Good Samaritan and Bystander Apathy Experiment

Works Cited

(1) Darley, J. M., and Batson, C.D., "From Jerusalem to Jericho": A study of Situational and Dispositional Variables in Helping Behavior". (n.d.). Retrieved February 23, 2020, from http://faculty.babson.edu/krollag/org_site/soc_psych/darley_samarit.html\

(2) Andy. (2015, December 14). Being a Good Samaritan: Psychology of Helping. Retrieved from http://socialpsychonline.com/2015/12/being-a-good-samaritan-psychology-of-helping/

(3) Segilia, D. (2016, April 7). The Bystander Apathy Experiment. Retrieved from https://sites.psu.edu/dps16/2016/04/07/the-bystander-apathy-experiment/

(4) Bystander Apathy Experiment. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://explorable.com/bystander-apathy-experiment

(5) Darley, J. M., and Batson, C.D., "'From Jerusalem To Jericho':

A Study Of Situational And Dispositional Variables In

Helping Behavior" Retrieved February 23, 2020, from https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/images/uploads/Darley-JersualemJericho.pdf

(6) Megehee, C. M., Strick, S. K., & Woodside, A. G. (2012). Overcoming Bystander Apathy and Non-Intervention in AlcoholPoisoning Emergency Situations: Advancing Field Testing of Training-for-Intervention Theory via Thought Experiments. Retrieved February 25, 2020, from http://www.ijbe.org/tableofcontent/pdf/vol11-2/vol11-2-01.pdf

How was it conducted?

Cont...

The subject would be put in a group discussion with between 1-5 people, where each person was in a separate room communicating via microphone and speaker. The subject does not know that these are pre recorded voices, one voice says he has a seizure disorder and on his second turn speaking appears to have an episode.

The voice would sound something like this: “I’m… I’m having a fit… I… I think I’m… help me… I… I can’t… Oh my God… err… if someone can just help me out here… I… I… can’t breathe p-p-properly… I’m feeling… I’m going to d-d-die if…”

https://www.greenguard.com/should-you-restrain-a-person-having-a-seizure/

Experiment Procedure

https://www.shutterstock.com/search/seizure

Bystander Apathy Experiment

Experiment Results

Since the subject cannot see this person the results were based off how long it took the subject to get up, leave the room, and find someone to help

Conclusion

Methodology

The findings of the experiment conclude that the variable involving the speech topic (The Good Samaritan, Seminary Jobs) did not have an impact on the helping score achieved by the participants, however the different time constraints placed on participants had a very large impact on the helping score achieved.

The experiment, released in 1973, was entitled, "From Jerusalem to Jericho". The experiment was conducted under the following criteria;

-participants filled out a personality questionnaire about their religious beliefs

-participants were given 2 different tasks to complete; a) prepare a speech about seminary jobs, or b) prepare a speech on the story of The Good Samaritan

-3 different variables were induced in the experiment; i) high time constraint (told to hurry); ii) medium time constraint; iii) Low time constraint, no rush needed.

Based on the case of Kitty Genovese who was murdered outside of her own home, after yelling for help from any of her thirty eight neighbors the most one did was yell at the man even though all of them knew what was happening. This interested social psychologists Darley and Latané who created the experiment.

Step-by-step Process

The variable of hurried nature was used to imitate the sense of superiority and entitlement that the Priest and the Levite have in The Good Samaritan story which makes them ignore the wounded man. Being in a rush makes the subjects ignore the wounded man, as they do not think they can afford the distraction because they have a job to do.

The preciseness and detail involved in the experiment conducted I personally find astounding. There were 40 subjects surveyed in the experiment, all Princeton students who attended the Princeton Theological Seminary, so the populous utilized in the experiment are very like-minded individuals. The decision to use like-minded individuals was made specifically to maintain the consistency of the experiment. The time of year, time of day, time period in which the experiment was conducted, temperature and weather were all taken in to consideration to minimize any unforeseen variables playing a role in the results. The three religious personality scales examined in the survey was constructed through the use of a ,"complete-estimation factor score using the coefficients from the three components." (5)

1. Subject fills out questionnaire in advance

2. Subject is told the task at hand and the time

constraints on the task

3. Subject passes by wounded man

4. Subject is evaluated on a scale of 0-5

on the degree of helping that the subject

offered to the wounded man

(0 = no help, 5 = insisted on helping)

5. Subject arrives at destination building

and gives speech (2)

https://creativemarket.com/Drum-magic/4308036-Racing-running-and-walking-icon-V

https://sites.google.com/site/ihsthegoodsamaritanexperiment/experiment-photos-and-videos

https://newatlas.com/bystander-effect-cctv-study-social-psychology/60330/

Results

Good Samaritan Experiment

Only 31% of people went to get help. Majority of subjects didn't bother to help. They found that the subject was more likely to help if they were in a 1 on 1 conversation than if they were in a group with say 4 other voices.

Two reasons are thought to be responsible for this

Flaws/Potential Improvements in the Experiment

The second reason being that the subject is ignorant to the situation. The subject felt that if nobody else is reacting to the situation why should they? (4)

The first reason for the subject not doing anything is the diffusion of responsibility. In other words they thought if other people stepped in they'd be less responsible. (3)

To add to the accuracy of the experiment should it be performed in the future, it would be (in my opinion) a wise idea to include a larger sample size of subjects performing the experiment. More data can be acquired from a larger sample size of people, leading to more accurate findings in the experiment. Another potential noteworthy variable that could be experimented with in addition to the initial variables would be different types of people. Age, gender and cultural background would yield many interesting and thought-provoking results, providing insight into the minds of many different groups of people. The experiment was based on the idea of The Good Samaritan story from the bible, which is why the creators of the experiment decided to use religiosity as a variable.

https://www.catholicteacherresources.com/bible-stories-the-parable-of-the-good-samaritan/

http://storiesbyvan.blogspot.com/2019/02/the-good-samaritan-experiment-new.html

Summary Video

https://blogs.winona.edu/wellness/bystander-intervention-month/

The good Samaritan experiment was conducted by John Darley and Daniel Batson, two Princeton social psychologists who were inspired by the story of The Good Samaritan in the bible. The Princeton psychologists set out to study the behavior of Princeton students when they encounter a beaten man who has been mugged and is in need of aid. The experiment had 3 hypotheses;

-Bystanders who were religious would be no more likely to help than the rest;

-Bystanders who are placed under time constraints will be less likely to aid the individual;

-Bystanders who are religious for the reason of being a good person will be more likely to aid the individual. (1)

Summary Video

Why this is relevant

How this relates

Relevance to Society

This relates back to the idea of groupthink in where an effort is made to be like the rest of the group even if you disagree with what the group is doing. A good example of this is when the rest of the group isn't trying to help the person having a seizure the subject doesn't feel like they need to either.

whether it's bullying or something more severe most people would like to think that they would help when in reality only 31% of people did. If one thing is to be taken from this experiment it's that a bystander can save a life so next time you're a bystander step in and do the right thing and help someone out.

All humans have a built-in moral compass which compels them to help the wounded man in need of help. people appear to have a sense of entitlement and self-obsessiveness when they have their mind set on a goal. A great example of this would be a morning commute when you are running late for work. If you have plenty of time in the morning and know you will arrive early, you will drive safely, slowly and carefully. Your mind will be observant and more on the carefree side of things. If you are running late for work, you are much more likely to take that risk, to squeak through that intersection right as the light is turning red, to blow past the grandma driving 10 under the speed limit. The experiment was conducted to highlight this human behavior. Today's society can benefit mightily from this information. Having the capacity to stop and help someone in need when you know you are putting yourself in a tight situation is a great quality for people to have in society today.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/psd/1806225034

https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/59478/why-do-car-speedometers-list-speeds-are-way-over-legal-limit

Good Samaritan and Bystander Apathy Experiment

By: Owen Stel and Spenser Morgan