Piliavin's Subway Study (AQA GCSE Psychology)

Research into prosocial behaviour

• Piliavin, Piliavin & Rodin (1969) carried out an audacious and daring study at a time when social psychology was at its peak (many of the most exciting studies conducted at this time could not be replicated now due to ethical reasons)

• The researchers wished to investigate the degree of help given to a victim who appeared to be either drunk or disabled (these formed one of the independent variables in the study)

• The method used was a field experiment with an opportunity sample

  • 4,450 passengers (55% white; 45% black) 

  • The participants rode the New York subway between Harlem and The Bronx 

  • The study trials were conducted during the hours of 11am until 3pm over several months

  • The journey lasted 7.5 minutes without any stops

• The procedure went as follows:

  • One carriage of the Harlem/Bronx subway route was occupied by 4 confederates:

    • 2 females as observers

    • 1 white male aged 24 – 29 to model helping behaviour

    • 1 male victim aged 26 – 35 (either white or black, dressed identically per trial)

      • The ‘victim’ conditions were either ‘drunk’ (the victim smelled of alcohol) or ‘cane’ (the victim held a cane to indicate that he was disabled) 

  • 103 trials were conducted by alternating teams of researchers 

  • The female confederates took seats and kept notes, while the male victim and male model stood near a pole in the centre of the train

  • After passing the first station (approximately 70 seconds into the journey) the victim collapsed (this was of course faked as part of the standardised procedure)

  • In the “no help” condition, the model did nothing until the train slowed to a stop, and then helped the victim to his feet

  • In the “helping” condition, the model came to the victim’s assistance

  • The collapse occurred in what the researchers referred to as the critical area which was in the immediate vicinity of the victim

Piliavin's subway study diagram

A diagram of the subway carriage used in Piliavin’s subway study

• There were four different helping conditions used in both “drunk” and “cane” situations:

1. Critical area early: the model stood in the critical area and waited approximately 70 seconds after the collapse to help

2. Critical area late: the model stood in the critical area and waited approximately 150 seconds after the collapse to help

3. Adjacent area early: the model stood a little further way, adjacent to the critical area and waited approximately 70 seconds after the collapse then helped the victim

4. Adjacent area late: the model stood a little further way, adjacent to the critical area and waited approximately 150 seconds after the collapse then helped the victim

• The results found that:

  • The victim in the ‘cane’ condition received spontaneous help on 95% of the trials (62 out of 65 times)

  • The ‘drunk’ condition received help on 50% of the trials (19 out of 38 times)

  • There was more same-race helping in the drunk condition

  • Males helped more than females

• The researchers concluded that bystander apathy may not always apply

  • The type of victim is a factor in prosocial behaviour i.e. the ‘drunk’ victim may have appeared to be less deserving of help than someone who was disabled

Evaluation of Piliavin’s subway study

Strengths

• The study is high in ecological validity due to the use of the natural setting and unmanipulated behaviour of the naïve participants

• The use of two observers should ensure inter-rater reliability

Weaknesses

• The procedure is likely to have been affected by a range of extraneous variables that were impossible to control:

  • Individual differences such as personality and mood

  • Some of the participants may have experienced the procedure more than once if they used that subway route regularly

  • Participants in the carriage may have obscured the view of the observers

• It is possible that if this study had been replicated in a more rural, less urban setting then the results might have been different (New Yorkers are used to witnessing all sorts of behaviours as they go about their business!)