The aim of the study, conducted at Princeton Theological Seminary in 1973, was to conduct an experiment to investigate the reasons behind altruistic behaviors that “think of others, not of themselves”.
Before giving the details of the experiment, Hz. To better understand what the “Good Samaritan” described by Jesus means, let’s take a brief look at the example.
What is illustrated in the example of the “Good Samaritan”?
“A Jew had set out on a journey from Jerusalem to Jericho. But on the way he was robbed, beaten, and left to die. First a Jewish priest and later a Jewish priest of the same nationality as the traveler passed this wounded traveler without help.”
“Lastly, a man of another nationality came. He was a Samaritan. The man took pity on and helped the traveler. He took the wounded man to an inn and cared for him throughout the night. He paid the innkeeper to look after him the next day and said he would pay when he returned if he spent more. “
Hz. With this example, Jesus was explaining that to be a good neighbor, it is necessary to help others through compassion, regardless of their background or nationality.
There were 3 hypotheses to be tested in the experiment, which was based on the “Good Samaritan”:
-
People who act in haste are less likely to help.
-
People who follow religion and higher principles are no more inclined to act to help.
- People who are religious for their subjective interests are less helpful than truly religious people.
The subjects were selected from among the theology faculty students.
In the experiment led by Princeton University’s John Darley and Daniel Batson, participants listened to sermons on some religious topics. Among these sermons was, of course, the example of the “Good Samaritan.” At the end of the sermon, the subjects filled out a personality questionnaire about their religion and the mock experimental procedure began.
The mock experiments were initially carried out in one building, and after a while the subjects were told to move from one building to the next. They had tasks to do in the building they were passing through. One of these tasks was to prepare a talk about seminary work, and the other was to prepare a talk about the story of the “Good Samaritan.”
The number of people helping someone in need was astounding.
Between the two buildings was an actor disguised as an injured person who needed help. The first variable tested was the level of urgency demanded from the subjects. Some were asked not to rush, while others were asked to be quick.
Only 10% of students who were in “over urgency” had stopped to help the man in distress. In “moderate urgency” situations, 45% of the students and 63% of the students who were not in a hurry helped the victim.
“Time pressure” prevailed above all else.
The task assigned to the participant did not have any effect on helping behavior. However, the amount of urgency told to the subjects had a major impact on helping behavior. In addition, no relationship was found between the participant’s religious beliefs and helping behavior.
Even the person to talk about the “Good Samaritan” didn’t stop and help.
Researchers state this: “While a person who is not in a hurry stops and helps someone in distress, a person in a hurry is likely not to stop. The irony is that the person in a hurry may not stop even if he is in a hurry to talk about the example of the Good Samaritan. Thinking about the “Good Samaritan” did not increase the behavior of helping the needy. On the contrary, his rush made it less likely to help him.” as declared.
48113
