RUNNING HEAD: An Analysis on ‘Good Samaritanism: An Underground Phenomenon?

An Analysis on ‘Good Samaritanism: An Underground Phenomenon?’ by Piliavin et Al. (1969)

[Student Name]

[Instructor Name]

[Course Name]

[Institute Name]

[Submission Date]
An Analysis on ‘Good Samaritanism: An Underground Phenomenon?’ 2

Table of Contents
Introduction......................................................................................................................................3

Hypothesis.......................................................................................................................................3

Personal Insight and Evaluation..................................................................................................3

Method and Procedure.....................................................................................................................4

Personal Insight and Evaluation..................................................................................................5

Findings...........................................................................................................................................5

Personal Insight and Evaluation..................................................................................................6

Explanation......................................................................................................................................6

Personal Insight and Evaluation..................................................................................................6

Concluding Remarks.......................................................................................................................7

References........................................................................................................................................8
An Analysis on ‘Good Samaritanism: An Underground Phenomenon?’ 3

Introduction

The experimental research under analysis for this essay is ‘Good Samaritanism: An

Underground Phenomenon?’ by Irving and Jane Piliavin and Judith Rodin. This experimental

research was carried out to assess differing behaviours regarding different kinds of victims.

The barbaric murder of Kitty Genovese in New York in the year of 1964 kickstarted the

wave of interest in the behaviour of bystanders and their response to criminal activities

happening around them. Out of the entirety of forty individuals, no one responding to a murder

which lasted for nearly thirty minutes is a rare phenomenon which was a cause of extreme

interest.

The experiments of such nature consisted of a camera friendly scenarios which consisted

of confederates and one participant who was to be observed. However, Piliavin acknowledged

how the experiments were lacking in ecological validity of realism. Therefore, his experiment

had an added sense of realism, however, the integrity and perhaps, the ethical prospect was

compromised.

Hypothesis

The hypothesis of this case study can is fundamentally how the different aspects such as the kind

of victim i.e. ill or drunk, the race of the victim, the perception of responsibility, the size of the

group and the impact of modelling helping behaviour [ CITATION Pil69 \l 1033 ].

Personal Insight and Evaluation

The primary aim of the study was to analyze the perception an individual may have given if they

are exposed to a ‘stranger in need’ stimuli. The specific factors covered all possible contributing
An Analysis on ‘Good Samaritanism: An Underground Phenomenon?’ 4

factors which consisted of the nature of the problem. Factors such as race or the presence as well

as the absence of a helping model adds the element of realism which separates the experiment of

Piliavin from many others which existed within that era.

Method and Procedure

The primary method in usage was of a participant based observational experiment. Th

experiment was conducted in a subway located in New York. An approximate pool of 4450

people of both genders was observed. A time period was set and the observation was set to be

taken from the weeks ranging from 15th of April to 26th of June [CITATION Pil69 \p 290 \l

1033 ].

The composition of individuals on racial basis was majority white i.e. 55% and minority black

i.e. 45%. The route specified was that from Harlem to Bronx. The two trains chosen for the

experiment ran their course from 59th street to 125th street without any stops which made them

the ideal selection.

For the experiment, four teams were constructed and every team consisted of four individuals.

The structural composition of the team consisted of two females who were the observers,

whereas, one male in the team was assigned the role of the victim. The remaining individual was

a confederate.

The stimulus consisted of two basic distinctions: in one case, the victim behaved as a drunk and

in the other scenario, the victim was assigned the role of a disabled individual. A limit of seventy

seconds was given to see whether or not the participant would react and engage in the situation.

However, after the seventy seconds elapsed, the confederate was instructed to engage and the

behaviour of the individual would then be observed.

Personal Insight and Evaluation

One of the major problems which existed within the criteria set for the experiment was the lack

of adherence to an ethical guideline. The experimenters failed to secure consent from the

participants which qualified as a forgoing cost for the added realism that Piliavin sought out to

incorporate within her experiment.

The experiment functioned on the essence of deception which added to the weak ethical

foundation the experiment functioned upon. Additionally, there were no trigger warnings for the

situations which were induced which could have possibly had psychological damages for those

involved. In addition, the prospect of debriefing was not included. Individuals were not only

subject to traumatic experience but were left with no clear awareness regarding it.

Findings

The helping behaviour on its own was high compared to previous laboratory experiments

which made it difficult for the helping model to be applied and for its effects to be observed.

There was nearly hundred-percent helping behaviour present when the individual responsible for

acting behaved as if they had been ill. Ninety-six percent of the response was spontaneous,

whereas, the four-percent was enacted once the helping model was applied. Whereas, on the

other hand, only eighty-one-percent response was observed when the individual behaved as if

they were intoxicated. Out of the eighty-one percent, only fifty-percent was spontaneous help

[CITATION Pil69 \p 292 \l 1033 ].

In the drunken condition, race played an important role. Overall experiment concluded

major participation was of male which rounded up to ninety-percent. the hypothesis which was
An Analysis on ‘Good Samaritanism: An Underground Phenomenon?’ 6

constructed on the relationship between size was proven wrong as most responses were obtained

from larger groups.

Personal Insight and Evaluation

On the other hand, the data they extracted was rather limited as it was nonrepresentative i.e. it

did not cater to mass population which included variety of individuals but rather the beings that

occupied the New York subway. The conditions of the experiment were tipping in favour of

particular sentiments as at that time, there were certain movements in play for the rights of the

Black Community as well as the participation of the women were limited.

Besides, this research cannot be applicable for current era and is rather obsolete in regards to the

data extracted. Though it may be of huge help at that particular time in history. However, it

yields no productive conclusion for the current era.

Explanation

Piliavin constructed the model of Arousal: Cost-Reward Model on the basis of this research. The

argument settled on how the situation aroused a response of empathy. The argument was

furthered on the basis of what was the perceived cost of helping which could be measured in

effort, embarrassment and/or physical harm. Whereas, the rewards of helping could be

considered but not limited to, praise from self, onlookers and/or the victim themselves

[CITATION Pil69 \p 296 \l 1033 ].

Personal Insight and Evaluation

The criticism which can arise regarding the model of Arousal: Cost-Reward is that it’s takes into

account a rather negative view of the individuals involved. It denies the presence of potential

altruism and falsely made the assumption of how behaviour is motivated by some sense of
An Analysis on ‘Good Samaritanism: An Underground Phenomenon?’ 7

benefit. The behaviour of those who are unselfish and motivated by the simple desire of helping

other individuals were completely disregarded. The model eliminates the possibility of altruism

which is not realistic per say.

Concluding Remarks

It is truly interesting how the debate which began after the murder of the Kitty Genovese

still has not acquired any sound conclusion, the debate still exists in its vibrant form. The

accuracy of the original reporting stay clouded. The experiment of Piliavin did although derive

useful conclusions.

 Individuals who are ill were more likely to receive help which is understandable and I

can see why that was the case.

 Race helps race which is also understandable, given that era was highly emotional and

multiple riots were in work for the rights of the black community.

 The fact that male were more likely to understand seems justifiable as well as women

fear the possibility of being attacked themselves which becomes a hindrance in their path

of helping others.
An Analysis on ‘Good Samaritanism: An Underground Phenomenon?’ 8

References

Piliavin, I., Piliavin, J. A., & Rodin, J. (1969). Good Samaritanism: An Underground

Phenomenon. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 13(4), 289-299.