In the parable of the good Samaritan, Jesus described a man who is robbed, beaten, and left for dead at the side of a road. Two "religious" individuals, a priest and a Levite, pass by but do not stop to help. However, a Samaritan, a religious outcast, does (at some cost to himself) give the robbery victim the help he needs. Jesus wanted to make the point that people should model their behavior after the Samaritan, not after "religious" people, who may be so caught up in their thoughts that they don't see the needs of people around them.

Would the results differ if this situation were to occur in contemporary society? Darley and Batson attempted to construct a similar "help-needed" situation at Princeton University. Sixty-seven seminary students first completed questionnaires to assess their religious orientation, among other things; then, one at a time, 40 of them showed up for a follow-up experimental session. They were asked to prepare a short talk based on either (1) the parable of the good Samaritan, or (2) jobs that seminary students might pursue. After having a few minutes to prepare for their forthcoming talk, participants were given a map to show them how to get to a room in another building where they would give their talk. Half of the participants were told that they would need to hurry, since they were late for their appointment.

As these students passed down an alley, they met a man in need of help. A confederate of the experimenters was slumped in a doorway, head down, eyes closed, not moving. As each seminarian passed, the victim coughed and groaned; given the geographical setting, it was virtually impossible to miss him. The key dependent measure in this study was whether or not the students stopped to offer any kind of help. In fact, just 16 of the 40 seminarians (40%) offered assistance. And religious orientation (means, end, or quest) did not predict who would stop to offer aid.

However, among those who did stop, an interesting finding emerged. When a seminarian offered help, the victim indicated that he had just taken his medication, he would be fine if he just rested a few minutes, and he would like to be left alone. Some of the "good Samaritans" were quite insistent, however. In spite of the victim's objections, some participants insisted on taking him into a nearby building and pouring some coffee and/or religion into him. Among only those who did stop to help, the intrinsic (end) dimension correlated positively with this "I know what is best for you" helping style (r = .43), but the quest orientation was negatively associated with such insistent aid (r = -.54). Darley and Batson concluded that the more intrinsic seminarians seemed to be guided by a "preprogrammed" helping response, which was not affected by the expressed needs of the victim. It was almost as if the "super helpers" were satisfying their own internal need to help, rather than meeting the needs of the victim. However, those with a quest orientation had a more "tentative" helping style, sensitive to the person needing help, since they tended to accept the victim's statement that he really just wanted to be left alone and everything would be fine.

Before we leave our consideration of this study, there are some loose ends to tie up. Contrary to expectations, it did not make any difference whether the participant was preparing to give a speech on the parable of the Good Samaritan or on the jobs for seminary graduates. Apparently, thinking about helping in a Biblical context did not make participants more likely to offer aid in a similar situation. Finally, those participants in the "hurry up, you're late" condition were significantly less likely to stop and offer any kind of help than those with no "hurry up" instructions. Apparently, the most powerful variable in determining helping behavior overall in this study was a nonreligious one -- whether or not the participant was in a hurry.

REFERENCES

Darley, J. M., & Batson, C. D. (1973) "From Jersualem to Jericho": A study of situational and dispositional variables in helping behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 27, 100-108.