The question this paper is trying to answer is how to help people while they were in distress. Helping people in distress states, “an act governed by ethical norms and precepts taught to children at home, in school, and church. ” Internalization of these standards is different personality studies show that the way people act in situations similar to this, are going to be different. Testing these acts of helping people and possible situations from a fresh viewpoint have not been done. Which is the goal of Darley and Batson’s study. The Bible’s “Good Samaritan” was their inspiration.
A researcher who is worth their salt, will find similar studies, and studies on situations of morality. Recently experiments have been examinations on bystander intervention in emergency situations, failed in finding a measure (Bicknam, 1969: Darley&Latane, 1968: Korte, 1960). Associates with helping behavior were successfully measured such as authoritarianism, social desirability and social responsibility. Personality and situation variables are applicable to help which parable with a valuable suggestion. Dispositional and situational variables devise two tests when being measured.
Personality questionnaires should establish types of religiosity, which is a dispositional variable. In the questionnaire they found that there were three types of religiosity. Religion as a means, religion as an end and religion as a quest are the three types. The explanation of religiosity was found dispositional why they are in the religion in the first place. Experimental procedures were asked to start their subject in one building and then moved into anther building for later procedures, which measured the situational variables.
The dependent variable “helping behavior” had three hypotheses, which the study was based on. The first hypothesis says that people who encounter a situation that asks for a “helping response while thinking religion and ethical thoughts” is more likely to offer aid than what the person is thinking. The second hypotheses will dealt with a persons hurry level. People in a hurry are less likely to help someone out than if they are not in a hurry. Final the three hypotheses types of religiosity, means those who are more Samaritan like their religion are more likely to help people than people who are priest or Levite fashioned.
The standard procedure (R 01 X 02) does not go bound the experiment. The experiment started with randomized groups based on religiosity; task or help relevancy helps relevancy and the tree types of hurry, which were the independent variables. Recording the results of the experimental value or “the incident”, which was the dependent variable. The nominal scale would be used, because they do not vary in amount just in kind of the students thinking. The researchers had to operationalize the types of content of the students thinking.
Operationalization is the goal to devise applications that actually measure the concepts we intend to measure to achieve measurement validity. Task relevance and helping relevance on the nominal scale were the two categories used. The experiment is based on 6 groups dictated by the variables and should be considered a double-blind experiment, and the assistant was blind with respect to the personality scores. The victims were blind to personality scale scores and experimental conditions.
First, the seminary of students were asked to give an impromptu speech on a passage what jobs or professions do seminary students subsequently enjoy most and in what jobs were most effective? The others on were on the parable of the Good Samaritan. After the students were informed they were either in, a high level of hurry, intermediate level of hurry, or low level of hurry. This measured on a nominal scale just like help and task relevancy. Lastly the measure on the amount of help they gave the victim on a scale from 0-5 was taken.