the good samaritan experiment princeton university

• 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

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.

3 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.

The Good Samaritan experiment shows us that, although we have good intentions, our behavior can be influenced by external factors. This makes us reflect on our own ability to help others and how we can overcome social obstacles that prevent us from acting compassionately.

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.

• 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?”
• The More You Can Manage Your Emotions, the More Effective You’ll Be

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.

Sunday, October 30, 2011

The good samaritan experiement: darley & batson (1973), a good samaritan.

• "Oh, you're late. They were expecting you a few minutes ago. We'd better get moving..."
• "The assistant is ready for you, so please go right over."
• "...It'll be a few minutes before they're ready for you, but you might as well head on over..."
• Low hurry: 63%
• Medium hurry: 45%
• High hurry: 10%

6 comments:

The Good Mood Effect Robert Baron (1997) conducted an experiment to see if one’s mood would affect their likelihood to help someone in need. He did this by drawing a relationship between good scents and good moods and studied whether individuals would be helped in locations with pleasant smelling environments as opposed to neutral smelling environments. Results showed 60% helped in pleasant smelling environments where as only 20% helped in neutral environments. So the good mood effect shows when individuals are happier they are more helpful. In the Good Samaritan Experiment (Darley & Batson, 1973), when participants were told they had a few minutes, they would be more relaxed in which case they are in a good mood and more likely to help someone in need (as the results have shown). I wonder how these statistics would differ (if at all) from the same people that originally were in a hurry but would they help on their way back, as they were returning from giving their speech?

This comment has been removed by the author.

I believe that another reason why some people did not stop to help was because of “diffusion of responsibility” (362, Kassin, Fein, Markus). The “diffusion of responsibility” is the belief that others will or should intervene. In other words, people assume that another will take care of the situation, and therefore do not offer to help. Thus, I think this experiment also depends on how many people were around the place where the distressed man was. If there were more people, people would be less willing to help. If there were less people, maybe more people would be willing to help. In addition, it is said that “diffusion of responsibility” usually takes place under conditions of anonymity (363). “Bystanders who do not know the victim personally, are more likely to see others as responsible for providing help” (363). Therefore, in this case, I believe some did not help because they were strangers to this an. These people were just participants in an experiment, and were encountering this man outside of the experiment. “Diffusion of responsibility can also depend on a person’s occupation or role in life. For example, during September 11th, retired firefighters went out to go help. This was part of their instinct, to go help even when they were retired. However, my question is, if the age of the experimenters had to do anything with the results. If wonder if students were older, like an adult age of 50, if they would be willing to help more or less.

The empathy-Altrusim Hypothesis (Batson, Early, & Salvarini, 1997; Stotland, 1969) could prove additional relevance in the reasons why 40% assisted the confederate. The Hypothesis states that people are more willing to help if they can empathize with the person in need. If the person can empathize then they act Altrusitic (selfless) and they will do everything in there power to reduce the others distress. A major factor in this is due to the confederate being of somewhat average passive need. "lying in a doorway, doubled over, eyes closed and coughing. " which is very close to that which we see in the homeless and become immune to. The individual may feel less urgent in helping, and could have been empathetically understood but reduced in urgency. Therefore as expected, the people who were currently versed in "The Good Samaritan" and in a lower hurry could have acted more Egoistic seeing the confederate as in more of personal distress than anything else.

One important reason why people help each other is because it’s rewarding. If the potential rewards of helping are higher than the potential costs, then people will be more likely to help another (Kassin, pg. 350). Helping others simply just feels good (Smith et al., 1989; Williamson and Clark, 1992). It can make one feel better about themselves and it can increase one’s own mental and physical health (Brown et al., 2003; Dulin and Hill, 2003; Piliavin, 2003; Post, 2005; Schwartz et al., 2003). There is also the sense of moral obligation, believing that it’s the right thing to do. Being consistent with moral principles can motivate people to help one another. However, inhibiting oneself from moral concerns can lead people to act more inhumane toward others through violence, discrimination, etc. (Bandura, 2004; McAlister et al., 2006; Staub, 2004). Another reason for helping might be for a selfish desire of social rewards with the appearance of morality. “The reference here is to moral hypocrisy, whereby people try to convince themselves and others that they are driven to help others by moral principles when in actuality they are motivated to benefit themselves by appearing to be moral” (Kassin, pb. 352).

I agree with Karleigh that the diffusion of responsibility was a major factor in the people stopping. Also, using the model in the book on page 360, the five steps of helping others, many people probably got stuck on steps 1-4. The fact that no one seemed to be around, they were not the only person in the building, and their own concerns played a large factor. This study though disproves the "bystander effect" which states that the fewer people around, the more likely help is to be given.

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Test of Samaritan Parable: Who Helps the Helpless?

By Israel Shenker

• April 10, 1971

In the Gospel according to Luke, Jesus tells the parable of a priest and a Levite who see a man sorely needing help and pass by on the other side of the road, and of a Samaritan who stops and helps the victim.

Two psychologists in Princeton recently restaged the event—Updated, carefully observed, even photographed —not on the road from Jerusalem to Jericho but just off Washington Road between Princeton University's Green Hall and Green Hall Annex.

Prof. John M. Darley, who teaches psychology at the university, and C. Daniel Batson, a doctor of theology doing graduate work in psychology there while teaching at the Princeton Theological Seminary, had recruited 40 volunteers from the seminary.

Explaining that they were studying the vocational placement of seminarians, Dr. Batson and Professor Darley asked each to record a brief talk on a given text. To half the volunteers they presented a text on job opportunities; the other half got a text of the Good Samaritan parable. (All the seminarians were male Protestants, and most Were United Presbyterians.)

One by one the volunteers were then told to proceed from Green Hall to record their talk in the Annex. Each was given a sketch showing how to reach the other office: out the front door, turn right, go into the alley at the right, then first left.

Dispatched at Intervals

The volunteers were dispatched at 15‐minute intervals. Each turned right, right right again, and there—lying in a doorway in the alley—was a young man coughing and groaning and possibly in pain.

The “victim” had been put there by Dr. Batson and Professor Darley to see if the seminarians would play the role of the Good Samaritan — or pass him by.

Did the seminarians stop to help? Did those who were en route to record a talk on the parable of the Good Samaritan stop? Or did they, like the priest and Levite, pass by on the other side?

In Biblical times there were few controlled field studies, but in recent years psychologists have been making up for lost centuries. A growing number of researchers are particularly interested in prosocial or helping behavior.

Professor Darley's interest arose after the Kitty Genovese case in 1964. In that celebrated affair, Miss Germvese's cries for help as she was being murdered were heard by 38 neighbors in Kew Gardens, Queens, not one of whom came to her aid or even called the police.

Instead of accepting profferred “explanations” — apathy, callousness, indifference, alienation, the fear of getting involved — Professor Darley sought enlightenment through controlled experiments. His conclusions were reported in a book written with Bibb Latane and entitled “The Unresponsive Bystander: Why Doesn't He Help?” (Appleton ‐ Century Crofts, 1970).

One experiment sought reactions to a simulated emergency: A woman could be heard crying: “Oh, my God, my foot… I … can't ‐get … this thing off … me.”

Motivation at Issue

In a second project, one child could be heard beating up another. Another study compared the reaction of people in a subway station and at La Guardia Airport to the sight of a man falling and clutching his leg in pain. In the subway, 83 per cent of the people offered help; at the airport 41 per cent came to his aid.

What motivates helping? What determines whether one person will help another?

Observed Latane and Darley:

“It is possible for a state of ‘pluralistic ignorance’ to develop, in which each bystander is led by the apparent lack of concern of the others to interpret the situation as being less serious than he would if alone. To the extent that he does not feel the situation is an emergency, he will be unlikely to take any helpful action.”

Their studies indicated not that people had become apathetic or society dehumanized, but rather that “situational factors, specifically factors involving the immediate social environment, may be of greater importance in determining an individual's reaction to an emergency than such broad motivational concepts as ‘apathy’ or ‘alienation due to urbanization.’”

“They suggest that the failure to intervene may be better understood by knowing the relationship among bystanders rather than that between a bystander and the victim,” the co‐authors concluded.

The 40 seminarians had heard no end of answers on ethical behavior, and they had preached a few themselves. Did they practice what they preached?

Of the 40, a total of 16 stopped to help. Twenty‐four did not swerve from their path. One even stepped over the “victim” to get through the doorway he had mistaken for the one he wanted.

What determined whether a man stopped to help—or passed by? The simple answer turned out to be not the personality or character of the seminarian, but simply whether he was in a hurry.

The ‘Hurry’ Factor

Professor Darley and Dr. Batson had told some of the seminarians they would be early for the recording, and suggested that they take their time. This was the “low hurry” condition. To others, they said it was time to go (“intermediate hurry”). A final group were in the “high hurry” condition: They had been told they were already late for the recording, and they should rush to Green Hall Annex.

Of those In the “low hurry” condition, 63 per cent stopped to help. In the “intermediate hurry” condition, 45 per cent stopped. In “high hurry,” 10 per cent stopped to offer help.

(Whenever anyone stopped to help, the “victim” did his best to be reassuring, saying he was under doctor's care, had taken medicine and was resting. Another volunteer was due in 15 minutes,’ and the “victim” had to be ready.)

It made virtually no difference whether the volunteer was en route to record a speech on vocational opportunity or on the Good Samaritan parable. His readiness to help did not depend an the subject in his mind or on the condition of his soul.

Commented Professor Darley: “I guess what the experiment says is, ‘If you're in a hurry, you're in a hurry: “

“We're not saying that some of our seminarians are priests or Levites and others are Good Samaritans,” noted Dr. Batson, “but rather that common interpretations of the parable seem to emphasize personality types and our results do not.”

Professor Darley and Dr. Batson suggest that the Good Samaritan of the parable was probably in a “low hurry” condition, while the priest and Levite were doubtlessly rushing:

“One can Imagine the priest and Levite, prominent public figures, hurrying along with little black books full of meetings and appointments, glancing furtively at their sun dials as they go,” they said. “In contrast, the Samaritan, a man of much lower public, status, would likely have fewer and less important people counting on him to be a set place at a set time.”

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
• Richmond - Tweed
• Newcastle - Maitland
• Canberra - ACT
• Sunshine Coast
• 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

When we fall prey to perfectionism, we think we’re honorably aspiring to be our very best, but often we’re really just setting ourselves up for failure, as perfection is impossible and its pursuit inevitably backfires.

• Emotional Intelligence
• Gaslighting
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience