Darley 1973 - 'From Jerusalem to Jericho' - A study of situational and dispositional variables in helping behavior

Google Scholar Link

Darley, J. M., & Batson, C. D. (1973). “ From Jerusalem to Jericho”: A study of situational and dispositional variables in helping behavior. Journal of personality and social psychology, 27(1), 100.

Summary

This well-known paper uses a group of Princeton seminary students as unknowing participants in an experiment. A 2x2 study was used, in which the independent variables were “in a hurry”/”not in a hurry” and “primed with relevant message”/”primed with irrelevant message.” In the case of a relevant message, the students had been asked to read the story of the Good Samaritan. The first part of the experiment took place in one spot, and then the students were told that they needed to go to another building to continue the experiment. On the way there, they encountered a confederate, supposedly in distress. The dependent variable was if they stopped to help the confederate or not. The hurry variable was significant, while the message variable was not (more experimental evidence relating to the lack of validity of priming). Personality variables were also not significantly related to a person stopping to help or not. People in more of a hurry were less likely to stop and help.

“It is hard to think of a context in which norms concerning helping those in distress are more salient than for a person thinking about the Good Samaritan, and yet it did not significantly increase helping behavior.”

Application

The paper (using a Tolman quote) hypothesizes that hurrying results in a “narrowing of the cognitive map.” Some people seemed to see the confederate but not realize that they should help them, while others admittedly seemed to choose to not stop. Regardless, it seems apparent that being in a hurry can lead us to suboptimal decision making (losing sight of the whole picture). Additionally, this seems to have ties to the idea of mindfulness and being present in the moment. Finally, it was a great experimental design and mirrors the findings of fundamental attribution error. No one seems to have been hurt by what some would regard as the unethical use of deception.