Summary:
In 1973, John M. Darley and C. Daniel Batson published the study, “‘From Jerusalem to Jericho’: A study of situational and dispositional variables in helping behavior.” This study was based off the Good Samaritan Bible story and used Princeton University seminary students as participants. First, the participants took questionnaires to determine their reasons for pursuing priesthood. This determined three categories: intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, and a quest for the meaning of life. Then, the students were told to prepare a speech about the possible jobs seminary students could pursue. Half of the students were told the story of the Good Samaritan prior to the next step. After the students had their speeches prepared, they individually walked to another building to continue the study. The independent variable had three groups depending on how much of a rush they were in to get to the second building. They encountered a fallen individual, with his head down, groaning, and coughing. The participants were graded on a scale from zero to five on how helpful they were to the troubled man. When they got to the second building, they were asked several questions about helping the needy, in order to validate the results. The results determined the amount of hurry to be the factor in determining the helpfulness of the participants. The presence of the Good Samaritan story and the motivation for priesthood had no effect. This determined that situational factors are more important than dispositional ones.
Reflection:
I decided to include all of the main points in my summary. The independent variables were stated along with how they were measured. I also included some background information about the study. I chose to include these details because I wish they were included in Glenn Geher’s “My Favorite Psychology Study.” I read this popular culture article before I read the scientific journal article. After I read the journal article, I noticed some details that should have been added, so I included them in my summary.
I included how the variables were operationalized. The independent variables were clearly stated, and the summary included how data collection was done. The participants were all seminary students at Princeton University, as stated at the beginning of the summary. The participants were assigned to several groups throughout the study, as clearly shown in the study. One of the groups were determined by personal motivations, and the others by random assignment. The independent variable that made a difference utilized random assignment, so it is credible. The method does not allow for causal claims because the independent variables are unrelated. The conclusions of this post are generalized to the correct population because it educates the class about a particular study. Although I do not have a degree in psychology (yet), it is acceptable because a blog post is casual way of conveying information.
The study, as published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, was much more detailed than Geher’s post. The journal had more sophisticated diction. The popular culture article stuck with a casual tone and defined terms that scientists would know. This is expected because a scientific journal attracts a scholarly audience, while a popular culture article targets the general population. The scientific journal answered all five of the critical questions. The popular culture article only answered a few. It described how variables were operationalized, how participants were selected, and how the participants were assigned to groups. They are similar because they explained the study in a chronological manner and conveyed the same conclusions.
Through analyzing the differences between the scientific journal and the website article, I noticed several differences between the style of writing. Scientists, as learned from the scientific journal, are more attentive to detail and explain the entire study. While analyzing the popular culture article, I noticed that these articles focus only on the important parts of the study, while using simple diction and defining complicated terms. In my blog post, I used a mixture of both styles. I made this decision because this post is not as scholarly as a scientific journal, but is still used for educational purposes.
Sources:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/darwins-subterranean-world/201703/my-favorite-psychology-study
Darley, J. M., & Batson, C. D. (1973). ‘From Jerusalem to Jericho’: A study of
situational and dispositional variables in helping behavior [PDF].
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.