BYSTANDERISM EXAMINE FACTORS INFLUENCING BYSTANDERISM FACTORS Diffusion of

BYSTANDERISM EXAMINE FACTORS INFLUENCING BYSTANDERISM

FACTORS: • • Diffusion of responsibility Pluralistic ignorance Characteristics of the bystander Environment Cost- reward Information processing Cultural norms Proximity

IS THERE SAFETY IN NUMBERS?

KITTY GENOVESE OCIAL PSYCH TEXTBOOK CASE • March, 1964 • New York City • 19 yrs • "Oh my God, he stabbed me! Help me!" • "For more than half an hour thirty-eight respectable, lawabiding citizens in Queens watched a killer stalk and stab a woman in three separate attacks in Kew Gardens. "

AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGIST, SEPT 2007 • examination of the factual basis of coverage of the Kitty Genovese murder in psychology textbooks. • concluded the story is parable more than fact, largely owing to inaccurate newspaper coverage at the time of the incident

HTTP: //WWW. YOUTUBE. COM/WATCH? V=T GAJRGI_SPE

DARLEY AND LATANE • prompted research into diffusion of responsibility and the bystander effect. • contrary to common expectations, larger numbers of bystanders decrease the likelihood that someone will step forward and help a victim

BYSTANDER EFFECT (PARADOX) • People are less likely to provide help when they are in groups than when alone

DIFFUSION OF RESPONSIBILITY DEFINITION • concept that each person is only responsible for an equal proportion of effort base on the number of people in a group. • Each individual in a group puts in less effort than if he or she were acting alone. When in a group a person contributes less because everyone is sharing the responsibility of the task. However, (Pettijohn, 1992).

REASONS FOR BYSTANDER EFFECT • onlookers see that others—actually or presumably—do not help either • onlookers believe others will know better how to help (not recognizing that nobody does • onlookers feel insecure helping with others watching • onlookers tend not to act if there are more bystanders present

DIFFUSION OF RESPONSIBILITY CAN MANIFEST ITSELF: • in a group of peers who, through action or inaction, allow events to occur which they would never allow if alone • in hierarchical organizations as when, for example, underlings claim that they were following orders and supervisors claim that they were just issuing directives and not doing anything per se. • This mindset can be seen in the phrase "No one raindrop thinks it caused the flood".

What’s your level of responsibility? • If you are one of two people you have a 50% responsibility • If you are one of 50 people you have a 2% responsibility Each individual in a group puts in less effort than if he or she were acting alone. When in a group a person contributes less because everyone is sharing the responsibility of the task.

• Diffusion of responsibility is a social phenomenon which tends to occur in groups of people above a certain critical size when responsibility is not explicitly assigned.

CLAPPING • Latané found that when eight people clap the sound is not eight times more than the sound of one person clapping • Social Loafing: a reduction in effort by individuals in groups as compared to alone (done by deception/blindfolds – subjects told it was a study on sensory feedback – when individual output was measured)

• Darley and Latané (1968) hypothesized that bystander apathy was caused by a dilution of the individual's sense of responsibility in a larger group of people. This diffusion of responsibility theory was tested in laboratory esperiments.

LATANE AND DARLEY (1968) EXPERIMENT 1. WHERE THERE'S SMOKE, THERE'S (SOMETIMES) FIRE Condition A Subject alone FINDINGS 75% noticed smoke and left room to report it Condition B 3 naïve subjects 38% reported the smoke Condition C Subject and two confederates (who purposely noticed then ignored the smoke) 10% reported the smoke No one attributed their inactivity to the presence of others in the room.

• The interveners claimed they acted because the fall seemed serious and it was "the right thing to do". The non-interveners said they were unsure what happened but decided it wasn't serious, and some felt they didn't want to embarass the researcher. Again, people felt they weren’t highly influenced by others.

LATANE ET AL • overhearing another student have an epileptic seizure. In some conditions, the students were told they were one of two subjects. In other conditions, they were told they were one of six subjects in the experiment. • In the six-person condition, 31% of the subjects responded to calls for help. In the two-person condition, 85% of the subjects responded.

• the risk of inappropriate behaviour is less with friends, and friends are less likely to develop "pluralistic ignorance".

COMMENT ON STUDIES SO FAR • artificial. • Subjects may have been suspicious that the emergency was fake • to test the diffusion of responsibility theory in a naturalistic (real-life) setting, Latané and Darley (1970) set up a fake robbery in a liquor store. • The robbers were two young men who entered the store and asked the clerk about an expensive imported beer. The shop-keeper (who, like the two men, was a confederate of the experimenter) said he would have to check in the back room. He left the front of the store. The two men then grabbed a case of beer, saying, "They won't miss this, " and went out the door. • Aim: to see if other customers (who thought the robbery was genuine) would mention it to the clerk, when the shopkeeper came back to the front of the store. • Note: naturalistic experiment

LATANE AND DARLEY (1968) THE CASE OF THE STOLEN BEER. 2 variables: • one or two customers in the store • one or two "robbers“ Findings: • 20% of subjects reported theft spontaneoulsy • 51% reported upon prompting by the store owner (out the back during the robbery) Note: effect smaller than • One or two robbers made no difference. in other studies, but still in • Sex made no difference. predicted direction • 65% of single customers reported theft • only 56% of two-customer setups made a report (less than expected).

LATANE AND RODIN (1969) • Similarly, Latané and Rodin (1969) staged an experiment at Columbia University. • They had students meet an experimenter, then divide up to fill out a questionnaire. Each student was assigned to a cubicle. Suddenly there was a crash and scream from one of the cubicles and a girl student's voice called out, "Oh My God, my foot! I can't move it! Oh. . my ankle. . . I can't get this thing off me!”

LATANE AND DARLEY (1968) EXPERIMENT 2: LADY IN DISTRESS subjects waited in a room separated from another room by a curtain (which they passed on their way to their waiting room). The experimenter who led them there returned to other room and left, turning on a tape recorded that simulated a fall and subsequent moaning about a hurt leg (total time 130 seconds). Condition A Subject alone 70% reacted Condition B Subject with a friend 70% of friend pairs Condition C Subject with a passive confederate 7% reacted Conditionn D Subject with a stranger 40% of stranger pairs reacted experiment showed that the same effect occurred whether people thought they were in a larger group or actually were in a larger group. Note: some inhibition evident. Would expect 91%

PILIAVIN STUDY PILIAVIN, RODIN AND PILIAVIN (1969) • arranged for a confederate of the experimenter to collapse in a New York subway. • Condition 1: In one version of the experiment, the man was dressed like a bum, sported a three-day growth of beard, and smelled strongly of alcohol. • Condition 2: well-dressed businessman type was used in the same experiment • Findings: as per video

PILIAVIN STUDY – 3. 26 MINUTES • http: //www. youtube. com/watch? v=k 1 NLRoa. Jl. DY

• aim of the study was to investigate factors that would influence the helping behaviour. such as: • -Race of victim(black or white), • -Type of victim(drunk or ill) • -Speed of helping • -Frequency of helping • -Race of helper

SOME CRITICISMS OF PILIAVIN STUDY • Subject variables, such as gender and age, were not controlled, nor noted in the results. The data cannot be tested for any significant effects of subject variables. • doubt whether the methodology has been consistent, because the experiment • consists of groups of trials by different experimenters. • situational nuisance variables, such as weather conditions, location and time of day the experiment was held, which were not controlled because of the fragmented execution of the experiment • Situational variables can also influence which in turn can influence

OTHER VARIATION IMPACTING ON LIKELIHOOD OF HELPING • Other studies by Piliazin et al showed that previous personal contact encouraged helping behavior. Eg brief conversation with a "victim" made subjects more likely to respond during a pretended emergency. • Two theories were developed to explain the effect of personal contact: • "identify" with a person more after social contact and are therefore more likely to help because of increased empathy • people who are in face-to-face contact with a person do not wish to view the consequences of a failure to act.

WHAT INFLUENCES BYSTANDER BEHAVIOUR?

• A combination of these two variables-being-to-face with a potential victim and not wanting to see unpleasant consequences-provides the most powerful motivation for people to help out rather than be "apathetic. " Williamson, Swingle, and Sargent (1982) report a case involving both elements. It began when a 23 -year-old woman started to give birth on a commuter train in Chicago. • How did commuters respond when a woman started giving birth? • Commuters acted as midwives, bystanders applauded and yelled, "Praise the Lord!" and a shopper offered a newly purchased baby blanket to cover the infant. When the paramedics arrived, according to the Chicago Tribune for June 1, 1981, one remarked that "Everybody was working in unity, and there was a lot of harmony, and it was beautiful. People clapped afterwards, and what struck me was how people can work together in a unity when they have to. " (p. 391)

DARLEY AND BATSON (1973) • Other factors could also influence bystander apathy. Darley and Batson (1973) asked seminary students (students studying to become preachers or ministers) to rehearse a speech in one room, then go to another room to deliver the speech to a waiting group. On the way to the second room, each student passed a person slumped in a doorway. If the experimenters made the students think they were late for their speech, only 10% helped the stranger. If they students thought they were early for the speech and had time to spare, nearly half of them helped out.

SIDE-EFFECT OF THIS TYPE OF RESEARCH • frequent occurrence of experiments involving fake emergencies led to greater suspicion among subjects. ("wise" to the deception) • Kelman (1967) warned that social psychology experiments involving deception could backfire if subjects became suspicious every time they entered a psychological laboratory. • Mac. Coun and Kerr (1987) - prediction came true ata a school. A subject had a real seizure during an experiment. Several other subjects were present, but only one (a lifeguard) quickly helped. The others were suspicious that this seizure was being faked for the experiment.

BYSTANDER EFFECT • More likely in ambiguous situations • Diffusion of responsibility

LATANE, 1981 • restaurant setting • groups of six people who had individual bills left average of 19% • Groups of 6 people who had combined bill left average tip of 13%

SOCIAL LOAFING AND BYSTANDER EFFECT • Both caused by diffusion of responsibility

LATANE • Over 6, 000 subjects • Apparent emergentcies; fires, asthma attacks, faintings, crashes, flat tyres • Picking up objects dropped by a stranger • Subjects alone provided help 75% of tiime • Subjects in presence of others provided help 53% of time

LATANE & BARLEY, 1970 ‘THE UNRESPONSIVE BYSTANDER” WHY DOESN’T HE HELP? proposed a series of steps that an individual goes through before responsing to a situation: • notice that something is happening • correctly interpret the situation • assume responsibility • decide what to do and take action. • The bystander effect describes the fact that a single person is more likely to help in an emergency than a group of people. Diffusion of responsibility plays an important role in bystander effect. As more people are at an emergency there is less of a responsibility for an individual to respond to the situation. One explanation is that in a group an individual is anonymous and is not readily pointed out as an individual who can help. Another point is that an individual can feel that he or she is misinterpreting the situation and does not want to be embarrassed when reacting to nothing. Since no one else is reacting, that feeling is reinforced

3 PRINCIPLES OF SOCIAL IMPACT • the number of people present and the influence the people have on an individual both contribute to the social effect – Eg doing an oral presentation • the impact of others increases as the number of people increases but the rate of impact does not increase with the number of others added – Eg doing an oral presentation in front of two teachers/three teachers. • each person influences others, but as the audience size increases the influence decreases. The smaller the audience the more likely the audience will pay attention and be influenced by what the performer, or individual, has to present

DR MARK LEVINE • research uses a variety of quantitative and qualitative methods to explore bystander behaviour at the group level • The behavioural analysis (of CCTV footage of violent incidents) reveals that the trajectory of violence is shaped, not by the actions of the perpetrator or the victim, but by the behaviour of the 'bystanders

HANDOUT OF LEVINE STUDIES

PSYCHOLOGY OF HUMAN RELATIONSHIPS SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY CROSS-CULTURAL DIFFERENCES IN PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOUR

FROM GUIDE • Using one or more research studies, explain crosscultural differences in prosocial behaviour

QUITE GOOD • http: //www. s-cool. co. uk/a-level/psychology/pro-and-antisocial-behaviour/revise-it/altruism-and-bystanderbehaviour

DR MARK LEVINE (2001) • research uses a variety of quantitative and qualitative methods to explore bystander behaviour at the group level • The behavioural analysis (of CCTV footage of violent incidents) reveals that the trajectory of violence is shaped, not by the actions of the perpetrator or the victim, but by the behaviour of the 'bystanders

THE LEVINE STUDIES 424 trials 493 trials 281 trials Three measures of helpfulness were found to translate reasonably well between cultures.

LEVINE (2001) • Investigated relevance of individualism and collectivism • Investigated three helping situations: • Pedestrian drops pen without noicing • Pediestrian with leg brace drops magazines • Blind pedestrian with cane waits at traffic lights for assisttance to cross street • Change for a quarter • Lost letter “I found this next to your car”

KEY LEVINE PUBLICATIONS • http: //www. americanscientist. org/issues/issue. aspx? id=8 52&y=2003&no=3&content=true&page=4&css=print • The original article: • http: //maxinetelferspsychsite. wikispaces. com/file/view/Le vine+et+al+helping. pdf

HTTP: //WWW. WWU. EDU/CULTURE/LEVINE. HTM • handout

• Using one or more research studies, explain cross‑cultural differences in prosocial behavior • Whiting (1979) found that nurturing behavior in children (3 -11) is higher in Kenya, Mexico and the Philippines compared to US (who scored lowest) • Graves and Graves (1985) - family environment where you are expected to care for younger children increases prosocial behavior • Levine et al. studies • US population density predicts prosocial behavior (lower = more likely to help) • Replicated in 23 cities - Rio de janeiro and San Jose were most likely to help (role of collectivist society? ) • Low economic productive countries more likely to help

OTHER STUDIES • Most studies stem from the US, but individualistic rather than collectivistic society • Studeis: • Eisenberg and Mussen (1989) – reviewed several studies on cross-cultural differences in altruism concluding that children in non-Western cultures are more co-operative, considerate and kinder than American children

Whiting and Whiting (1975) • Investigated childhood helping bhaviour to background culture • In Kenya and Mexico (both highly collectivistic) children are expected to take on family responsibilities • Amerian children tend to paid – working for personal gain is worthy • Israeli children (Kibbutzim) show more helping behaviour than non-Kibbutzim children in Israel