good samaritan experiment psychology

• Psychology , Psychology Experiments

The Good Samaritan Experiment: Why do people help each other?

You’re on your way to enjoy a free period when you see someone has dropped all of their class supplies. There are papers and notebooks scattered all over the floor, and they’re struggling to pick them all up. You think to yourself, should I help them? You make up your mind and decide to help the other student, but why? 

You may think you helped the other student because you’re a kind person. However, it’s actually because you had the time to spare. People are more likely to help a stranger in need if they aren’t in a hurry. If you had been late to class or on your way to an important meeting, it’s likely you would have ignored the other student. Personality doesn’t really affect helping behavior. While you may still be kind, the real cause of helping behavior is most likely because you had plenty of time. 

The Good Samaritan Experiment

The Good Samaritan Experiment was conducted in 1973 by John Darley and Daniel Batson at Princeton University’s Theological Seminary with participants who were studying to become religious leaders. The researchers hoped to discover whether helping is more motivated by personal characteristics or by the environment. 

In the experiment, the participants were first asked to fill out surveys assessing whether their motivations for being religious were intrinsic or extrinsic. They were then split into two groups. Half the participants were told to prepare a speech on job opportunities while the other half were told to prepare a speech about the Good Samaritan, a Biblical story about a victim ignored by several holy people and eventually saved by someone considered an enemy, the Samaritan. The participants were told to travel to a different building to give their speech. 

Unbeknownst to the participants, the researchers had assigned them to one of three groups. Some participants were told that if they left immediately, they would be early, others were told they would be on-time, and the remainder were told they were already late. Along the path to the building, each participant ran into a stranger who had fallen in an alleyway. The stranger coughed and moaned, signaling that they needed help. 

How It Works

So, which of the participants decided to help the stranger? Overall, 40% of the participants offered some help to the stranger. When the participants believed they were early for their speech, 63% of them helped the stranger. In moderate hurry situations, when participants believed they would be on time, 45% of them helped the stranger. In high hurry situations, only 10% of people helped the stranger. Even when people were on their way to give a speech about helping, they were less likely to help if they were in a rush. 

Initially, the results of this study can be disheartening. How could so many people be so self-centered that they would neglect a person who clearly needs help? Darley and Batson believe that the participants only ignored the stranger because arriving to give their speech on time would help the experimenters. Conflicting obligations, rather than cruelty, could explain low helping numbers in high hurrying situations. 

It is important to keep the Good Samaritan Experiment in mind when you see someone who needs help. It is natural to worry about upholding obligations and promises. But, if you slow down for a minute, the situation becomes clearer. More often than not, people will understand lateness or absence caused by offering help to someone suffering. Don’t let being in a hurry stop you from doing something good.

Think Further

• When you are deciding whether to help someone, what factors do you consider?
• How has “hurriedness” impacted your decisions to help others? 
• Based on this experiment, what can we do as a society to encourage helping behaviors?

Teacher Resources

Sign up for our educators newsletter to learn about new content!

Educators Newsletter Email * If you are human, leave this field blank. Sign Up

Get updated about new videos!

Newsletter Email * If you are human, leave this field blank. Sign Up

Infographic

• Cunningham, M. R. (1979). Weather, mood, and helping behavior: Quasi experiments with the sunshine samaritan. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37 (11), 1947–1956. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.37.11.1947
• Guéguen, N., & De Gail, M.-A. (2003). The Effect of Smiling on Helping Behavior: Smiling and Good Samaritan Behavior. Communication Reports, 16 (2), 133–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/08934210309384496
• McManus, Ryan M et al. “What We Owe to Family: The Impact of Special Obligations on Moral Judgment.” Psychological science vol. 31,3 (2020): 227-242. doi:10.1177/0956797619900321
• Shenker, Israel. “Test of Samaritan Parable: Who Helps the Helpless?” The New York Times , 10 Apr. 1971, https://www.nytimes.com/1971/04/10/archives/test-of-samaritan-parable-who-helps-the-helpless.html.

This gave students an opportunity to watch a video to identify key factors in our judicial system, then even followed up with a brief research to demonstrate how this case, which is seemingly non-impactful on the contemporary student, connect to them in a meaningful way

This is a great product. I have used it over and over again. It is well laid out and suits the needs of my students. I really appreciate all the time put into making this product and thank you for sharing.

Appreciate this resource; adding it to my collection for use in AP US Government.

I thoroughly enjoyed this lesson plan and so do my students. It is always nice when I don't have to write my own lesson plan

Sign up to receive our monthly newsletter!

• Academy 4SC
• Educators 4SC
• Leaders 4SC
• Students 4SC
• Research 4SC

Accountability

The Good Samaritan Effect (Definition + Examples)

If you grew up going to church, the phrase “Good Samaritan” might ring a bell. In the Bible, Jesus tells his disciples the story of a man who was robbed and left for dead on the side of the road. A priest and Levite passed by the man and failed to help. A Samaritan, however, provided aid to the man. Jesus instructs the disciples to act like the Good Samaritan - to provide aid to others even if you will not get a reward for doing so.

There are Good Samaritan laws  that are put in place throughout the country - they essentially protect medical personnel and anyone who attempts to provide aid from being sued. Each state has different terms for these laws. But does the Good Samaritan Effect hold up in psychology?

What Is the Good Samaritan Effect (In Psychology?)

The story of the Good Samaritan continues to be told in churches around the world with the aim of influencing others to do good deeds. But in psychology, studies have shown that even those who know the story of the Good Samaritan don't always follow its teachings.

Examples of Being a Good Samaritan 

Being a Good Samaritan looks like:

• Pulling over on the side of the road if you see someone struggling with a flat tire
• Offering someone a bandage after watching them trip and fall
• Picking up someone's grocery bill after they realize they cannot pay the full amount
• Trying to intervene and stop a violent crime
• Performing the Heimlich on someone who is choking across the restaurant
• Turning in a wallet that you find on the ground

Of course, not all examples of being a Good Samaritan may be regarded as such. Calling the authorities, or standing witness as the authorities pull someone over , may be considered being a Good Samaritan or not.

Darley and Bason 1973

In 1973, two psychologists wanted to put this story to the test. When are people more likely to be “The Good Samaritan?” What would hold them back? Were the priest and Levite motivated by external factors to ignore the man on the road?

The study that attempted to answer these questions is one of the more ironic and head-shaking studies in the history of psychology.

The Good Samaritan Study

John Darley and Daniel Batson conducted their study at, of all places, Princeton Theological Seminary. All of the participants in the study were working toward being some sort of religious figure. They knew the story of the Good Samaritan like the back of their hand. But Darley and Batson didn’t think that this would make the participants more of a Good Samaritan. One of their hypotheses was that “more religious” people wouldn’t be more likely than “regular” people to be a Good Samaritan. After all, a priest in the Bible story didn’t help the man on the side of the road!

The psychologists also hypothesized that external factors would make a difference in the participants’ willingness to help. If they were in a rush, for example, they would be less willing to help.

How Did The Study Work?

Darley and Batson gave all of the participants a task: they were to prepare a speech to give later in the day. One group of participants were actually tasked with writing about the parable of the Good Samaritan. The other group wrote about working in the seminary. All of the participants were told that they would be presenting in a different building on campus.

When it came time to give the speech, the researchers checked in with the participants. One group was told that they were in no rush and to take their time walking to the other building. The other was told they were in some rush to get there. The last group was told that they were running late and had to get over to the building fast.

On the way to the second building, one of the researchers posed as a man who was struggling on the ground, and clearly needed help. As each of the participants passed the man, he coughed. The researchers set up a scale from 0 to 5, dictating the degree in which people noticed and/or helped the struggling man.

So what did they find?

The Good Samaritan Study Results

The data did reflect the first two hypotheses. Even though the participants in the study were “more religious” than most, they weren’t all stopping and helping the man who was struggling. Some even ignored or stepped over him on their way to the second building. There was not a significant difference between the participants who wrote about the Good Samaritan and those that didn’t.

What did influence the participants was the amount of time that they had to spare. 63% of the participants who were not in a rush went over to help the struggling man. Only 10% of the participants who were late went to help him.

Good Samaritan Effect and Decision-Making

So what does this say about us? That we should take life at a more leisurely pace? Or that stories like the Good Samaritan don’t exactly do their job? It’s hard to say - we aren’t able to hear the participants’ inner monologue. After all, the participants who were in a rush may have been able to justify their decision by thinking that it was more important to be on time for the crowd waiting in the other building. Maybe they were so stressed about being late that they honestly failed to see or hear the man.

What we can conclude is that external factors may play more of a role than we think in decision-making and ethics. All of the participants in the survey knew about good deeds and the importance of being a good person. If they had been given more time to walk on campus, the ones in a rush may have gone over to help the man. The difference was an external factor - time.

Good Samaritan Vs. Bystander Effects

Another factor may have played a role in the results of the study: other people .  If other people had been on campus as the participants noticed the man, they may have been less likely to stop. Studies on the Good Samaritan Effect and Bystander Effect show us that time is simply one external factor that prevents people from stepping in and helping another.

Studies on The Bystander Effect show we are less likely to help someone out if we are in a crowd. We tend to assign the responsibility to another person in the crowd and stand back. I have videos on my page that dive deeper into this topic. The first studies on the Bystander Effect (including the study of the Kitty Genovese murder ) go back farther than the Good Samaritan Effect.

Studies are still trying to determine the top factors for helping another person out. Psychologists have found that any of these factors could keep someone from helping:

• The proximity of the needy person
• If the needy person appears to be “at-fault” for their condition
• What tasks need to be done (i.e. crowd control or calling for help)
• The person’s background or expertise

While more studies are being done on helping behavior, it’s likely that no study will be as ironic as the Darley and Batson’s original Good Samaritan study.

Related posts:

• The Psychology of Long Distance Relationships
• Beck’s Depression Inventory (BDI Test)
• Operant Conditioning (Examples + Research)
• Variable Interval Reinforcement Schedule (Examples)
• Concrete Operational Stage (3rd Cognitive Development)

Reference this article:

About The Author

PracticalPie.com is a participant in the Amazon Associates Program. As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

Follow Us On:

Youtube Facebook Instagram X/Twitter

Psychology Resources

Developmental

Personality

Relationships

Psychologists

Serial Killers

Psychology Tests

Personality Quiz

Memory Test

Depression test

Type A/B Personality Test

© PracticalPsychology. All rights reserved

Privacy Policy | Terms of Use

• Skip to content
• Skip to primary sidebar

Right Attitudes

Ideas for Impact

Lessons from the Princeton Seminary Experiment: People in a Rush are Less Likely to Help Others (and Themselves)

June 16, 2015 By Nagesh Belludi 3 Comments

In the parable of the Good Samaritan ( Luke 10:29–37 in the New Testament ,) a Samaritan helps a traveler assaulted by robbers and left half dead by the side of the road. Prior to the Samaritan, a priest and a Levite pass the injured traveler and fail to notice him. Conceivably, the priest and Levite’s contempt was because they didn’t sincerely follow those same virtues they espoused as religious functionaries. Possibly, they were in a hurry or were occupied with busy, important—even religious—thoughts. Perhaps the Samaritan was in less of a hurry since he wasn’t as socially important as the priest or Levite and was therefore not expected to be somewhere.

The Princeton Seminary Experiment

Inspired by the parable of the Good Samaritan, Princeton social psychologists John Darley and Dan Batson conducted a remarkable experiment in the 1970s on time pressure and helpful behavior. They studied how students of the Princeton Theological Seminary conducted themselves when asked to deliver a sermon on the parable of the Good Samaritan.

The students were to give the sermon in a studio a building across campus and would be evaluated by their supervisors. The researchers were curious about whether time pressure would affect the seminary students’ helpful nature. After all, the students were being trained to become ordained priests; they are presumably inclined to help others.

As each student finalized his preparation in a classroom, the researchers inflicted an element of time constraint upon them by giving them one of three instructions:

• “You’re late. They were expecting you a few minutes ago…You’d better hurry. It shouldn’t take but just a minute.” This was the high-hurry condition.
• “The (studio) assistant is ready for you, so please go right over.” This was the intermediate-hurry condition.
• “It’ll be a few minutes before they’re ready for you, but you might as well head on over. If you have to wait over there, it shouldn’t be long.” This was the low-hurry condition.

As each student walked by himself from the preparation classroom to the studio, he encountered a ‘victim’ in a deserted alleyway just like the wounded traveler in the parable of the Good Samaritan. This victim (actually an associate of the experimenters) appeared destitute, was slouched and coughing and clearly in need of assistance. The seminarians were thus offered a chance to apply what they were about to preach.

“Conflict, rather than callousness, can explain their failure to stop.”

Researchers were interested in determining if their imposed time pressure affected the seminarians’ response to a distressed stranger. Remarkably, only 10% of the students in the high-hurry situation stopped to help the victim. 45% of the students in the intermediate-hurry and 63% of the students in the low-hurry situations helped the victim.

The researchers concluded , “A person not in a hurry may stop and offer help to a person in distress. A person in a hurry is likely to keep going. Ironically, he is likely to keep going even if he is hurrying to speak on the parable of the Good Samaritan, thus inadvertently confirming the point of the parable… Thinking about the Good Samaritan did not increase helping behavior, but being in a hurry decreased it.”

In light of their training and calling, the seminarians’ failure of bystander intervention is probably not due to indifference, self-centeredness, or contempt. (Compare with the plot of the series finale of American sitcom Seinfeld , where Jerry and friends are prosecuted for failure of duty to rescue .) The dominant cause is time pressure. Most of the students who believed they had enough time to stop did so. In contrast, the vast majority of those who thought they were late did not stop to help. In other words, the perception of time pressure or “having limited time” resulted in behaviors incongruent to their education and career: the devotion to help others. Time pressure triggered these well-intentioned students to behave in ways that, upon reflection, they would find disgraceful. The weight of a time constraint caused the students to put their immediate concern of being on time before the wellbeing of someone in need.

We’re in such hurry that we don’t stop to help ourselves

“I’m Late, I’m Late for a very important date, No time to say hello. Goodbye. I’m late, I’m late, I’m late, and when I wave, I lose the time I save.” — White Rabbit in the Disney musical “Alice in Wonderland” (1951)

The Princeton Seminary Experiment offers an even more personal lesson. As the researchers in this experiment expound, when we speed up and feel rushed, we experience a phenomenon known as “ narrowing of the cognitive map .” That is, we miss details, we are not present enough in the moment to notice what is really important and we do not make the most beneficial choices for ourselves.

As we make our way through life, not only do we not stop to help others—we also do not stop to help ourselves. We neglect our own needs. We fail to nurture ourselves. We surrender, we settle, we lose hope. We compromise ourselves and become what we often settle for.

Our noisy world and busy lives constantly make us hurry as somebody always depends on us being somewhere. We constantly rush from place to place as if our lives depended upon it. We rush while doing just about everything. We are at the mercy of commitments often imposed by others.

Life moves quickly. And we’ll have missed it.

As our world continues to accelerate and our pace of life picks up speed, the clock’s finger turns inescapably. Life moves on by quickly, and soon enough we’ll have missed it entirely .

Idea for Impact: Be ever-conscious of the fact that time is the currency of your life

The German theologian and anti-Nazi descendent Dietrich Bonhoeffer (1906–1945) wrote in his “Letters and Papers from Prison” , “As time is the most valuable thing that we have, because it is the most irrevocable, the thought of any lost time troubles us whenever we look back. Time lost is time in which we have failed to live a full human life, gain experience, learn, create, enjoy, and suffer; it is time that has not been filled up, but left empty.”

Make the best use of your time. Interrupt your busy life to help yourself by living more fully in the present. Nurture yourself. Your needs belong to the top .

Wondering what to read next?

• What Airline Disasters Teach About Cognitive Impairment and Decision-Making Under Stress
• Summary of Richard Carlson’s ‘Don’t Sweat The Small Stuff’
• How Stress Impairs Your Problem-Solving Capabilities: Case Study of TransAsia Flight 235
• This Trick Can Relieve Your Anxiety: “What’s the worst that can happen?”
• This May Be the Most Potent Cure for Melancholy

Reader Interactions

June 16, 2015 at 11:22 AM

An excellent article. I have almost been always in a high – hurry situation……. This article has made me realize the same. Have to do something about it.

April 18, 2020 at 10:34 AM

You have a gift Nagesh, make the best use of it. Wonderful writing. Wish you the best.

July 5, 2022 at 7:42 AM

We constantly overstep boundaries that we set for ourselves.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

What's on your mind?

Analyzing psychological studies of the 20th & 21st century, the good samaritan experiment.

In 1973, researchers from Princeton University created an experiment to investigate factors that inhibit selflessness and altruistic behavior. The factors they wanted to test were the relative haste of a person and how distracted their minds were on other things such as religious and spiritual matters.

So, seminary students were recruited and were told they were to be part of a study on religious education. The participants completed a personality questionnaire about their religion and then began fake experimental procedures. The fake experiments initially took place in one building, and after some time the participant was asked to go to another building for the second part of the experiment. On their way to the next building, there would be an actor who would pose as an injured victim in an alleyway. Before leaving, different participants were told different amounts of urgency for their walk, and participants were also told different tasks they would be doing when they arrived at the next building.

One of these tasks was to prepare a talk about seminary jobs and the other was to prepare a talk about the story of the Good Samaritan. Surprisingly, the task assigned to the participant did not show any effect on helping behavior. However, the amount of urgency told to the participant had a major effect on helping behavior. Also, there was no correlation between the participant’s religious beliefs and helping behavior.

The researchers concluded that thinking about certain “norms” does not imply that a person will act on them. The participant’s conflict between meeting the needs of the victim and the needs of the experimenters is what influenced their decision on whether to help or not.

I found this study particularly interesting because of my fascination with religion and its influence on human behavior. This study may seem to disprove the connection between religious affiliations and ethics, but I see these results more as showing the humanity in even the most devout person. I can confidently state that being religious does not inherently make a person good. However, I would argue that it has a substantial impact on a person’s recognition of certain ethics and on their life outlook.

Church is, from my perspective, a devotion of time every week to reaffirm a commitment to the good that we as humans strive to bring to the world. It carves an hour out of our busy lives to think about and give us a reason to be a good person. Through the past several decades, people have grown more cynical towards religion and towards the idea of attending church (for good reasons too). However, because of this, we have lost the ethical center of our communities that was present all the way through the 20 th century.

We all are easily distracted by the rush of life; this study has made that clear. I am by no means saying that people should feel obligated to attend church. However, I do believe that setting aside time every week to contemplate the idea of a higher purpose in life is essential to shaping our communities for the better.

2 thoughts on “ The Good Samaritan Experiment ”

This is a really interesting post, and I was also surprised that religious affiliation didn’t affect the results because of how morality-focused religion is at times. It kind of shows how anyone has a capacity for both indifference and compassion no matter how they live their life.

I think it would be good to read the whole study. We all have competing commitments in life and can find reasons not to follow our values and beliefs under challenging circumstances. True Christianity is not simply a set of religious values but a personal relationship with God through Christ with the in dwelling Holy Spirit leading us. Being led by the Holy Spirit shifts our lives to being more of a “vessel of service” for God and reorients us to the world as people who are called to truly love God and others. It is then that we really change and live out the Christian values.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Adult Online Courses

Global Training Solutions For Individuals and Organizations

Exploring the Impact of The Good Samaritan Effect

Have you ever thought about how our situation affects our desire to help others in need? The Good Samaritan Effect shows us a surprising truth: our actions change when we’re under pressure or in certain situations. This article will look at how compassion , helping others, and our actions are connected. We’ll see how these factors influence what we do every day.

We’ll dive into history and today’s world to understand the Good Samaritan Effect better. It helps us see our moral duties to help others.

Table of Contents

Key Takeaways

• The Good Samaritan Experiment in the 1970s by John Darley and Daniel Batson showed how situations affect our willingness to help.
• How likely people were to help changed a lot with time pressure , with only 10% helping when it was urgent.
• Knowing how situations affect our actions helps us make better policies and health plans for communities.
• Our choices to be kind are not just about our values. They’re also shaped by what’s happening around us.
• Less stress and a simpler work environment can make a workplace more caring and team-focused.

Introduction to The Good Samaritan Effect

The Good Samaritan Effect is a key part of how we interact with each other. It shows how empathy makes us want to help when we see someone in need. This idea comes from a story in the Bible about a Good Samaritan who helped someone in trouble, unlike those who ignored them.

Social psychology studies how different things make us more likely to help. Researchers looked at students at Princeton Theological Seminary. They found that whether students talked about the Good Samaritan story or not didn’t change how much they helped.

But, how fast someone had to act was important. If people were in a hurry, they were less likely to help. This shows that our busy lives can stop us from being kind and helping others.

These findings are key to understanding why we help or don’t help others. They push us to look deeper into why we make these choices.

The Historical Context of The Good Samaritan Effect

The Good Samaritan parable comes from ancient biblical stories. It shows us the power of helping others without expecting anything in return. This story has shaped how we see our duties to others over time.

It tells us to help everyone, no matter who they are. This message has changed laws and social rules in many places. It teaches us the value of being kind to all people.

The story is special because it features a Samaritan as the hero. Samaritans were not well-liked by the Jews back then. This twist makes us think differently about who we should help.

It makes us question who is our neighbor. Should we only help those who are like us? The story says no.

Today, we see new versions of the Good Samaritan story. They include characters from different backgrounds, like Muslims or refugees. These stories push us to be kind to everyone, even those we might not usually think of as deserving help.

They remind us of our duty to help those in need. The Good Samaritan parable is a powerful lesson for us all.

Understanding Helping Behavior and Altruism

Altruism is key in social psychology , showing a deep care for others’ well-being. It often comes out in helping others, shaped by many factors around us. Studies reveal that true motives drive altruism , but things like time pressure and thinking too much also play a big part in helping.

Defining Altruism in Social Psychology

In social psychology , altruism means putting others first, not yourself. This selfless act often takes the form of kindness and support, helping everyone. Some think it could help groups do better together, making it a key part of evolution. Looking into how family ties affect helping shows we’re more likely to help those close to us, as shown in the table below.

The Role of Compassion in Helping Behavior

Compassion drives us to help those in need, making us feel for their suffering. When we connect with others’ struggles, we’re more likely to lend a hand. This effect can grow stronger with stories or teachings that touch our hearts, making us more willing to help. This shows how our social nature and compassion guide our actions and the importance of empathy in helping others.

The Good Samaritan Experiment: A Closer Look

In the 1970s, psychologists John Darley and Daniel Batson did a study called the Good Samaritan Experiment . It showed how our actions change based on the situation. They looked at how moral thoughts and helping others work together. They found that being in a hurry changes how we react to emergencies.

Research Methodology of the Good Samaritan Experiment

67 seminary students took part in this key study. They were asked to give a speech about the Good Samaritan, a story from the Bible that teaches us to be kind. The researchers changed how busy the students were to see how it affects their actions.

Key Findings and Implications

About 60% of the students helped someone in need. But, when they were in a hurry, only 10% helped. Those giving a speech about the Good Samaritan helped 50% of the time. But, those thinking about their future only helped 30% of the time.

Being with others also changed how likely students were to help. If they thought others would help too, they were less likely to help. Being rushed made them not see someone who needed help. These facts show how things like being busy and what others do affect our actions.

Factors Influencing Helping Behavior

Understanding what makes us help others is key. Time pressure and cognitive load are big factors. They change how likely we are to help.

Social decision making shows us how urgent situations can make us forget our moral values.

Time Pressure and Its Effects

Studies show that time pressure makes us less likely to help. For instance, a study by Darley and Batson (1973) found that people rushing to an appointment helped less. This shows that being in a hurry affects our actions.

Cognitive Load and Decision Making

Cognitive load also affects how we help others. When we’re overwhelmed with tasks, we see less need for help. Trying to manage everything can make us less able to make social decisions. This means we’re less likely to help when it’s needed most.

The Role of Bystander Effect in Helping Behavior

The bystander effect is a key idea in social psychology. It shows how people are less likely to help in emergencies when others are around. This happens because everyone thinks someone else will help, so they don’t feel the need to act.

Studies have found three main reasons why people don’t help: they think someone else will, they’re scared of being judged, and they don’t know what to do. How people control their feelings and behave can affect if they help others. These factors play a big part in how well people can understand and help those in trouble.

Neurological studies show that helping is linked to brain activity in the medial prefrontal cortex. Being alone makes people more likely to help than being with others. For example, 70% of people helped a woman in distress alone, but only 40% did when others were there. This shows how important it is to create a culture that encourages helping.

Culture also affects how people act as bystanders. In places where community is strong, people are more likely to help. The size of the group and what others do can greatly affect if people will step in to help.

Social Awareness and Contextual Factors

Social awareness is key to seeing when others need help, especially in urgent situations. Inattentional blindness is when people miss things around them because they’re focused on something else. This can make people miss chances to help in everyday life.

Inattentional Blindness in Everyday Situations

Inattentional blindness can make people ignore those in trouble. It happens a lot when people are too caught up in their own tasks. For example, someone might not help a person in distress because they’re too busy rushing to work.

Studies show that how busy we are affects if we help others. Being in a rush makes us less likely to help. For example, research found that:

This table shows that when we’re not in a rush, more people stop to help. It highlights how being aware of our surroundings and the situation affects our actions.

The Psychological Mechanisms of Compassion

Compassion is more than just feeling sorry for others. It’s about deeply understanding someone’s pain and wanting to help. This understanding builds strong social connections and support.

Empathy and Its Influence on Altruism

Empathy is key to being altruistic. It lets us feel what others feel. This sensitivity to suffering in ourselves and others drives us to help. Studies show that empathy makes us more likely to help out.

In urgent situations, only a few help someone in distress. But in less urgent times, more people step up to help. This shows empathy’s power in encouraging helping behavior .

Cognitive Resources and Social Decision Making

Our mental capacity greatly affects how we make decisions in social situations. When our minds are busy, we might not help as much. This is especially true in emergencies, where quick thinking is crucial.

Keeping our minds clear is vital for compassion. It helps us be more empathetic and open to helping others.

Public Policy and Good Samaritan Laws

Good Samaritan laws are key to public policy , aiming to boost community health . They encourage people to help in emergencies without fear of legal trouble. These laws are vital in drug overdose responses, offering legal shields to those who act. The U.S. has seen a rise in lives saved thanks to these laws, especially during the opioid crisis.

Examples of Good Samaritan Laws Across States

Many states have laws to help with drug overdoses. For example, 47 states and D.C. have laws for Good Samaritans and access to naloxone. But, Kansas, Texas, and Wyoming don’t have these laws for overdoses. They do allow naloxone use, though. Five U.S. territories don’t have these laws, leaving people at higher risk during overdoses.

Impact of Good Samaritan Laws on Community Health

Studies show that Good Samaritan laws can lower opioid overdose death rates. A review of 17 studies found that states with these laws had fewer deaths. These laws protect helpers and encourage calling 911 during an overdose. But, their success can be limited by low public awareness and varying laws across states.

States without strong Good Samaritan laws, like Kansas, Texas, and Wyoming, offer chances for change. Policymakers can improve health outcomes and prevent overdose deaths by acting.

Creating an Environment that Encourages Helping Behavior

Making places that push people to help each other means looking at what affects their actions. Things like time pressure and how busy someone is can stop them from being kind. But, programs that bring people together and teach the value of helping can make a big difference.

When choices are easier to make, people are more likely to help out. Being less busy means they can think about helping others more. Studies show that having enough time makes people want to help, no matter the situation.

Building strong social support networks is key to a caring community. Places where people work together and feel motivated to help each other grow. Leaders can help by letting people make their own choices and keeping communication open.

In short, focusing on community and support makes everyone happier and closer. The image below shows how the right environment can boost helping behavior .

The Good Samaritan Effect in Modern Society

In today’s world, the Good Samaritan Effect is key to how we react in emergencies. It makes helping others a common act, pushing us to be kind in tough times. This effect makes us all more aware and responsible.

The Influence on Emergency Response and Situational Care

Groups like Project HOME, MANNA, and SHARE Food Program work to spread the Good Samaritan Effect . They teach us about helping others and respect. These groups offer immediate aid and connect people to important resources, showing us that solving big issues needs a community.

When we volunteer, we talk about taking care of ourselves and others. Volunteers learn how to be kind to those in need. It’s important to know our limits and ask for help when needed, making our care more effective.

Our world is more connected now, and the Good Samaritan Effect shows up in many ways. For example, college students on spring break help out and learn about different faiths. These experiences teach us about compassion and how to help in emergencies.

As we learn more, campaigns encourage us to help others. By seeing chances to assist, the Good Samaritan Effect helps build communities ready for emergencies together.

Ethical Considerations in Researching Prosocial Behavior

Studying prosocial behavior is complex and requires careful ethical thought. Researchers must put the well-being of participants first. They need to make sure their methods meet high ethical standards . It’s important that participants know about the emotional risks of taking part in social experiments.

In the Good Samaritan Experiment , researchers faced issues with how well participants were treated. They worked hard to protect participants from harm and create a safe space for the study. After the study, it was key to explain any wrong ideas that came up during the study.

Good prosocial behavior research aims to keep participants safe. Following ethical rules is crucial for the trustworthiness of the results. As we delve deeper into understanding altruism, keeping a strong focus on participant welfare is vital. This ensures that studies are respectful and good for everyone involved.

The Good Samaritan Effect shows how social and situational factors affect our actions. Researchers from Boston College and Harvard University have found important things about why we help others. They did online experiments with over 1,300 volunteers.

These experiments showed us that people judge someone’s moral character by who they help. This shows how our choices to help others mix personal ethics with what society expects of us.

Creating a culture that values kindness is key to getting more people to help. The studies found that people are more likely to help when alone, not in groups. This is a twist on what we thought about helping others.

Also, people with more empathy tend to help more. This means teaching us to be more empathetic could make us all more caring. By understanding these things, we can find ways to get more people to help.

The Good Samaritan Effect reminds us we all have the power to be kind and empathetic. As we deal with complex social situations, valuing kindness can make our society more caring. By making places where we can be kind and understanding, we can keep the Good Samaritan spirit alive today.

The eSoft Editorial Team, a blend of experienced professionals, leaders, and academics, specializes in soft skills, leadership, management, and personal and professional development. Committed to delivering thoroughly researched, high-quality, and reliable content, they abide by strict editorial guidelines ensuring accuracy and currency. Each article crafted is not merely informative but serves as a catalyst for growth, empowering individuals and organizations. As enablers, their trusted insights shape the leaders and organizations of tomorrow.

Similar Posts

Ursula Burns Personality Type

A glimpse into Ursula Burns' personality type reveals a unique blend of resilience, strategic vision, and high emotional intelligence – a must-read for aspiring leaders!

Heart-Centered Therapies: Transformative Wellness

Explore transformative wellness through Heart-centered therapies, fostering deeper emotional well-being and a stronger mind-body connection.

Navigating Spiritual Growth Psychology Tips

Explore transformative tips for your journey through spiritual growth psychology, embracing holistic wellness and self-discovery.

10 Ways Your Personality Is Communicated Through Your Home Decor

Journey through your home decor and discover how each design choice reflects your unique personality – from vibrant colors to meaningful accents.

Foot-in-the-Door Technique: Persuasion Tactics

Unlock the power of persuasion with the Foot-in-the-Door Technique to enhance compliance and influence decisions effectively.

How to Use Your Personality to Your Advantage at Work

Master the art of leveraging your unique personality traits to excel at work, unlocking untapped potential for success.

• Foundations
• Write Paper

Search form

• Experiments
• Anthropology
• Self-Esteem
• Social Anxiety

• Psychology >

Helping Behavior

The good samaritan experiment.

Most people, in the Western and Middle Eastern worlds, understand the story of the Good Samaritan, and how it relates to helping behavior.

This article is a part of the guide:

• Social Psychology Experiments
• Milgram Experiment
• Bobo Doll Experiment
• Stanford Prison Experiment
• Asch Experiment

Browse Full Outline

• 1 Social Psychology Experiments
• 2.1 Asch Figure
• 3 Bobo Doll Experiment
• 4 Good Samaritan Experiment
• 5 Stanford Prison Experiment
• 6.1 Milgram Experiment Ethics
• 7 Bystander Apathy
• 8 Sherif’s Robbers Cave
• 9 Social Judgment Experiment
• 10 Halo Effect
• 11 Thought-Rebound
• 12 Ross’ False Consensus Effect
• 13 Interpersonal Bargaining
• 14 Understanding and Belief
• 15 Hawthorne Effect
• 16 Self-Deception
• 17 Confirmation Bias
• 18 Overjustification Effect
• 19 Choice Blindness
• 20.1 Cognitive Dissonance
• 21.1 Social Group Prejudice
• 21.2 Intergroup Discrimination
• 21.3 Selective Group Perception

In this famous parable, a Rabbi and a Levite ignore an injured man and pass by, with a Samaritan being the only one to stop and help.

In the modern world, this parable is becoming increasingly relevant. There are many examples of victims of crime being ignored and not helped; you just need to open a newspaper or watch the news on television.

With this in mind, in 1978, an experiment was constructed, by Darley and Batson, to test the possible facts behind this story and study altruistic behavior.

The variables to be tested were the relative haste of the participant, and how occupied their minds were with other matters; it has been argued that, because the thoughts of the Rabbi and the Levite were on religious and spiritual matters, they might have been too distracted to stop and help.

The experiment was constructed as follows:

The experiment researchers had three hypotheses that they wanted to test ;

• People thinking about religion and higher principles would be no more inclined to show helping behavior than laymen.
• People in a rush would be much less likely to show helping behavior.
• People who are religious for personal gain would be less likely to help than people who are religious because they want to gain some spiritual and personal insights into the meaning of life.

Religious studies students on a study course were recruited for this experiment, and had to fill in a questionnaire about religious affiliations and beliefs, to help evaluate and judge the findings of hypothesis 3.

The students were given some religious teaching and instruction and then were told to travel from one building to the next. Between the two buildings was a man lying injured and appearing to be in desperate need of assistance.

The first variable in this experiment was the amount of urgency impressed upon the subjects, with some being told not to rush and others being informed that speed was of the essence.

The relative mindset of the subject was also tested, with one group being told that they would be giving lectures on procedures in the seminary, the others that they would be giving a talk about the 'Good Samaritan'.

The experimenters constructed a six point plan of assessing helping behavior, ranging from apparently failing to even notice the victim, to refusing to leave until help was found, and the victim was in safe hands.

The results of the experiment were interesting, with the relative haste of the subject being the overriding factor; when the subject was in no hurry, nearly two thirds of people stopped to lend assistance. When the subject was in a rush, this dropped to one in ten.

People who were on the way to deliver a speech about helping others were nearly twice as likely to help as those delivering other sermons, showing that the thoughts of the individual were a factor in dictating helping behavior.

Religious beliefs did not appear to make much difference on the results; being religious for personal gain, or as part of a spiritual quest, did not appear to make much of a noticeable impact on the amount of helping behavior shown.

Conclusions

It seems that the only major explanation for people failing to stop and help a victim is how obsessed with haste they are.

Even students going to speak about the Good Samaritan were less likely to stop and offer assistance, if they were rushing from one place to another.

It seems that people who were in a hurry did not even notice the victim, although, to be fair, once they arrived at their destination and had time to think about the consequences, they felt some guilt and anxiousness.

This, at least, indicates that ignoring the victim was not necessarily a result of uncaring attitude, but of being so wrapped up in their own world that they genuinely did not notice the victim.

• Psychology 101
• Flags and Countries
• Capitals and Countries

Martyn Shuttleworth (Aug 8, 2008). Helping Behavior. Retrieved Sep 05, 2024 from Explorable.com: https://explorable.com/helping-behavior

You Are Allowed To Copy The Text

The text in this article is licensed under the Creative Commons-License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) .

This means you're free to copy, share and adapt any parts (or all) of the text in the article, as long as you give appropriate credit and provide a link/reference to this page.

That is it. You don't need our permission to copy the article; just include a link/reference back to this page. You can use it freely (with some kind of link), and we're also okay with people reprinting in publications like books, blogs, newsletters, course-material, papers, wikipedia and presentations (with clear attribution).

Want to stay up to date? Follow us!

Save this course for later.

Don't have time for it all now? No problem, save it as a course and come back to it later.

Footer bottom

• Privacy Policy

• Subscribe to our RSS Feed
• Like us on Facebook
• Follow us on Twitter

Piliavin (1969) Subway Study

Julia Russel

Head of Psychology

BSc (Hons), Psychology

Julia Russell has over 25 years experience as a Psychology teacher. She is currently Head of Psychology at The Queen’s School, Chester. She is Principal Examiner for two major awarding bodies, visiting tutor at Wrexham Glyndŵr University and an established author.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Saul McLeod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul McLeod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

On This Page:

Piliavin I. M., Rodin, J., & Piliavin, J. A. (1969). Good samaritanism: an underground phenomenon?. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 13 (4), 289.

This study was designed to investigate how a group of people would react if they saw a person who collapsed on a train.

Specifically, they wanted to investigate the following:

• Would an ill person get more help than a drunk person? (the type of victim)?
• Would people help others of the same race before helping those of different races?
• If a model person started helping the victim, would that encourage others to also help?
• Would the number of bystanders who saw the victim influence how much help was given?

This study was a field experiment on a 7 ½ minute non-stop journey on a New York underground train, using various coaches along the train. Participants were passengers who were on board.

Using teams of 4 university students (male victim, male model, 2 female observers), a situation was created on the train to see how passengers would react.

A ‘victim’ staged an ‘emergency’ by collapsing (in the designated ‘critical area’).

After collapsing, the victim lay on his back on the floor. If not helped earlier in the journey by a participant or model, the model assisted the victim at the end of the journey.

Participants’ reactions were then watched by covert observers.

Participants

The victims were: males aged 26 -35; three white, one black; identically dressed in a US army-style jacket, old trousers, and no tie.

The ‘drunk’ smelled of alcohol and carried a spirits bottle wrapped in a brown paper bag (38 trials). The ‘ill ‘victim appeared sober and carried a black cane (65 trials).

The  models were males aged 24 – 29, wore casual but not identical clothes, and helped by raising the victim to a sitting position and staying with him.

Independent Variables

• Type of victim (drunk or appearing ill and would hold a walking cane).
• Race of victim (black or white).
• Effect of the model (a researcher in disguise): stood near the victim and helped after about 70 seconds (critical area – early), stood in the same place but helped after 150 seconds (critical area – late), or stood further away and helped quickly or slowly (‘adjacent – early’ and ‘adjacent – late’), or no model at all. The trials were determined randomly.
• Size of the witnessing group (a naturally occurring independent variable). The sample consisted of the 4450 American passengers using that particular train, 45% of which were black and 55% white.

Dependent Variables

The dependent variables were covertly recorded (from behind newspapers) by two female observers seated in the adjacent area (during 103 victim trials):

• Number of bystanders
• Frequency of witness help
• Latency (time) to help
• Race of helper (45% black, 55% white)
• Sex of helper
• Number of helpers
• Movement out of the critical area
• Any verbal comments made by bystanders

There were 6-8 trials per day, on journeys in alternating directions, all the same victim type on any day.

• Models were rarely needed; the public usually helped quickly on their own.
• Apparently, ill victims are more likely to be helped than apparently drunk ones (62/65 trials compared to 19/38) and are more likely to be helped quickly.
• Males are more likely to help than females (60% of travelers were male, but 90% of first helpers were male).
• Race has little effect on helping, although a drunk victim is less likely to receive opposite-race help.
• The longer no help is offered, the less important modeling becomes and the more likely someone is to leave the area, and more so with drunk victims.
• Spontaneous comments were more common in the drunk condition.

One of the surprising findings in this study was that there was no diffusion of responsibility. The size of the group made no difference in how much help a victim received. Piliavin et al. offered several explanations for this:

• Passengers were trapped on the train and could not really leave the situation. On the street, the results may have been different.
• It was less effort for passengers to help. If they were sitting on the train anyway and were waiting for the next stop, they may as well help.
• Unlike the situation with Kitty Genovese , it was clear what the problem was for the bystanders who were sitting next to the victim.

Piliavin et al. (1969) put forward the cost–reward arousal model as a major alternative to the decision model and state it represents a ‘fine tuning’ of the earlier model.

In a similar fashion to Latané and Darley’s decision-helping model , it has two stages that occur before we either help or don’t help.

The first stage is physiological arousal. Arousal in response to the need or distress of others is an emotional response and provides the basic motivational construct of the model.

When we see someone in distress, we become physiologically aroused. The greater the arousal in emergencies, the more likely it is that a bystander will help since they wish to reduce it.

The cost–reward component stage involves evaluating the consequences of helping or not helping. Whether one helps or not depends on the outcome of weighing up both the costs and rewards of helping.

The costs of helping include effort, time, loss of resources, risk of harm, and negative emotional response. The rewards of helping include fame, gratitude from the victim and relatives, and self-satisfaction derived from the act of helping.

The costs of not helping include guilt, disapproval, damaged self-esteem, and also negative emotional responses. It is recognized that costs may be different for different people and may even differ from one occasion to another for the same person.

Helping is more likely: with ill than drunk victims; to be offered by males (as perceived costs are higher and social role reduces self-blame), and with same-race victims if they appear drunk (as perceived risk is higher, social role reduces self-blame and there may be same-race empathy and trust).

The longer an emergency continues, the less important the role of a model (because arousal has been reduced by other means) and the more likely people are to leave the area.

Critical Evaluation

The data gathered was both qualitative and quantitative . The quantitative data included the number and type of passengers who helped as well as the time taken to offer assistance.

The qualitative data came from the spontaneous comments made by the passengers. Both types of data are valuable in building up a full picture of what happened and why.

The quantitative data allowed for comparisons and statistical analysis, and the qualitative data provided some of the thoughts and feelings of the people involved, including perhaps providing explanations for why they did or did not help.

Reliability refers to the consistency of a measure and one aspect of reliability relevant to studies involving observations is how consistent different observers are when recording information on the same event, i.e., inter-rater reliability.

The reliability of this study was increased by the fact that there were two independent researchers observing and recording data. Hence they were able to measure inter-rater reliability.

Some people argue that the cost–reward arousal model is overly calculating. We do not weigh up the pros and cons of helping in as much detail as they suggest. Whilst arousal and helping are often only correlated, the model clearly sees the former as causing the latter.

According to Dovidio et al. (1991), evidence indicates that emotional reactions to other people’s distress play an important role in motivating helping. The model proposes that bystanders will choose the response that most rapidly and completely reduces the arousal, incurring as few costs as possible.

Therefore the emotional component provides the motivation to do something, whilst the cognitive component determines what the most effective response will be.

Piliavin et al.’s original model was subsequently elaborated to take account of the role played by other factors.

Many of the variables interact and contribute to how aroused the bystander is and the perceived costs and rewards for direct intervention.

A strength of the sample is that it is fairly big and, therefore, would be representative of people who used the subway in NYC; e.g., 4450 participants were estimated to have been involved.

One ethical issue is the lack of informed consent within this study – participants were not aware that they were involved in an experiment.

Another ethical issue in Piliavin et al.’s study is that the participants could not be debriefed at the end of the experiment.

Thus, not allowing the participants to know that they were involved in an experiment and that all incidences that occurred on that Subway journey were controlled.

Dovidio, J. F., Piliavin, J. A., Gaertner, S. L., Schroeder, D. A., & Clark III, R. D. (1991). The arousal: Cost-reward model and the process of intervention: A review of the evidence.

Piliavin, I. M., Rodin, J., & Piliavin, J. A. (1969). Good samaritanism: an underground phenomenon ?  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 13 (4), 289.

Shopping Cart

Articles & Insights

Expand your mind and be inspired with Achology's paradigm-shifting articles. All inspired by the world's greatest minds!

Putting Human Compassion to the Test: Insights from The Good Samaritan Experiment

By amelia sinclair, this article is divided into the following sections:.

The Good Samaritan Experiment, conducted by psychologists John Darley and Daniel Batson in the early 1970s, has provided insights into the factors influencing human altruism and prosocial behavior. This study aimed to understand how situational variables affect people’s willingness to help others in need, drawing inspiration from the biblical parable of the Good Samaritan.

By examining the methodology, findings, and implications of the Good Samaritan Experiment, we can gain crucial insights into the complexities of human compassion and the conditions that foster or hinder altruistic actions.

Methodology and Design

John Darley and Daniel Batson designed the Good Samaritan Experiment to investigate how situational factors influence an individual’s likelihood of helping someone in distress. The experiment was conducted at Princeton Theological Seminary and involved seminary students who were asked to participate in a study on religious education. The students were given a task that required them to deliver a talk. Some were assigned to discuss the parable of the Good Samaritan, while others were given different topics.

The critical manipulation in the study was the level of urgency imposed on the participants. Some students were told they were running late and needed to hurry to their destination, while others were informed they had ample time. As each student walked to the building where they would give their talk, they encountered a confederate (an actor) slumped in a doorway, appearing to be in distress. The researchers observed whether the students stopped to help the confederate and recorded their responses.

This design allowed Darley and Batson to isolate the impact of situational variables, such as time pressure, on the likelihood of helping behavior. By analyzing the students’ behavior in response to the confederate’s apparent need, the researchers aimed to understand the dynamics of prosocial actions.

Key Findings

The results of the Good Samaritan Experiment were both revealing and thought-provoking. Darley and Batson found that the level of urgency significantly influenced the likelihood of helping behavior. Students who believed they were running late were much less likely to stop and assist the confederate compared to those who thought they had sufficient time. This finding demonstrated that situational constraints, such as time pressure, could significantly impact an individual’s willingness to engage in prosocial behavior, regardless of their personal values or beliefs.

Interestingly, the content of the talk, whether it was about the Good Samaritan parable or another topic, did not significantly affect the likelihood of helping. This suggested that even individuals who were primed with a message about compassion and altruism were still heavily influenced by the situational factor of time pressure. The study highlighted the complex interplay between internal values and external circumstances in determining behavior.

The Good Samaritan Experiment provided compelling evidence for the powerful influence of situational factors on prosocial behavior. It underscored the idea that context often plays a more significant role than personal disposition in shaping our actions, challenging the notion that moral character alone dictates compassionate behavior.

Psychological Mechanisms and Implications

The Good Samaritan Experiment illuminated several psychological mechanisms underlying prosocial behavior. One key factor is the concept of cognitive load, which refers to the mental burden placed on an individual by multiple competing demands. When individuals are under time pressure, their cognitive resources are stretched thin, making it more challenging to recognize and respond to others’ needs.

Another important mechanism is the idea of situational awareness. When individuals are preoccupied with their own tasks and deadlines, they may become less attuned to their surroundings and less likely to notice someone in need. This phenomenon, known as inattentional blindness, can prevent people from engaging in prosocial behavior even when they possess compassionate values.

These insights have profound implications for understanding the conditions that foster or hinder altruism. The findings emphasize the importance of creating environments that reduce cognitive load and enhance situational awareness to promote prosocial behavior. Interventions aimed at increasing individuals’ capacity to notice and respond to others’ needs can enhance compassionate actions and improve social well-being.

Ethical Considerations

While the Good Samaritan Experiment provided valuable insights into prosocial behavior, it also raised ethical considerations related to the potential distress experienced by participants and the confederate. The experiment involved placing participants in a situation where they encountered someone in apparent distress, raising questions about the potential emotional impact on both the participants and the actor.

Modern ethical standards prioritize minimizing harm and ensuring the welfare of research participants. Researchers must obtain informed consent, provide thorough debriefing, and ensure that any induced behaviors do not have adverse long-term effects. The ethical controversies surrounding the Good Samaritan Experiment have contributed to the development of stricter guidelines to protect participants while advancing scientific knowledge.

Broader Societal Impact

The insights gained from the Good Samaritan Experiment have had significant implications for various domains, including public policy, community programs, and organizational practices. Understanding the impact of situational factors on prosocial behavior can inform strategies to promote altruism and compassion in different contexts.

In public policy, recognizing the importance of reducing cognitive load and enhancing situational awareness can guide the development of interventions that encourage prosocial behavior. Policies aimed at creating supportive environments and reducing time pressure in critical situations can enhance individuals’ capacity to engage in compassionate actions.

Community programs can use the findings of the Good Samaritan Experiment to design initiatives that foster a culture of helping and support. By creating spaces where individuals feel less rushed and more aware of their surroundings, communities can promote a sense of connectedness and mutual assistance.

In organizational practices, the insights from the Good Samaritan Experiment underscore the importance of reducing workplace stress and time pressure to enhance employees’ prosocial behavior. Employers can implement policies and practices that promote work-life balance, reduce cognitive load, and encourage a supportive work environment, ultimately fostering a culture of compassion and collaboration.

Theoretical Contributions

The Good Samaritan Experiment has made significant contributions to psychological theories, particularly in understanding the mechanisms of prosocial behavior and the impact of situational factors. It provided empirical support for the concept of situational constraints and highlighted the role of cognitive load and situational awareness in shaping compassionate actions.

The study also contributed to the broader discourse on social psychology, emphasizing the interplay between individual values, cognitive processes, and external circumstances in determining behavior. By elucidating these mechanisms, the Good Samaritan Experiment has informed theoretical frameworks and research on altruism, moral behavior, and social cognition.

The Good Samaritan Experiment remains a cornerstone in the study of prosocial behavior and altruism. The study highlights the importance of creating environments that reduce cognitive load and enhance situational awareness to promote prosocial behavior and compassion. It emphasizes the need for thoughtful and ethical approaches to fostering altruism and mutual support in diverse contexts.

Its contributions to our understanding of prosocial behavior and situational influences provide valuable guidance for creating conditions that foster positive development and social well-being. Ultimately, the Good Samaritan Experiment serves as a powerful reminder of the complexities of human compassion and the critical importance of context in shaping our actions.

Browse Achology Quotes:

► Book Recommendation of the Month

The ultimate life coaching handbook by kain ramsay.

A Comprehensive Guide to the Methodology, Principles and practice of Life Coaching

Misconceptions and industry shortcomings make life coaching frequently misunderstood, as many so-called coaches fail to achieve real results. The lack of wise guidance further fuels this widespread skepticism and distrust.

Get updates from the Academy of Modern Applied Psychology

About Achology

Useful links, our policies, our 7 schools, connect with us, © 2024 achology.

There was a problem reporting this post.

Block Member?

Please confirm you want to block this member.

You will no longer be able to:

• Mention this member in posts

Please allow a few minutes for this process to complete.

What Makes a ‘Good Samaritan’ Good? That Opinion Depends on the Beneficiary

• Behavioral Research
• Behavioral Science
• Psychological Science

Your good deed for the day—whether lending a hand to a stranger or giving up your seat on the subway—may prompt others to see you as a good and trustworthy person, but not always. In certain circumstances, it may do just the opposite.

New research published in Psychological Science , the flagship journal of the Association for Psychological Science , suggests that someone who helps a total stranger is generally viewed as morally better and more trustworthy than someone who helps a family member. But this is true only if the helper did not have to choose between those options.

Through a series of five online experiments, a team of psychology researchers from Boston College and Harvard University recruited more than 1,300 volunteers and asked them to evaluate several “Good Samaritan” scenarios. The goal was to determine if familial obligations factor into people’s everyday judgments of moral character, and if so, in what way.

In each of these scenarios, the researchers manipulated one specific element: whether the person being helped was a stranger or, alternatively, was distantly related to the person lending a hand. The good deeds presented in the tests were basic courtesies, like helping someone move into a new apartment. They did not require extreme physical or financial sacrifice.

In one series of tests, participants read scenarios in which only one person—either a stranger or kin—could be helped. People who helped a stranger were judged as more morally good and more trustworthy than people who helped an equally deserving family member.

“In these cases, we found that perceptions of a helper’s moral character clearly changed based on whether their help was directed at a family member,” said Ryan McManus, a second-year PhD student at Boston College and lead author on the paper. Additional members of the research team included Liane Young, an associate professor of psychology at Boston College, and Max Kleiman-Weiner, a postdoctoral researcher at Harvard University.

“All things being equal, people who helped a stranger were judged to be more moral and more trustworthy than people who helped a family member,” said McManus.

In a second series of tests, participants were faced with similar scenarios, except for one difference: The helper had to choose between helping either a stranger or a family member. Helping one meant forgoing help to the other.

The addition of this either/or choice reversed the outcome. Participants judged that people who chose to help a stranger over a family member were less morally good and less trustworthy than people who opted to help a family member.

“What struck us was how clearly participants’ judgments changed when they viewed these acts of kindness through the lens of choice between kin and strangers,” said McManus.

The researchers think these seemingly contradictory character judgments are actually connected by a single principle: familial obligation.

This same concept carried over into a third series of tests in which people simply chose to offer no help at all, (e.g., preferring to play videogames rather than help a neighbor move into a new apartment). In these cases, people who ignored the needs of a stranger were judged less critically than people who withheld help from a family member.

“The take-home message from this work is that, from a third-party perspective, the way that we think about others’ moral character depends on who their helpful, or unhelpful, behavior is directed at,” concluded McManus.

The team plans to continue their investigations by examining the role of obligations in judgment when comparing closely related family members to more distant relations.

APS is the leading international organization dedicated to advancing scientific psychology across disciplinary and geographic borders. Our members provide a richer understanding of the world through their research, teaching, and application of psychological science. We are passionate about supporting psychological scientists in these pursuits, which we do by sharing cutting-edge research across all areas of the field through our journals and conventions; promoting the integration of scientific perspectives within psychological science and with related disciplines; fostering global connections among our members; engaging the public with our research to promote broader understanding and awareness of psychological science; and advocating for increased support for psychological science in the public policy arena.

Psychological Science , the flagship journal of the Association for Psychological Science, is the leading peer-reviewed journal publishing empirical research spanning the entire spectrum of the science of psychology. For a copy of this article, “What We Owe to Family: The Impact of Special Obligations on Moral Judgment” and access to other research in Psychological Science, contact [email protected] .

All data for this research have been made publicly available via the Open Science Framework. All materials are given in the article itself. This article has received the badges for Preregistration, Open Data, and Open Materials.

For more information about this study, please contact Ryan McManus at [email protected] .

APS regularly opens certain online articles for discussion on our website. Effective February 2021, you must be a logged-in APS member to post comments. By posting a comment, you agree to our Community Guidelines and the display of your profile information, including your name and affiliation. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations present in article comments are those of the writers and do not necessarily reflect the views of APS or the article’s author. For more information, please see our Community Guidelines .

Please login with your APS account to comment.

For more information about this research, please contact study author: Ryan McManus

For a copy of the research article and access to other Psychological Science research findings, please contact: Charles Blue - 202.293.9300

How Climate Shaped Our Minds—and How It Might Still Save Us from Climate Change

Over generations, cultures including those in Yazd, Iran, develop customs, habits, and values that are adapted to water scarcity.

Up-and-Coming Voices: Behavior and Climate

Four researchers share their research related to behavior and climate. 

National Academies Release Consensus Report on Ontologies in Behavioral Science

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) has issued a new set of recommendations on the use of scientific ontologies in a new report cosponsored by APS.

Privacy Overview

• Tourist Attractions
• Tourist Attractions in Russia
• Arkhangelsk Oblast Tourist Attractions

Sign Up or Log In

Share on hiking project.

Taking other people's content (text, photos, etc) without permission is a copyright violation and NOT OKAY!

Flag Inappropriate Post

Spam? Being a jerk / offensive? This is about an injury or accident Something else? Please explain.

If it's not super-obvious, tell us why:

Arkhangelsk Oblast

Local tips or suggestions? Tell us!

Photos of Arkhangelsk Oblast - 1

Hiking Project is built by hikers like you. Add Your Photos

Arkhangelsk Oblast Hiking

• 0 Miles 0 Kilometers of Trail
• 0 Recommended Routes

Weather Averages

Join the Community! It's FREE

Already have an account? Login to close this notice.

• onX products are built by adventurers, for adventurers. We believe that every adventurer needs to know where to go, to know where they stand, and to be able to share their experiences.
• Top Contributors
• Share Your Adventures & Photos
• Mountain Project
• MTB Project
• Hiking Project
• Trail Run Project
• Powder Project
• National Parks

Please Confirm

My Favorite Psychology Study

The good samaritan is in the situation..

Posted March 16, 2017 | Reviewed by Jessica Schrader

This is the story of my all-time favorite psychology study, with enormous implications for what it means to be human.

Setting: Early 1970s, campus of Princeton University in New Jersey.

Two behavioral scientists, John Darley and Daniel Batson, were interested in studying the psychology of prosocial behavior. Why do people do good things for others?

To examine this question, they decided to study students at the Princeton Theological Seminary. In other words: Princeton students who were studying to be priests. You kind of figure that these folks should have goodness down!

The basic point of the study was to see if dispositional or situational factors are more influential in determining prosocial behavior. In other words, when someone is kind to another, is that because he or she has some innate qualities within that lead to kindness—or because some situational factors simply determine and allow for kind behaviors.

So they set up an epic study. Across three days in late Fall, they had a bunch of seminary students come to a building, meet with a researcher, and fill out a bunch of surveys. The surveys partly addressed if the students were religious primarily for intrinsic or for extrinsic reasons (with “intrinsic reasons” being like “I am motivated to do good in the world” and “extrinsic reasons” being like “I really want to get into heaven.”). Then the participants were told that they needed to prepare a brief talk about the Good Samaritan from the Bible—which is a story about how a hapless victim on the side of the road was just passed by from a bunch of holy individuals—while a non-holy Samaritan took the time to stop and help the fellow out. The content of the story becomes relevant, as you’ll see.

Participants were all told that they needed to walk to a nearby building to meet up with another member of the team and then to give their sermon. They then, by random chance, were determined to be in one of three conditions. They either were told that they:

A. had plenty of time, and were early.

B. were on-time, but should head over now so as not to be late.

C. were running late, and really needed to skedaddle.

Then comes the fun part. The situation was rigged—and all participants found a fallen stranger in a narrow alleyway. The “stranger” was really a confederate of the participants—and his role was to seem sick on the ground and in need of help. The catch was that the alleyway was only four feet across … so to not help this guy, you had to step over him!

I learned about this study in about 1995—and its lessons have shaped my approach to life ever since. Here are the essential findings:

Dispositional factors had no bearing on helping behavior . In other words, people who reported as religious for intrinsic reasons were no more likely than others were to stop to help.

The “time-constraint” variable mattered a ton.

63% of participants in the “early” condition stopped to help the stranger.

45% of participants in the “on-time” condition stopped to help the stranger.

10% of participants in the “late” condition stopped to help the stranger.

Lessons of The Good Samaritan Study

This study has such dramatic implications for what it means to be human. First off, the overall amount of “helping” was low—with most (60% of) participants being, actually, not willing to help the “victim.” This is, of course, ironic, because the participants were

A. Princeton students studying to be priests

B. about to give a talk on the lessons of the Good Samaritan from the Bible!

And that’s not all! The participants who claimed that they were interested in working in the clergy for intrinsic reasons, because they felt a strong motive to help others, were no more likely to actually stop and help the victim than were other participants.

On top of this, it turns out that a simple-seeming situational factors, whether one was in a hurry or not, played the dominant role in determining what that person would do.

Bottom Line

When it comes to human behavior, we have a strong bias toward thinking that people do what they do because of internal traits that drive their behaviors (see Ross & Nisbett, 1990). Don’t be fooled by this general social-perceptual tendency! In reality, dispositional factors are relatively weak predictors of what we do—while situational factors, which often seem benign or inconsequential, play powerful roles in shaping our behaviors.

Want to know what makes for prosocial, helpful, and kind behavior? I say don’t look inside the person—look to the situation. And when you see a fella in need, take a minute and lend a hand.

Acknowledgments : Thanks to my dissertation advisor, Becky Warner, for introducing me to this research—back in the day—and to my awesome alumnae, Christina Lee Harte, for reminding me today of how important this study is.

Darley, J. M., and Batson, C.D. (1973). From Jerusalem to Jericho: A study of Situational and Dispositional Variables in Helping Behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1973, 27, 100-108.

Ross, L., & Nisbett, R.E. (1991). The Person and the Situation: Perspectives of Social Psychology. New York: McGraw Hill.

Glenn Geher, Ph.D. , is professor of psychology at the State University of New York at New Paltz. He is founding director of the campus’ Evolutionary Studies (EvoS) program.

• Find Counselling
• Find a Support Group
• Find Online Therapy
• United Kingdom
• Asperger's
• Bipolar Disorder
• Chronic Pain
• Eating Disorders
• Passive Aggression
• Personality
• Goal Setting
• Positive Psychology
• Stopping Smoking
• Low Sexual Desire
• Relationships
• Child Development
• Self Tests NEW
• Therapy Center
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

It’s increasingly common for someone to be diagnosed with a condition such as ADHD or autism as an adult. A diagnosis often brings relief, but it can also come with as many questions as answers.

• Emotional Intelligence
• Gaslighting
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

45 Facts About Arkhangelsk

Written by Harmonia Burns

Modified & Updated: 31 Jul 2024

Reviewed by Sherman Smith

Arkhangelsk, located in the northwest region of Russia, is a city immersed in history, culture, and natural beauty. With its origins dating back to the 16th century, Arkhangelsk has been a prominent center for trade and exploration throughout the centuries. This article will take you on a journey through 45 fascinating facts about Arkhangelsk, shedding light on its influential role in Russian history, its distinctive architectural landmarks, its vibrant cultural scene, and the breathtaking natural landscapes that surround the city. Whether you are a history enthusiast, an adventure seeker, or simply curious about this hidden gem, get ready to embark on an exciting virtual tour of Arkhangelsk and discover the wonders that await in this captivating city.

Key Takeaways:

• Explore Arkhangelsk, a city with rich history, stunning nature, and vibrant culture. From the Northern (Arctic) Federal University to the Solovetsky Islands, it’s a gateway to adventure and awe-inspiring experiences.
• Arkhangelsk, the “Gateway to the Arctic,” offers a captivating blend of historical landmarks, vibrant festivals, and breathtaking natural beauty. Whether it’s exploring the Arkhangelsk Historical and Architectural Museum-Reserve or witnessing the mesmerizing midnight sun, this northern gem is a must-visit destination.

Arkhangelsk is located in the Arkhangelsk Oblast region.

Arkhangelsk is the administrative center of the Arkhangelsk Oblast region, which spans across 587,400 square kilometers.

The city is also known as the “Gateway to the Arctic.”

Due to its strategic location on the White Sea, Arkhangelsk has played a crucial role in Arctic expeditions and trade routes.

Arkhangelsk was founded in 1584 by Ivan the Terrible.

The city was established as a trading post and fortress to strengthen Russia’s presence in the north.

Arkhangelsk is home to the Northern (Arctic) Federal University.

The Northern Federal University is one of the leading educational institutions in the region, offering a wide range of academic programs.

The Arkhangelsk region is known for its stunning natural landscapes.

From pristine forests and majestic rivers to picturesque lakes and tranquil coastline, nature lovers will find paradise in Arkhangelsk.

The famous Solovetsky Islands are located in the Arkhangelsk region.

The Solovetsky Islands, a UNESCO World Heritage Site, are renowned for their historical and cultural significance.

Arkhangelsk experiences long, cold winters and short, cool summers.

The city’s climate is classified as subarctic, with temperatures reaching as low as -40 degrees Celsius in winter.

The iconic Arkhangelsk Lighthouse stands tall on the White Sea coast.

The lighthouse , built in 1849, serves as a symbol of Arkhangelsk and offers panoramic views of the surrounding area.

The Archangel Michael is the patron saint of Arkhangelsk.

The city’s name is derived from the Archangel Michael, who is considered the heavenly protector of the region.

Arkhangelsk was an important trade hub during the Russian Empire.

The city’s port facilitated trade with Europe and played a vital role in the export of Russian goods.

The Arkhangelsk Historical and Architectural Museum-Reserve showcases the city’s rich heritage.

Visitors can explore historical artifacts, traditional crafts, and unique architectural landmarks at this renowned museum.

Arkhangelsk is known for its vibrant cultural scene.

The city hosts various festivals, including the White Nights Festival and the Arkhangelsk International Street Theater Festival.

The Arkhangelsk Philharmonic Orchestra is a renowned musical institution.

The orchestra has gained international recognition for its exceptional performances and talented musicians.

Arkhangelsk is a popular destination for winter sports enthusiasts.

The city offers excellent opportunities for skiing, snowboarding, and ice skating during the winter months.

The Arkhangelsk Zoo is home to a diverse range of animal species.

Visitors can encounter polar bears, wolves, lynx , and many other fascinating creatures at this well-maintained zoo.

The Voskresenskaya Church is a stunning architectural landmark.

This beautiful Orthodox church showcases exquisite Russian Orthodox design and intricate frescoes.

The Arkhangelsk Regional Puppet Theater is beloved by both children and adults.

The theater offers entertaining puppet shows and performances that capture the imagination of audiences.

The Arkhangelsk Literature and Art Museum preserves the city’s literary heritage.

The museum showcases the works of famous Arkhangelsk authors and artists, providing insight into the city’s artistic legacy.

Arkhangelsk is a major transportation hub.

The city is connected to various regions of Russia through its airport, railway station, and well-developed road networks.

The Arkhangelsk State Museum of Fine Arts houses a remarkable collection of artworks.

Art enthusiasts can admire paintings, sculptures, and crafts from both Russian and international artists at this esteemed museum.

The Arkhangelsk Regional Drama Theater is known for its outstanding theatrical performances.

The theater showcases a diverse range of plays, including classical works and contemporary productions.

Arkhangelsk was once a major center for shipbuilding.

The city’s shipyards played a significant role in the construction of naval vessels and merchant ships.

The Northern Maritime Museum offers a glimpse into Arkhangelsk’s maritime history.

Visitors can explore maritime artifacts, ship models, and learn about the city’s seafaring traditions .

The Arkhangelsk Samovar Museum showcases the city’s tea-drinking culture.

Tea enthusiasts can discover a fascinating collection of traditional Russian samovars and learn about their cultural significance.

The Arkhangelsk Ice Palace is a popular venue for ice hockey and ice skating.

Sports enthusiasts can enjoy exciting matches or glide across the ice in this state-of-the-art facility.

Arkhangelsk is a gateway to the unique Russian Far North.

Explorers and adventurers often start their journeys to remote Arctic territories from Arkhangelsk.

The city has a vibrant street art scene.

Colorful murals and graffiti can be found on buildings and walls, adding an artistic touch to Arkhangelsk’s urban landscape.

The Archangel Michael Cathedral is a prominent religious landmark in Arkhangelsk.

With its striking architecture and stunning interior, the cathedral is a must-visit for those interested in religious history .

Arkhangelsk is famous for its traditional wooden architecture.

You can admire beautiful wooden houses and churches that showcase the city’s rich cultural heritage.

The Arkhangelsk Hiking Club offers exciting outdoor adventures.

Nature enthusiasts can join the club’s organized hikes and explore the beautiful landscapes surrounding Arkhangelsk.

The city is surrounded by numerous lakes and rivers.

These water bodies provide excellent opportunities for fishing, boating, and other water activities.

Arkhangelsk has a rich folklore tradition.

The city’s folk dances, songs, and stories reflect the unique cultural identity of its inhabitants.

The Arkhangelsk Regional Drama Theater Square is a popular gathering place.

The square hosts various events, concerts, and festivals throughout the year.

Arkhangelsk is a haven for wildlife enthusiasts.

The region is home to diverse animal species, including brown bears , reindeer, and numerous bird species.

The Arkhangelsk Maritime Museum offers insights into the city’s maritime history.

Exhibits showcase the city’s important role in Russian maritime trade and exploration.

The city’s cuisine features delicious seafood dishes.

Indulge in fresh fish, shrimp, and other delicacies that highlight the flavors of the White Sea.

The Arkhangelsk Regional History Museum explores the city’s past.

From ancient civilizations to modern times, the museum delves into the rich history of Arkhangelsk.

Arkhangelsk is known for its mesmerizing midnight sun phenomenon.

During the summer months, the sun remains visible for almost 24 hours, creating an enchanting spectacle.

The Arkhangelsk Regional Library is a treasure trove of knowledge.

Book lovers can delve into a vast collection of literature, including rare and historical texts .

The city has a vibrant music scene.

From classical to contemporary, Arkhangelsk hosts concerts, music festivals, and performances that cater to all tastes.

The Arkhangelsk Museum of Wooden Architecture showcases traditional wooden structures.

Visitors can stroll through a fascinating open-air museum and learn about the intricacies of wooden architecture.

The city’s rivers are popular for canoeing and kayaking.

Adventure seekers can explore the picturesque waterways and enjoy thrilling water sports activities.

The Arkhangelsk Regional Art Gallery displays an impressive collection of artworks.

From classic masterpieces to contemporary creations, the gallery celebrates art in all its forms.

The city was a major hub for the Russian Navy during World War II.

Arkhangelsk played a crucial role in supplying the Soviet Union with essential resources during the war.

Arkhangelsk is a city of resilience and vibrant culture.

Despite the challenges of its northern location, Arkhangelsk continues to thrive as a center of art, education, and innovation.

Visiting Arkhangelsk is a journey into a world of adventure, history, and natural beauty. With its rich heritage, awe-inspiring landmarks, and warm-hearted people, this city will forever leave an imprint on your soul. So pack your bags and embark on a memorable exploration of Arkhangelsk – the northern gem of Russia.

Experience the magic of Arkhangelsk today and uncover the hidden wonders that await!

Arkhangelsk is a fascinating city with a rich history, breathtaking nature, and vibrant cultural heritage. From its origins as a Russian outpost in the 16th century to its present-day status as an important port and center for Arctic research, Arkhangelsk has continuously evolved and thrived.

With its stunning architectural landmarks, such as the Savior-on-the-Wooden-Hill Cathedral and the Arkhangelskoye Estate, visitors can immerse themselves in the city’s past. The White Sea beaches and the nearby Solovetsky Islands offer breathtaking natural beauty and a serene escape from the hustle and bustle of city life.

Arkhangelsk is also a city steeped in culture. With numerous museums, theaters, and art galleries, it offers a vibrant arts scene that appeals to both locals and tourists. The locals are warm and welcoming, making visitors feel right at home.

Whether you are interested in history, nature, or culture, Arkhangelsk has something to offer. It truly is a hidden gem waiting to be discovered.

1. What is the best time to visit Arkhangelsk?

The best time to visit Arkhangelsk is during the summer months from June to August when the weather is mild and pleasant. This is also the time when various events and festivals take place in the city.

2. Are there accommodations available in Arkhangelsk?

Yes, Arkhangelsk offers a range of accommodations including hotels, guesthouses, and apartments to suit various budgets and preferences.

3. How can I get to Arkhangelsk?

Arkhangelsk is well-connected by air, rail, and road. The city has its own international airport and can also be reached by train or bus from major Russian cities.

4. What are some must-visit attractions in Arkhangelsk?

Some must-visit attractions in Arkhangelsk include the embankment of the Northern Dvina River, the Museum of Wooden Architecture, and the Arkhangelsk Regional Art Gallery.

5. Is English widely spoken in Arkhangelsk?

While English may not be widely spoken, especially among older generations, you can still manage to communicate with basic English in hotels, tourist areas, and some restaurants.

6. Are there any local delicacies to try in Arkhangelsk?

A few local delicacies to try in Arkhangelsk include Solovetsky fish soup, Arkhangelsk-style cod, and cranberry vareniki (dumplings).

Arkhangelsk's captivating history and vibrant culture make it a must-visit destination for anyone seeking to explore the wonders of Russia's Far North. If you're eager to learn more about this fascinating region, why not delve into the intriguing facts about Severodvinsk ? This nearby city, located just a short distance from Arkhangelsk, boasts its own unique charm and remarkable stories waiting to be discovered.

Was this page helpful?

Our commitment to delivering trustworthy and engaging content is at the heart of what we do. Each fact on our site is contributed by real users like you, bringing a wealth of diverse insights and information. To ensure the highest standards of accuracy and reliability, our dedicated editors meticulously review each submission. This process guarantees that the facts we share are not only fascinating but also credible. Trust in our commitment to quality and authenticity as you explore and learn with us.

Share this Fact: