IB Docs (2) Team
Experiment: Subway samaritans
The following Paper 3 is based on a classic study of helping behaviour carried out by Piliavin et al (1969). It is a quantitative study that attempted to measure the effects of different factors in one's decision to help in a public space.
Please note that "subway" means "metro" or - as it is known in London, "the tube."
Potential answers are included in the hidden boxes below.
Student copyStimulus piece
Piliavin's classic study is based on his Arousal Cost Reward Model of helping. According to this model, we are motivated to help people not because of empathy, but as a way of reducing negative feelings.
Piliavin et al (1969) carried out a field experiment in order to study how various situational factors may influence pro-social behaviour. They chose a field experiment rather than a laboratory experiment to guarantee a higher rate of ecological validity.
The participants in the study were an opportunity sample of New York subway travelers who were observed between 11 a.m. and 3 p.m. While they were on a non-stop 7.5 minute journey between stations, they would witness one of two scenarios: either a man with a cane who appeared ill or a man who appeared drunk would fall to the floor of the subway car.
The “victims” were men, aged 25–35, who were dressed and acted identically. They collapsed to the floor 70 seconds after the train left the station and remained on the floor until they were helped. A “model-helper” was instructed to help after 70 seconds if no one else offered assistance.
Two female researchers recorded the data. The independent variables were the type of victim (drunk or ill) and the size of the group. The researchers measured the following dependent variables: frequency of help, the speed of help, the sex of the helper, movement away from the victim, and verbal comments. In other words, they gathered both quantitative and qualitative data.
There were 103 trials, and of these, 38 involved a drunk victim who smelled of alcohol and carried a bottle in a bag, while the remaining 65 trials involved a sober victim with a cane.
Overall, 78 per cent of the time, someone helped spontaneously; this occurred in 62 of the 65 trials where the victim had a cane and 19 of the 38 trials where the victim was “drunk.” 60 per cent of the time that someone helped, more than one helper was involved.
The median response time for helping the man with the cane was 5 seconds; for the drunk victim, there was a median response time of 109 seconds. Overall, it took people longer to assist the drunk person in need of help than the ill man. It appears that it took people longer to consider the costs and benefits when the man who fell was drunk than when he was ill and had a cane. It was found that 90% of helpers were male. Although there were more men present, this percentage was statistically significant.
The researchers also found that there were more comments made about the incident the longer that the victim waited for help - and there were more comments made when they thought the victim was drunk.
In the original study, they also had both African American and white males as confederates, but there was no significant difference in the rate of helping with regard to the race of the victim.
Most importantly, diffusion of responsibility was not observed. In fact, the researchers found just the opposite - the larger the group, the quicker the help.
Potential responses
1a. Identify the method used and outline two characteristics of the method.
The study was a field experiment. Characteristics of this method include that an IV is manipulated and a DV is measured. In addition, as it is done under naturalistic conditions, there was a limited ability to control for extraneous variables; for example, the disposition of the participants. In addition, as this was done under naturalistic conditions, participants could not be randomly assigned to conditions. The procedure in experiments is standardized to allow for replication.
1b. Describe the sampling method used in the study.
This is an opportunity sample. The researchers used a sample of people riding the New York City subway. They did not volunteer - or even know - that they were part of an experiment. The researcher chose to do the study between 11 am and 3 pm. In other words, this was not during rush hour. This means that the train would be less crowded; it also means, however, that these were not people on their way to or from work. This means that the sample may not be representative of New Yorkers but potentially could have a lot of tourists or other visitors to the city.
1c. Suggest one alternative or additional research method giving one reason for your choice.
Questionnaires could be given with scenarios to determine people's likelihood of helping. This would allow for easier data collection and would allow for a greater amount of data in a shorter amount of time. A lab experiment could also be done; this would allow for higher internal validity and avoid the problem of not obtaining the consent of the participants. A focus group could also be used in which participants discuss their concerns about helping or not helping in specific scenarios. This would allow for efficient data collection while also being able to hear participants discuss their own thought processes with regard to helping behaviour.
2. Describe the ethical considerations that were applied in the study and explain if further ethical considerations could be applied.
The study clearly lacks informed consent - and this has many implications. The participants never agreed to be in the study. Since this is a study done "in the field", this is not necessarily required, but the level of deception used and the potential for undue stress makes it problematic. Deception was used in order to create a "realistic" situation which required help. Piliavin had argued that many of the lab experiments were artificial and lacked ecological validity. The original study was not filmed, so there was no problem with the anonymity of the participants. They did not, however, have the right to withdraw since they were not aware that they were in a study and there was no way to leave the subway car until the next stop, over 7 minutes later. Watching someone in distress and not helping may leave participants feeling guilty or anxious. This is "undue stress;" since the study could not be debriefed since when the doors opened people left the car, they may leave without understanding what they saw was actually staged. The researcher should find means to debrief the participants to alleviate potential stress.
3. Discuss the possibility of generalizing/transferring the findings of the study.
Because the study uses an opportunity sample, there are limitations on the ability to generalize to the population from which it was drawn. The sample's characteristics are not documented, except to say that they are "people riding on the subway during the day in New York City." This does not mean that they are New Yorkers. All we can do is generalize this study to "subway passengers." However, the sample could be representative of day travelers in New York. The ability to generalize from the sample to all travelers on the NY subway is limited because of the time of day that the experiment was carried out and the fact that we have limited information about the sample.
In spite of this, it may be possible to transfer the results to other populations. As many big cities have a rather diverse population using the subways system, this would potentially be transferable. It would be important to consider the size of the city, the level of tourism to the city and the culture - e.g. collectivistic vs. individualistic. Research appears to indicate that in collectivistic societies, people are more likely to help their in-group. It would not be possible to generalize this to other situations in which help was required - e.g. donations to a cause or helping the homeless. The situation of being "trapped" in the subway car would make this a different situation than either of those examples.
Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn