Piliavin and Altruism. The Holocaust § In the debate over whether helping is ever truly altruistic, some have pointed to the behaviour of those who.

Piliavin and Altruism

Altruism – a voluntary helpfulness that arises out of concern for others wellbeing, as opposed to desire for personal gain

The Holocaust

     In the debate over whether helping is ever truly altruistic, some have pointed to the behaviour of those who helped hide Jews from the Nazis during World War II. Was the behaviour of those individuals truly altruistic? As you can imagine, there was great risk for those who helped, but was it an example of genuine altruism?

A Fall from Above      In 1987, 18-month-old Jessica McClure fell

down a water well in a backyard in Midland, Texas in 1987. Literally hundreds of volunteers worked around the clock to free her. The undying spirit that surrounded her rescue was truly amazing. Why did these people help? Were they truly concerned for Jessica's well-being? Are the norms for helping different when a child is involved?

Defining Altruism

     Altruism is helping motivated by the desire to increase another's welfare. Decide for yourself whether the following are altruistic examples.

1. A man puts money in a blind beggar's cup. 2. A woman gives money to children in need on

red nose day 3. A child helps her classmate with her

homework. 4. A paramedic administers mouth to mouth

resuscitation at the scene of an accident. 5. A professor helps a student during office hours.

Questions

Who do we help?When do we help?Why do we help?Who do we not help?When do we not help?Why do we not help?Are we truly altruistic or do we act out of

selfishness?

The Case of Kitty Genovese

Three attacks - the third was fatalNeighbours watch from windows35 minute lapse between start of attack and

the police being called“We thought it was a lovers’ quarrel”“We were afraid. I didn’t want my husband

to get involved”

The Case of Kitty Genovese

“I put out the light and we were able to see better”

“I don’t know [why we didn’t call the police]”

Piliavin, Rodin and Piliavin (1969)

Introduction

Previous Theories

Bystanders derogate the victim (Lerner & Simmons, 1966)

Diffusion of responsibility (Darley and Latane 1968)

Lerner and Simmons (1966)

Lerner and Simmons (1966) conducted an experiment reminiscent of Milgram’s famous study. They brought a group of subjects to the lab to participate in a study allegedly concerning perception of emotional cues.

Lerner and Simmons (1966)

One of the subjects (a confederate) was selected to perform a memory task and "received" a painful shock after each mistake, as the other subjects watched. When the audience subjects were asked to evaluate the victim, they showed reactions of devaluation and rejection, as if it was the victim’s fault for being shocked - said they could not believe he was so stupid.

Laboratory study by Latane and Darley 1968

Brought subject into lab where they were to discuss personal problems with an unseen person or persons in another room via intercom. Some subjects talked to only one other person; some to two others; some to 5 others.

Laboratory study by Latane and Darley 1968

One person being talked to (a confederate) would indicate early in conversation that he had a seizure disorder. Then later, he would stutter and cry out that he was having a seizure.

Experimental Question: Would the subject try to help him?

Laboratory study by Latane and Darley 1968

When subject thought it was just him or herself and the person in trouble, all helped.

When subject thought that there were 5 other people, only 62% helped out.

Explained as no one individual feeling responsible for helping – diffusion of responsibility.

Piliavin, Rodin and Piliavin Independent Variables

1. Drunk or cane 2. Black or White

3. Early, Late or No model 4. Model initially sitting in the critical

area or adjacent area. 5. The number of people on the train.

Piliavin, Rodin and Piliavin Dependent Variables

1. The time taken to help. 2. The race of the helper.

3. The percentage of trials in which passengers (subjects) left the critical area.

4. The number of comments made.

Method - Participants

4450 men and women on New York Subway train

Weekdays 11:00 - 15:00, April to June, 1968

45% Black, 55% WhiteMean of 8.5 people in Critical area

The field situation

No stops between 59th street and 125th street for 7½ minutes

End of a carriage used that had a door leading to next carriage

13 seats plus standing room

Procedure

Four different teamsEach team had 4 students - 2 male and 2

female103 trialsLocation varied from trial to trial2 female observers sit in adjacent areaMale victim and model stand in critical area

Procedure

As the train passes the first station after 70 seconds the victim staggers forwards and collapses

Remains supine looking up at the ceiling until help arrives

If nobody helps before the stop, the model helps the victim off the train

The victim

Male between 26 and 35 years old3 white and 1 blackEisenhower jackets, old slacks and no tie38 trials ‘drunk’ - smelt of liquor, bottle in

paper bag65 trials ‘cane condition’ - appeared sober

and carried a black cane

Problem

Students didn’t like playing the drunkSo not enough ‘drunk’ trials

Model

White malesAged between 24 and 29Informal clothes

Model conditions

Critical area - early (70 seconds after collapse)

Critical area - late (150 seconds after collapse)

Adjacent area - earlyAdjacent area - late

Percentage of trials in which help was given

Measures

Race sex locationNumber of individualsNumber who helpedLatency of first helper’s arrival after the

victim has fallenComments madeComments elicited from passenger next to

observer

Results

Cane victim given spontaneous help on 62 out of 65 trials

Drunk given spontaneous help on 19 out of 38 trials

Difficult to run model trials because of spontaneity of help

Percentage of trials in which help was given

Results

60% of the time help was given by more than one person

Real helpers dragged the victim to a seat whereas the models were instructed to raise the victim to a sitting position leaving him on the floor

Additional helpers were not influenced by the race of the victim nor by whether he appeared drunk or not

Characteristics of spontaneous first helpers

60% of passengers were males and 90% of first helpers were males

55% of passengers were white and 64% of first helpers were white

Tendency towards “same race” helping

Characteristics of spontaneous first helpers

Mainly helpers of the same race helped the ‘drunk’ victim

Modeling Effects

Remember there was little opportunity to perform model trials owing to the high level of spontaneous help given

Drunk trials analysed (Too few trials possible for Cane)

There was significantly more helping with the early model compared with the late

No significant difference in helping with regard to in which area the model had been standing

Leaving the Critical Area

No one left the carriage but on 21 out of 103 trials 34 people did leave.

More people left the critical area when the victim was ‘drunk’

More people left if help was not offered after 70 seconds

Comments made

More comments made in the ‘drunk’ conditionMore comments were made after 70 secondsWomen commented “It’s for men to help him”“I wish I could help him – I’m not strong

enough….. I never saw this kind of thing before – I don’t know where to look”

“You feel so bad that you don’t know what to do”

Diffusion of responsibility

Diffusion of responsibility

The ‘Diffusion of responsibility’ hypothesis predicts that as the number of passengers increase there would be less likelihood of help being offered.

There is no evidence to support thisIf anything the opposite is found.

Passengers responded more quickly when there were more of them

Diffusion of responsibility

Problem: You can not compare different sized groups because it could be argued that as group size increases there is a greater chance of a ‘good Samaritan’ being present

So is it group processes that cause a larger group to act or is it just that there is a greater chance of a ‘natural-born’ Samaritan being there?

Diffusion of Responsibility

Groups of three passengers were present 6 times and groups of seven passengers were present 5 times

Hypothetical (Control) groups of three or seven passengers were constructed by combining information from smaller groups

E.g 1+2=3, 1+6=7, 2+5=7, 3+4=7The latency from the faster of the two real groups

were used as the hypothetical latency

Reason for lack of support for Diffusion of Responsibility

In Darley and Latane’s experiment the victim could not be seen

Conclusions

1. An individual who appears to be ill is more likely to receive aid than is one who appears to be drunk, even when the immediate help needed is of the same kind.

2. Given mixed groups of men and women, and a male victim, men are more likely to help than are women.

3. Given mixed racial groups, there is some tendency for same-race helping to be more frequent. This tendency is increased when the victim is drunk as compared to apparently ill.

The longer the emergency continues without help being offered

(a) the less impact a model has on the helping behaviour of observers;

(b) the more likely it is that individuals will leave the immediate area; that is, they appear to move purposively to another area in order to avoid the situation;

(c) the more likely it is that observers will discuss the incident and its implications for their behaviour.

There is no strong relationship between number of bystanders and speed of helping; the expected increased "diffusion of responsibility" with a greater number of bystanders was not obtained for groups of these sizes. That is, help is not less frequent or slower in coming from larger as compared to smaller groups of bystanders, what effect there is, is in the opposite direction.

Proposed model

Observation of an emergency increases arousal

Arousal is interpreted as fear, disgust, sympathy or a combination of these

Arousal is higher when

You can empathise with the victimYou are close to a victimThe emergency continues for a long time

Arousal is reduced when

Help is given directlyYou go to get helpYou leave the scene of the emergencyYou reject the victim as undeserving of

your help

The costs of helping

EffortEmbarrassmentPossible disgusting or distasteful

experiencesPossible physical harm

The costs of not helping

Self-blamePerceived censure from others

Rewards of helping

Praise from selfPraise from victimPraise from others

Rewards of not helping

You are able to continue with other activities

Does altruism exist?

According to Piliavin’s model we help others purely for selfish reasons

Mainly to reduce our anxiety or guiltNot a very positive way of looking at why

humans help each other

Fitting the results to the model

Cost of helping drunk is high (greater disgust) and cost of not helping is low (less self-blame as he does not deserve your help)

Women help less because cost of helping is high (great effort) and cost of not helping is low (nobody would blame a woman for not helping)

Fitting the results to the model

Same-race helping explained as less censure for not helping a victim of opposite race and greater fear of a misunderstanding if help is given to a member of another race

Diffusion of responsibility not shown because greater censure for not helping when group is large and greater danger when group is small

Fitting the results to the model

The longer the emergency continues the greater the arousal

A late model elicits less helping as passengers have had time to reason away the arousal

More people leave as time goes on as arousal is increasing unless already reduced by other means

More comments made as time goes on in an attempt to reduce arousal