What makes bystanders more or less likely to help a stranger in need?
Classic study: Piliavin et al. (1969), Good Samaritanism: an underground phenomenon? Aim, method, results and conclusions, evaluation, and links to the social area and bystander behaviour.
An OCR A-Level Psychology answer to the classic social study, Piliavin et al. (1969) on helping behaviour on the New York subway. Covers the aim, field-experiment method, the high helping rates, the cost-reward arousal model, the diffusion-of-responsibility findings, evaluation, and links to the social area and Levine.
Reviewed by: AI editorial process; not yet individually human-reviewed
Have a quick question? Jump to the Q&A page
Jump to a section
What this dot point is asking
Piliavin et al. (1969) is the classic study in the social area for the theme "responses to people in need", paired with Levine. You must know its aim, method, results and conclusions, evaluate it, and explain what it tells us about the social area and bystander behaviour.
The answer
Aim and method
The victim appeared ill (carrying a cane) or drunk (smelling of alcohol), and was black or white; confederate models were set to help early or late if no passenger did.
Results and conclusions
Piliavin proposed the arousal: cost-reward model: seeing a victim creates unpleasant arousal, which a bystander reduces by weighing the costs of helping (effort, disgust, danger) against the costs of not helping (guilt, blame) and the rewards of helping.
Evaluation
- Ecological validity. Very high: real commuters in a genuine setting behaved naturally because they did not know they were being studied.
- Sample and reliability. A large sample (about 4,450 travellers) and a repeated, standardised staged event give a fairly reliable, generalisable picture, at least for that population.
- Control. As a field study, extraneous variables (carriage crowding, who was present) could not be fully controlled, weakening internal validity.
- Ethics. Major problems: bystanders could not consent, were deceived, may have been distressed, and could not be debriefed.
- Generalisability. Limited to New York subway commuters and the specific scenario.
Examples in context
Example 1. Why the field setting matters. A laboratory study of helping risks demand characteristics, because participants may guess they are being watched and help to look good. By staging a collapse on a real subway, Piliavin captured genuine bystander behaviour, which is why the high spontaneous helping rate is so persuasive. This trade-off (realism at the cost of control and ethics) is central to evaluating the study.
Example 2. The contrast with Levine. Piliavin is paired with Levine et al. (2001), who measured helping across 23 cities worldwide. Where Piliavin explains helping through situational costs and rewards within one city, Levine asks whether helping varies by culture and economic factors. Comparing them shows the move from a single-setting model to a cross-cultural picture, the classic-contemporary comparison the exam asks for.
Try this
Q1. Identify the research method used by Piliavin et al. [1 mark]
- Cue. A field experiment (on the New York subway).
Q2. Outline the arousal: cost-reward model. [3 marks]
- Cue. Seeing a victim creates unpleasant arousal; bystanders reduce it by weighing the costs of helping (effort, danger) against the costs of not helping (guilt, blame) and the rewards, helping when the balance favours it.
Q3. Explain one ethical weakness of Piliavin et al.'s study. [2 marks]
- Cue. Unwitting bystanders could not give informed consent and were deceived by a staged collapse that may have distressed them, with no opportunity to debrief them.
Exam-style practice questions
Practice questions written in the style of OCR exam questions on this dot point, with worked answer explainers. The year tag is the paper they imitate, not the source.
OCR 201810 marksDescribe the method and results of Piliavin et al.'s (1969) subway study of helping behaviour. [10 marks]Show worked answer →
A description item testing method and results (AO1).
Method: a field experiment on the New York subway. On a 7.5-minute express run, a male confederate (the victim) collapsed about 70 seconds after the train left. The victim appeared either ill (carrying a cane) or drunk (smelling of alcohol, carrying a bottle), and was black or white. Confederate "models" were positioned to help early or late if no one else did. Observers recorded who helped, how quickly, the helper's sex and race, and any comments, across about 103 trials.
Results: helping was high and often spontaneous. The cane (ill) victim was helped on about per cent of trials, usually within a few seconds and before any model intervened, while the drunk victim was helped less and more slowly (about per cent). Helpers were overwhelmingly male, and there was a weak same-race tendency, stronger for the drunk victim. There was no clear diffusion of responsibility: more bystanders did not reduce helping.
Markers reward the field-experiment design, the IVs (ill versus drunk, victim race, model timing), and key results (high helping, cane greater than drunk, mostly male helpers, no diffusion of responsibility).
OCR 202112 marksDiscuss the strengths and weaknesses of Piliavin et al.'s (1969) study. [12 marks]Show worked answer →
A balanced evaluation (AO3) using the method to support points.
Strengths: high ecological validity because it was a real-life field experiment on actual commuters who did not know they were in a study, so behaviour was natural; a large sample of roughly 4,450 travellers across about 103 trials improves generalisability within New York; and rich quantitative and qualitative data (timings, helper characteristics, comments).
Weaknesses: serious ethical issues, as unwitting bystanders could not consent, were deceived and may have been distressed by an apparent collapse, with no debrief possible; low control over extraneous variables typical of field work (carriage crowding, who happened to be present); and limited generalisability beyond New York commuters and the specific staged scenario.
A strong answer reaches a judgement, for example that the realism and scale are major strengths that a lab could not match, but the ethical cost of using unwitting, undebriefed participants is the central weakness. Markers reward developed strengths and weaknesses with a supported conclusion.
Related dot points
- Contemporary study: Levine et al. (2001), Cross-cultural differences in helping strangers. Aim, method, results and conclusions, evaluation, and links to the social area and Piliavin.
An OCR A-Level Psychology answer to the contemporary social study, Levine et al. (2001) on helping strangers in 23 cities. Covers the aim, cross-cultural field-experiment method, the three helping measures, the link to economic productivity and simpatia, evaluation, and links to Piliavin and the social area.
- Classic study: Milgram (1963), Behavioral study of obedience. Aim, method, results and conclusions, evaluation, and links to the social area and debates.
An OCR A-Level Psychology answer to the classic social study, Milgram (1963) Behavioral study of obedience. Covers the aim, controlled-observation procedure, the 65 per cent maximum-shock finding, agency theory, evaluation for ethics, validity and generalisability, and links to the social area and the situational explanation debate.
- Contemporary study: Bocchiaro et al. (2012), Disobedience and whistle-blowing. Aim, method, results and conclusions, evaluation, and links to the social area and Milgram.
An OCR A-Level Psychology answer to the contemporary social study, Bocchiaro et al. (2012) on disobedience and whistle-blowing. Covers the aim, scenario method, the obedience, disobedience and whistle-blowing rates, the gap between predicted and actual behaviour, evaluation, and links to Milgram and the social area.
- Research methods and techniques: experiments, self-report, observation and correlation; variables and operationalisation; experimental designs; hypotheses; and the strengths and weaknesses of each method.
An OCR A-Level Psychology answer to research methods and design, covering laboratory, field and quasi-experiments, self-report, observation and correlation, independent and dependent variables, operationalisation, experimental designs, directional and non-directional hypotheses, and the strengths and weaknesses of each technique for Component 1.
- Sampling methods, ethical considerations, reliability and validity, levels of measurement, and recording, analysing and presenting data.
An OCR A-Level Psychology answer to sampling and data handling, covering random, stratified, systematic, opportunity and self-selected sampling, BPS ethics, reliability and validity, levels of measurement, and how to record, analyse and present qualitative and quantitative data for Component 1.
Sources & how we know this
- OCR Level 3 Advanced GCE in Psychology (H567) specification — OCR (2015)