Good Samaritan

Darley & Batson (1973) – Master of the Good Samaritan

 

Darley & Batson (1973) say in the introduction to their study that research has consistently shown that it is difficult to find a positive correlation between traditional personality variables, i.e. dispositional variables, and helping behaviour in emergency situations. Therefore, they were interested in finding out whether it is rather situational variables which influence people’s helping behaviour in an emergency situation, such as the one outlined in the parable of the Good Samaritan.

 

In the parable of the Good Samaritan, religious Jews walk past a traveler who is in need, having been attacked and left for dead on the side of the road. A Samaritan - a member of a minority group that at the time was an outcast in Palestine - was the one to stop and help the stranger. A similar situation was created in this field experiment where people going between two buildings were confronted with a shabbily dressed person slumped by the side of the road. The participants were put in different situations where time pressure was an important situational variable.

 

The researchers also wanted to examine if reminding participants about the parable of the Good Samaritan would influence their willingness to help, but they assumed based on the parable that this would not be the case. The researchers argue that the Samaritan in the parable was a social outcast and therefore had more time to offer help than the other two people represented who were probably hurrying to do some business or attend some meeting. They see the Samaritan as a religious and ethical example but at the same time he is a contrast to the kind of religiosity represented by the priest and the Levite in the parable. The researchers suggest that there are two situational variables that affect helping behaviour according to the parable. The first one is the content of one’s thinking, and the second is the amount of hurry in one’s journey. The dispositional variable is the differing types of religiosity.

 

Procedure

The aim of the field experiment was to investigate if participants - in this case, bystanders - would help a stranger that clearly needed help. Helping the stranger came at a cost - that is, they were under time pressure to get to a meeting, and helping would force them to deviate from the original plan.

 

The researchers tested three hypotheses, all based on the parable.

 

The first hypothesis was that people who encounter someone in need of help while thinking religious and ethical thoughts would be no more likely to offer aid than persons thinking about something else.

The second hypothesis was that people encountering someone in need of help when they are in a hurry would be less likely to offer aid than persons who are not in a hurry.

The third hypothesis was that people who are religious in a Samaritan-like fashion, i.e. people who are religious for intrinsic reasons or whose religion emerges out of questioning the meaning of their everyday lives, would help more frequently than those who are religious in a priest or Levite fashion, i.e. religious for extrinsic reasons which means for what you will gain from being religious.

 

The participants in the field experiment were 40 male seminary students at Princeton Theological Seminary, i.e. students studying to become priests. They were deceived in that they were told that they were participating in a study on religious education and vocations. The entire experiment was run over a 3-day period.

 

In the first session, participants answered personality questionnaires to determine their type of religiosity. In the second session, the participants began experimental procedures in one building and were asked to report to another building for subsequent procedures. While the participants passed between the two buildings, they passed the “victim” in the alleyway. All participants were tested individually.

 

When a participant arrived at the experiment he was told that he was participating in a study of vocational careers of seminary students. Then he was asked to give a 3-to-5-minute talk based on a text on either what he thought could be relevant for a good minister (task-relevant condition) or the passage from the Bible with the parable on the Good Samaritan (helping-relevant condition). When the participant had read the passage, the experimenter came back and gave instructions of how to reach the other building. The participants were given further instructions that placed them in either a "high-hurry" condition -“You should have been there a few minutes ago”, an "intermediate-hurry condition" - “Please go right over”, or a "low-hurry condition" - “It will be a few minutes before they are ready for you”. The independent variable of this experiment was the degree to which the participants were told to hurry. The dependent variable was whether and how the participants helped the victim.

 

When the participants passed through the alley the victim was sitting slumped over in a door-way, head down, and eyes closed, not moving. As the participant passed by the victim coughed twice and groaned, keeping his head down. If the participant stopped and asked if the victim was in need of help, the victim would say that everything was ok and that he just needed some rest. If participants offered help they were allowed to do so and thanked. After this incident the participants had to deliver the speech and record it, and then they answered a questionnaire on personal and social responsibility. Some of the questions were asking: “When was the last time You saw a person who seemed to be in need?” and “When was the last time you stopped to help someone in need?” The data were collected as a check of whether the participant perceived that the victim in the alley needed help or not. After this the participants were debriefed and told about the exact nature of the field experiment. It was also explained why it was necessary to use deception. The participant’s reaction to the victim and to the study in general was discussed. All participants were then thanked for their participation.

 

Results

It was found that helping was significantly influenced by the time pressure manipulation. Those in the "no hurry" condition were more helpful than those in the "intermediate hurry" condition. Those in the "hurry condition" were the least helpful. It did not seem to matter whether the participant was going to give a speech on the parable of the Good Samaritan or not. Of the 40 participants, 16 (40%) offered some form of direct or indirect help to the victim; 24 (60%) did not. 63% of the participants in the low hurry condition offered help, 45% of those in the intermediate hurry offered help, and only 10% of those in the high hurry condition offered help. The results showed that it did not matter whether a participant was going to talk about the parable or possible occupations for seminary graduates.

 

Discussion

This was a field experiment so it was conducted in a natural, everyday setting which increases the ecological validity of the study. The fact that the setting of the experiment was such an everyday one means that this study scores high on realism so it is a good example of a field experiment. Participants were randomly allocated to the conditions of the experiment, so any difference found between conditions was a result of the manipulation of the independent variables. This means that internal validity was high.

 

There were ethical considerations in this field experiment. All participants were deceived as to the true purpose of the experiment. However, they were not harmed in anyway and they were properly debriefed at the end of the experiment. It could also be argued that the findings of the experiment were important in that it clearly shows that people who are in a hurry and stressed may not stop and offer help to a person in distress. This could justify the deception used.

 

The results supported the first two hypotheses so the role of situational variables was confirmed. It was found that only time pressure was a significant predictor of whether one will help or not as well as the overall amount of help given. The third hypothesis that types of religiosity would predict helping behaviour was not confirmed, i.e. personality variables did not seem to influence helping behaviour. This had been confirmed in previous research. It did not seem that religiosity played a significant role in whether people chose to help or not.

 

The researchers concluded that because of the time pressure, some participants did not see the scene in the alley as an occasion for making a decision to help. on the other hand, others did see that help was necessary, and they appeared anxious after the incident in the alley. These participants had experienced internal conflict in deciding between stopping to help the victim and continuing on their way to help the experimenter in the other building. According to the researchers this situation is often true of people in a hurry; they hurry because somebody depends on their being somewhere at a specific time. So it is conflict rather than callousness that can explain their lack of helping. Since the researchers could not confirm that personality variables such as religiosity played an important role in helping in this experiment, they concluded that whether a person helps or not seems to be primarily determined by the situation.

 

References

Darley, J.M & Batson, C.D. (1973). From Jerusalem to Jericho: A study of situational and dispositional variables in helping behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 27, 100-108.