Piliavin et al. (1969): Subway Samaritans
Social Approach
Psychology Notes
A Level/AS Level/O Level
Social Approach
Social Approach: Subway Samaritans - Piliavin et al. (1969)
1. What is the Social Approach?
The social approach in psychology is all about understanding how our behavior is influenced by the people around us. It focuses on how we think, feel, and act in social situations, exploring things like:
- Social Influence: How do others change our opinions, beliefs, and actions?
- Social Cognition: How do we process information about others and the world around us?
- Social Identity: How do groups and social roles shape our sense of self?
2. The Subway Samaritans Study: A Quick Overview
Piliavin et al. (1969) conducted a famous experiment called the "Subway Samaritans" study. Their goal was to see what factors would influence a person's willingness to help a stranger in need. They staged a situation on a New York City subway where a 'victim' would collapse and appear to be unconscious.
3. The Experiment's Setup
- The Participants: The participants were real subway passengers, unaware they were part of an experiment.
- The 'Victim': A young man (either white or black) would collapse on the subway and stay motionless.
- The 'Confederates': The researchers had 'confederates' (actors) on the train who played different roles:
- The Model: A confederate who would intervene and help the victim after a set period of time.
- The Observers: Confederates who would act as regular passengers and observe the situation.
4. The Key Findings
The study revealed some interesting results:
- The Victim's Race: The race of the victim had a surprising effect. Passengers were more likely to help a white victim than a black victim.
- The Number of Bystanders: The more bystanders there were, the less likely any single person was to offer help. This is known as the diffusion of responsibility - the feeling that someone else will take care of the situation, so you don't have to.
- The Model's Behavior: When a confederate intervened and helped the victim, it significantly increased the likelihood that other passengers would also offer help. This showcases the power of observational learning.
5. What This Means for Us
The "Subway Samaritans" study highlights the powerful influence of social factors on our willingness to help others. We are more likely to act when:
- We feel a personal connection: We feel empathy for the person in need.
- We perceive it as our responsibility: We believe it's our duty to help.
- We see others helping: We are more likely to follow the example of others.
6. Real-World Implications
This study has important implications for understanding prosocial behavior and bystander apathy. It helps us understand why people might hesitate to intervene in emergencies, especially when others are present. It also suggests that promoting helping behavior can be as simple as modeling the desired behavior.
7. Thinking Critically
- Ethical Considerations: This study raises some ethical concerns. Were the participants fully informed about the experiment? Was it ethical to potentially put them in a stressful situation?
- Generalizability: The study was conducted in a specific time and place (New York City in the 1960s). Can the results be generalized to other places and times?
8. In Conclusion
The "Subway Samaritans" study provides valuable insights into the complex dynamics of social behavior. It reminds us that our actions are shaped by the social context and that even in seemingly simple situations, there are often powerful forces at play.
Bonus Notes
Piliavin et al. (1969) Subway Samaritans Study: A Critical Analysis
1. Methodological Strengths and Weaknesses:
Strengths:
⭐High ecological validity: The study used a natural setting, enhancing realism and generalizability.
⭐Large sample size: 4450 participants provided a robust data set.
⭐Multiple measures: Observations and surveys provided diverse data about helping behavior and participant characteristics.
Weaknesses:
⭐Lack of control: Uncontrolled variables like time of day and weather could have influenced results.
⭐Ethical considerations: The deception used raised concerns about informed consent and potential distress for participants.
⭐Limited generalizability: The study focused on a specific situation (a subway) and type of victim (drunk or ill).
2. Key Findings and Influence:
Key Findings:
⭐Diffusion of responsibility: More bystanders led to less individual responsibility to help.
⭐Arousal-cost-reward model: Helping was influenced by emotional arousal, perceived cost of helping, and potential rewards.
⭐Victim characteristics: A drunk victim received less help than a victim appearing ill.
Influence:
⭐Bystander effect: Helped solidify the concept that more bystanders lead to less helping.
⭐Arousal-cost-reward model: Offered a theoretical framework for understanding the cognitive and emotional processes involved in helping decisions.
⭐Practical applications: Informed interventions aimed at increasing helping behavior in emergencies.
3. Real-World Applications:
⭐Non-intervention: The study explains why people might not help in crowded situations, such as during a street fight or a car accident.
⭐Intervention: The findings suggest that highlighting personal responsibility and minimizing costs of helping (e.g., clear instructions) could increase bystander intervention.
4. Ethical Considerations:
⭐Deception: Participants were unaware of the study's true purpose, lacking informed consent.
⭐Potential distress: The staged emergency could have caused anxiety or discomfort for some participants.
⭐Implications for future research: The study raises questions about the ethical balance between scientific gain and participant welfare. Researchers need to prioritize informed consent and minimize distress while ensuring research integrity.
5. Personal vs. Situational Factors:
⭐Situational factors: The study strongly emphasized situational factors like the number of bystanders and the characteristics of the victim.
⭐Personal factors: While acknowledging individual differences (e.g., altruism), the study primarily focused on the influence of situational variables on helping behaviour.
⭐Conclusion: While personal factors play a role, Piliavin et al. (1969) suggests that the situation significantly influences bystander behaviour.
In conclusion, Piliavin et al.'s (1969) Subway Samaritans study offers valuable insights into bystander behaviour, highlighting the importance of situational factors and contributing to the development of social psychological theory. However, considering ethical implications and acknowledging the limitations of its methodology remains crucial for interpreting and applying its findings.