Prosocial Behaviour » Piliavin Subway Study

What you'll learn this session

Study time: 30 minutes

The key details of Piliavin's subway study on bystander behaviour
The methodology and experimental conditions used in the study
The main findings and conclusions of the research
Evaluation points including strengths and limitations
How the study contributes to our understanding of prosocial behaviour
Real-world applications of the research findings

Introduction to Piliavin's Subway Study

Piliavin's subway study is a famous field experiment conducted in the 1970s that investigated how people respond to others in need. Irving Piliavin, Judith Rodin and Jane Piliavin wanted to find out what factors influence whether bystanders will help someone in distress. This study has become a classic in understanding prosocial behaviour.

Key Definitions:

Prosocial behaviour: Actions that benefit others, such as helping, sharing, or comforting.
Bystander effect: The tendency for people to be less likely to help when others are present.
Field experiment: A study conducted in a natural setting rather than a laboratory.
Diffusion of responsibility: When people feel less responsible to act because others are present.

🚀 Background Context

The study was conducted in 1969 and published in 1969/1970. It came after the shocking murder of Kitty Genovese in 1964, where reportedly 38 witnesses failed to help. This event sparked interest in understanding why people don't help in emergencies. The researchers wanted to move beyond laboratory studies to examine helping behaviour in real-world settings.

💡 Research Aims

Piliavin and colleagues wanted to investigate:

How the appearance of a victim affects helping behaviour
How the cost of helping influences bystander intervention
Whether the presence of other people affects helping
How quickly people respond to emergencies

The Study Design

Piliavin's study was cleverly designed to observe real helping behaviour while maintaining experimental control. The researchers created staged emergencies on the New York City subway to see how ordinary commuters would respond.

Methodology

The experiment took place on the 8th Avenue subway line in New York between 59th Street and 125th Street (about an 8-minute journey). The research team included:

Two 'victims' (one black, one white) who would collapse on the train
Four observers who would record the responses of passengers
Two models who sometimes helped the victim first

🔬 Experimental Variables

Independent Variables:

Victim type: Drunk (smelling of alcohol, carrying bottle) vs Ill (carrying a cane)
Race of victim: Black vs White
Model helping: Present vs Absent

📊 Dependent Variables

The researchers measured:

Whether someone helped
How quickly they helped (in seconds)
Race and gender of helpers
Spontaneous comments made by passengers

🛠 Procedure

The 'victim' would board the train and stand holding onto a pole. When the train passed 59th Street, they would collapse to the floor. In the 'cane' condition, they would simply fall. In the 'drunk' condition, they would stagger first and smell of alcohol. Observers recorded all responses until the train reached 125th Street.

Study Details at a Glance

Sample: 4,450 subway passengers who were unwitting participants

Method: Field experiment with covert observation

Conditions: 103 trial runs across different experimental conditions

Ethics: Participants were deceived and did not give informed consent

Key Findings

The results of Piliavin's study revealed fascinating patterns in helping behaviour:

📈 Main Results

Speed of helping: Help was offered very quickly - usually within 5 seconds
Rate of helping: In 62 out of 65 critical trials, the victim received help before the train reached the next station
Victim type effect: The 'ill' victim received help more quickly and more often than the 'drunk' victim
Race effects: There was no significant difference in helping based on the race of the victim
Helper characteristics: Males were more likely to help than females
Adjacent seats: People sitting closest to the victim were most likely to help

🤔 Interpretation

The researchers concluded that:

Helping is influenced by the perceived 'worthiness' of the victim
Physical proximity matters - those closest feel most responsible
The subway environment created a situation where diffusion of responsibility was reduced
The cost of not helping (guilt, shame) may have been greater than the cost of helping
Gender roles influence helping behaviour in emergencies

The Arousal: Cost-Reward Model

Based on their findings, Piliavin and colleagues developed the Arousal: Cost-Reward Model to explain helping behaviour:

This model suggests that witnessing an emergency creates emotional arousal (distress) in bystanders. People are motivated to reduce this uncomfortable feeling and they can do so by:

📝 Elements of the Model

Arousal: Seeing someone in distress creates emotional discomfort
Costs of helping: Effort, time, danger, embarrassment
Costs of not helping: Continued distress, guilt, shame
Rewards for helping: Praise, gratitude, self-satisfaction

⚖ Decision Process

According to the model, people weigh up:

The costs of helping vs not helping
The rewards of helping vs not helping
Choose the option that provides the best outcome

In the subway study, the costs of not helping (continued distress) often outweighed the relatively low costs of helping.

Evaluation of the Study

Like all research, Piliavin's subway study has both strengths and limitations:

👍 Strengths

High ecological validity: Conducted in a real-world setting with genuine reactions
Large sample size: Over 4,450 participants across 103 trials
Controlled variables: Systematically varied conditions while maintaining realism
Reliable observations: Multiple observers recorded data independently
Practical applications: Findings have real-world relevance for emergency situations

👎 Limitations

Ethical concerns: Participants were deceived and didn't give informed consent
Potential observer bias: Observers weren't blind to the conditions
Cultural specificity: Results may be specific to New York in the 1960s
Limited generalisability: Subway environment is unique (confined space, short duration)
Demand characteristics: Some passengers may have suspected it was staged

Real-World Applications

The findings from Piliavin's study have practical implications:

Emergency services training: Understanding how bystanders react in emergencies
Public health campaigns: Designing effective messages to encourage helping behaviour
Urban planning: Creating environments that encourage prosocial behaviour
First aid education: Teaching people how to overcome barriers to helping

Conclusion

Piliavin's subway study provides valuable insights into the factors that influence helping behaviour in emergency situations. It challenges the notion that urban dwellers are indifferent to others' suffering and shows that helping is influenced by a complex interplay of factors including the nature of the emergency, characteristics of the victim and the immediate social environment.

The Arousal: Cost-Reward Model that emerged from this research continues to be influential in understanding prosocial behaviour. It reminds us that helping decisions involve both emotional responses and rational calculations of costs and benefits.

While the study has limitations, particularly regarding ethics by today's standards, it remains a landmark piece of research that has significantly contributed to our understanding of human behaviour in emergency situations.

🧠 Test Your Knowledge!