why do we Why do we sometimes help sometimes help others?others?

When might we not When might we not help others?help others?

What has this got to What has this got to do with psychological do with psychological research?research?

12.04.23 4

The case of The case of Kitty GenoveseKitty Genovese

Gansberg (1964), Gansberg (1964), New York TimesNew York Times LatanLatanéé & Darley (1970), & Darley (1970), The Unresponsive BystanderThe Unresponsive Bystander

38 witnesses to her murder & no-one 38 witnesses to her murder & no-one helpedhelped

WHY the unresponsive bystanders?WHY the unresponsive bystanders? Diffusion of responsibility?Diffusion of responsibility? Pluralistic ignorance?Pluralistic ignorance?

12.04.23 5

A questionA question

What conditions make it probableWhat conditions make it probable

that we will help?that we will help?

oror that we will look the other way?that we will look the other way?

12.04.23 6

Piliavin, Rodin & PiliavinPiliavin, Rodin & Piliavin

Method = field experimentMethod = field experiment Between 11am and 3pm over two Between 11am and 3pm over two

months in 1968months in 1968 On trains between 59th & 125th On trains between 59th & 125th

streetstreet 103 ‘experimental trials’ took place103 ‘experimental trials’ took place No stops, journey time 8 minutesNo stops, journey time 8 minutes

12.04.23 7

The field experiment The field experiment 1919

The participants = ?The participants = ?

Estimated 4450 travellers on the trainsEstimated 4450 travellers on the trains 45% black and 55% white45% black and 55% white

Average # in a carriage was 43Average # in a carriage was 43 Average # in ‘the critical area’ was 8.5Average # in ‘the critical area’ was 8.5

12.04.23 8

The field experiment The field experiment 1919

4 teams of 4 student experimenters, 4 teams of 4 student experimenters, two male + two femaletwo male + two female

Males acted victim and role modelMales acted victim and role model Females observed unobtrusivelyFemales observed unobtrusively

12.04.23 9

The field experiment The field experiment 1919

What did they do?What did they do?

70 seconds after the train left the 70 seconds after the train left the station the VICTIM pretended to station the VICTIM pretended to collapse, then waited for ‘help’.collapse, then waited for ‘help’.

If no-one ‘helped’, the ‘model’ helped If no-one ‘helped’, the ‘model’ helped the VICTIM off at the next stop.the VICTIM off at the next stop.

The observers got off the train too.The observers got off the train too.

12.04.23 10

The field experiment The field experiment 1919

carriage layout

12.04.23 11

The field experimentThe field experiment

What were the IVs?What were the IVs?

12.04.23 12

The field experiment The field experiment 2020

11stst IV IV Victims carried bottle & Victims carried bottle & smelled of alcohol (drunk condition) smelled of alcohol (drunk condition) or carried a cane (cane condition)or carried a cane (cane condition)

22ndnd IV IV Victims were either black or Victims were either black or whitewhite

and aged 26 - 35and aged 26 - 35

The models were all white aged 24 - 29The models were all white aged 24 - 29

12.04.23 13

The field experiment The field experiment 2020

The observers recorded the race, The observers recorded the race, age, sex, and location of ‘helper’ age, sex, and location of ‘helper’ passengerspassengers

Who helped in which condition?Who helped in which condition?

Also – who said what and who moved Also – who said what and who moved away?away?

12.04.23 14

The field experiment The field experiment 2020

On 62 of 65 trials the ‘cane’ victim On 62 of 65 trials the ‘cane’ victim was helped immediatelywas helped immediately

On 19 out of 38 trials the ‘drunk’ On 19 out of 38 trials the ‘drunk’ victim was helped immediatelyvictim was helped immediately

After ONE person helped (81/103 After ONE person helped (81/103 trials), in 60% (of those 81) others trials), in 60% (of those 81) others helped toohelped too

12.04.23 15

The field experimentThe field experiment

What sort of people helped?What sort of people helped?

Males more than femalesMales more than females

More same ‘race’ helpers in drunk More same ‘race’ helpers in drunk condition (marginal result)condition (marginal result)

12.04.23 16

The field experimentThe field experiment

How many people LEFT the critical area?How many people LEFT the critical area?

In 21 of 103 trials 34 people moved awayIn 21 of 103 trials 34 people moved away

More likely to leave in the drunk More likely to leave in the drunk condition than the canecondition than the cane

But note: people could not easily ‘get away’But note: people could not easily ‘get away’

12.04.23 17

The field experimentThe field experiment

ConclusionConclusion

Diffusion of responsibility hypothesis Diffusion of responsibility hypothesis was not supportedwas not supported

The larger the group, the faster the The larger the group, the faster the responseresponse

12.04.23 18

Piliavin et al.’s ideaPiliavin et al.’s idea

Piliavin et al. give a TWO factor Piliavin et al. give a TWO factor model of helping behaviourmodel of helping behaviour

Factor 1: The level of emotional Factor 1: The level of emotional arousal (empathy) arousal (empathy)

Factor 2: The result of a cost/benefit Factor 2: The result of a cost/benefit analysisanalysis

Thus low empathy + high cost Thus low empathy + high cost would predict NO helpingwould predict NO helping

12.04.23 19

Arousal Arousal 2121

The emergency created a ‘state of The emergency created a ‘state of emotional arousal’emotional arousal’

Arousal is heightened by Arousal is heightened by empathy with victimempathy with victim proximity to situationproximity to situation duration of emergencyduration of emergency

12.04.23 20

Arousal Arousal 2121

This arousal/distress state will be This arousal/distress state will be interpreted as fear, sympathy or disgust interpreted as fear, sympathy or disgust – in all cases unpleasant– in all cases unpleasant

Can be reduced by:Can be reduced by: going away going away helpinghelping getting helpgetting help deciding the victim doesn’t deserve deciding the victim doesn’t deserve

helphelp

12.04.23 21

The cost / benefit theory The cost / benefit theory 2121

ACR = Arousal: Cost-Reward analysisACR = Arousal: Cost-Reward analysis

Observers experience others’ Observers experience others’ distress as unpleasant and attempt distress as unpleasant and attempt to reduce it (i.e. to reduce it (i.e. their own their own unpleasant experience) unpleasant experience)

12.04.23 22

possible costs of helpingpossible costs of helping effort (may be physically demanding)effort (may be physically demanding)

time required (we may be late for work)time required (we may be late for work)

loss of resources (damage to clothes)loss of resources (damage to clothes)

risk of harm (we may get injured)risk of harm (we may get injured)

negative emotional response (feel negative emotional response (feel ill/sick)ill/sick)

12.04.23 23

possible costs ofpossible costs ofNOT HELPINGNOT HELPING

We may feel ashamed (I should have We may feel ashamed (I should have helped)helped)

Self-blame: something bad will ‘be Self-blame: something bad will ‘be our fault’ (the victim may die)our fault’ (the victim may die)

12.04.23 24

possible rewards for helpingpossible rewards for helping

Social approval (thanks from victim, Social approval (thanks from victim, praise from others)praise from others)

Self-esteem (feeling good about Self-esteem (feeling good about oneself)oneself)

Positive emotional response (feelings Positive emotional response (feelings of elation and gladness)of elation and gladness)

12.04.23 25

possible rewards of not helpingpossible rewards of not helping

?? Avoiding the costs:?? Avoiding the costs:

effort (may be physically demanding)effort (may be physically demanding) time required (we may be late for work)time required (we may be late for work) loss of resources (damage to clothes)loss of resources (damage to clothes) risk of harm (we may get injured)risk of harm (we may get injured) negative emotional response (feel ill/sick)negative emotional response (feel ill/sick)

12.04.23 26

After our cost / benefit ‘analysis’After our cost / benefit ‘analysis’

If the rewards If the rewards of helping > the of helping > the costs of not costs of not helpinghelping

we are likely to we are likely to act in a pro-act in a pro-social manner social manner (i.e. we help)(i.e. we help)

12.04.23 27

AndAnd

What about the characteristics and What about the characteristics and situation of the victim – drunk/sober, situation of the victim – drunk/sober, male/female, shabby/elegant, male/female, shabby/elegant, white/black, etc.white/black, etc.

Controllable (e.g. drunk) vs. Controllable (e.g. drunk) vs. uncontrollable (e.g. lame) causesuncontrollable (e.g. lame) causes

Heroic Heroic ♂ ♂ vs. nurturant vs. nurturant ♀ ♀ helpinghelping

12.04.23 28

Only in NYC?Only in NYC?

Could such a murder only happen in Could such a murder only happen in a crowded metropolisa crowded metropolis

where friends are far away and the where friends are far away and the ‘street’ is no one’s territory?‘street’ is no one’s territory?

Was it:Was it: Situation (environmental overload) orSituation (environmental overload) or Disposition (uncaring people)?Disposition (uncaring people)?

12.04.23 29

Unreported factUnreported fact(Gansberg 1964)(Gansberg 1964)

Kitty and the murderer were Kitty and the murderer were struggling and fell into a doorway struggling and fell into a doorway where no-one could have seen the where no-one could have seen the stabbingstabbing

Was the report over-sensational?Was the report over-sensational?

12.04.23 30

Was this field experiment…Was this field experiment…

ethical?ethical?

high in ecological validity?high in ecological validity?

investigating anything investigating anything useful? - behaviour of useful? - behaviour of bystandersbystanders vs. behaviour of vs. behaviour of murderermurderer

Cool!

12.04.23 31

LatanLatanéé & Darley (1970) & Darley (1970)The 5 steps to helping behaviour The 5 steps to helping behaviour

1. We must notice the event1. We must notice the event 2. We must interpret the event as an 2. We must interpret the event as an

emergencyemergency 3. We must assume personal 3. We must assume personal

responsibilityresponsibility 4. We must choose a way to help4. We must choose a way to help 5. We must implement the decision5. We must implement the decision A negative response at any of these A negative response at any of these

5 stages means that the bystander 5 stages means that the bystander will fail to intervene will fail to intervene

12.04.23 32

Step 1 - Noticing the eventStep 1 - Noticing the event

If we do not NOTICE we will not helpIf we do not NOTICE we will not help

12.04.23 33

Step 2 - Defining the event as Step 2 - Defining the event as an emergencyan emergency

In the sad case of Jamie Bulger (see In the sad case of Jamie Bulger (see Levine, 1999; p24-28), many Levine, 1999; p24-28), many witnesses failed to intervenewitnesses failed to intervene

They did not interpret the event They did not interpret the event as an emergencyas an emergency

Would you intervene in a lovers quarrel?Would you intervene in a lovers quarrel?

12.04.23 34

Step 3 - Assuming personal Step 3 - Assuming personal responsibilityresponsibility

If others are present YOU may If others are present YOU may assume THEY will helpassume THEY will help

Diffusion of Responsibility: Diffusion of Responsibility: may may explain why no one helped Kitty explain why no one helped Kitty GenoveseGenovese

12.04.23 35

Step 4 - Choose a way to helpStep 4 - Choose a way to help

This involves making a decisionThis involves making a decision

And weighing up some costs & And weighing up some costs & benefits of helpingbenefits of helping

12.04.23 36

Step 5 - Implement the decisionStep 5 - Implement the decision

Am I competent to help?Am I competent to help?

Is there anyone else around who may Is there anyone else around who may be more competent?be more competent?

Might I do more harm than good?Might I do more harm than good?

12.04.23 37

The problem with this modelThe problem with this model

It explains …It explains …

WHY people DON’T HELPWHY people DON’T HELP

but not WHEN & WHY they DObut not WHEN & WHY they DO

12.04.23 38

Pro-social (Altruistic) behaviourPro-social (Altruistic) behaviour

Altruism has been Altruism has been defined as defined as behaviour intended behaviour intended to help others to help others having NO benefit having NO benefit to ourselvesto ourselves

12.04.23 39

Is ALTRUISM possible?Is ALTRUISM possible?

Freud & Freud & instincts/drives instincts/drives ??

ID operates on the pleasure principleID operates on the pleasure principle

Can helping behaviour be motivated by Can helping behaviour be motivated by our desire for pleasure?our desire for pleasure?

12.04.23 40

Is ALTRUISM possible?Is ALTRUISM possible?

The behaviourists & The behaviourists & reinforcement/punishment reinforcement/punishment ??

Behaviour is reinforced (shaped) by its Behaviour is reinforced (shaped) by its outcomesoutcomes

What are some reinforcers and What are some reinforcers and punishers of helping others?punishers of helping others?

12.04.23 41

Is ALTRUISM possible?Is ALTRUISM possible?

The The Social LearningSocial Learning approach approach

We learn to be unselfish and to help We learn to be unselfish and to help others by watching others helpingothers by watching others helping

Which role models do you imitate?Which role models do you imitate?

12.04.23 42

The endThe end