By-Standerism

HUMAN RELATIONSHIPS

BYSTANDERISM

Discuss one or more factors influencing by-standerism. Discuss by-standerism, with reference to one or more studies.

The Bystander Effect

The Bystander EffectA social psychological phenomenon in which individuals are less likely to offer help or intervene in an emergency or crisis situation when other people are present.

Social InfluenceIt encompasses how an individual's thoughts, feelings, and behavior are affected by the presence and actions of others. That is, the influence of others' behaviors, expectations, or norms on an individual's decision to help or not help in an emergency situation.

The Bystander Effect

Altruistic Behavior Actions or behaviors that are motivated by a genuine concern for the well-being and welfare of others, without any expectation of personal gain, rewards, or benefits. Altruism involves selflessness and a desire to help or assist others, even at a cost to oneself. It is driven by empathy, compassion, and a sense of moral duty.

Egotistic BehaviorIt refers to actions or behaviors that are primarily motivated by self-interest, personal gain, or a desire to enhance one's own well-being or happiness. Egotism often involves a lack of concern for the needs or welfare of others and may prioritize one's own needs, desires, and goals over those of others

The Case of Kitty Genovese

Date: March 13, 1964Location: Queens, New York Victim: Catherine "Kitty" Genovese - 28 years old

Incident:

• Kitty was attacked and assaulted by a man named Winston Moseley while returning to her apartment.
• The attack lasted about 30 minutes.
• Numerous witnesses in the surrounding apartments heard her screams and pleas for help.

The Case of Kitty Genovese

Bystander Effect: Lack of intervention The police call was delayed 30 minutes Aftermath:Public outcry and awareness. This case, plus other similar incidents, resulted in the development of the 911 emergency system. Information has been updated, and the NYT story is not completely accurate.

"someone else will help"

diffusion of responsibility

Latané and Darley (1970)

Individuals in a crowd are less likely to take action or feel responsible for their actions because they believe others in the group will or should do so.

Difussion of Responsibility

When the fear or anxiety of being publicly judged influences people's behavior in a situation.

Evaluation Apprehension

The tendency to rely on the overt reactions of others to define a situation because they assume that others must know something.

Pluralistic Ignorance

The experiments

They recruited university students to participate in a "talk" with other students. They were given a microphone and headphones, and they stayed alone in a room, talking through the intercom. They had three groups: 1. The first group thought they talked one-on-one with the other person. 2. The second group thought they were talking with two other people. 3. The third group thought they were talking in a group of five people. A participant (an actor) pretended to have a seizure - they could hear it over the intercom.

When they thought they were the only one, 85% of participants left the room and asked for help.

When they thgouth two other people were there, only 64% asked for assistance.

When they thought there were more than two people, only 31% of participants asked for help.

The "smokey" room experiment

When the participants were alone, 75% quickly left the room and reported the smoke.

What if the participants' lives were at risk? This time, they gather students to fill out a questionnaire. They had two groups: 1. Participants in a group alone 2. Participants with other people also fill in the questionnaire (actors). A few minutes after starting, black smoke began to creep out from the air conditioner, slowly filling the room. The actors were instructed to ignore the smoke.

When the participants were with other people, only 10% left the room and asked for help. They also took twice the time of the particiapnts who were alone.

Decision Model of Helping by Lantané and Darley (1970)

The five stages are:

1. The bystander must notice the event.
1. or not notice
2. The bystander must define that situation as an emergency.
1. Or assume that as others are not acting, it is not an emergency.
3. The bystander must assess how personally responsible they feel.
1. Or assume that others will do this.
4. The bystander must decide how best to offer assistance.
1. Or not have the skills necessary to help.
5. The bystander must act on that decision.
1. Or worry about danger, legislation, embarrassment, etc.

EVALUATION OF THE DECISION MODEL OF HELPING

1. Clarifies the helping process
2. Presents a sequential structure
3. Practical application
4. Research support
5. Serves as a foundation for further research

strenghts

1. Oversimplified
1. Real Life emergencies are often more complex
2. Individual and cultural factors
3. Emphasis on rational decision-making

limitations

Aim

to investigate the effect of the type of victim (drunk or ill) and the ethnicity of the victim (black or white) on the speed and frequency of the response and the ethnicity of the responder

Piliavin et al (1969)

Research Team

A total of 103 trials were conducted over a period of 6 weeks in the subway line from Harlem to the Bronx between 11 a.m. and 3 p.m. on workdays. Demographics of the area were 55% white and 45% black commuters.

The research team consisted of four members: 1. The victim ( 3 white and 1 black victim dressed identically) 2. Model (the person that would help after a designated time. 3. Two observers to gather data.

Methods:

After 70 seconds into the journey, the victim would collapse and lay on his back, staring at the ceiling. Time Conditions: Condition 1: the model would wait 70 seconds Condition 2: the model would wait 150 seconds. Victim conditions: Condition 1: Drunk - smelling of alcohol and carrying a bottle in a brown paper bag. Condition 2: Injured - carrying a cane.

Results

Cane Condition: Victim received help in 62 out of 65 trials (before model help). 95%Drunk Condition: Victim received help in 19 out of the 38 trials. 50%Men were more likely to help than women. There was no difference between the help given to the white and black victims in this situation. The “drunk” black victim was the only one who was more likely to receive help from someone of his own ethnicity. In 60% of these cases the help was received from more than one person. In fact, once the first person had moved to help, two or three others often followed quite quickly. The longer the victim went without help, the more likely were travellers to move away from the area or to verbally justify their non-intervention.

Conclusion

Do these results support Darely and Latane's Diffusion of Responsibility?

Cost - Reward Model of Helping

1. Physiological Arousal
1. We experiment with emotions when we see someone in distress.
1. Fear, sympathy, etc.
2. It can be increased by empathy with the victim, closeness to the emergency, length of the emergency, etc.
3. It can be decreased by leaving the scene, deciding whether the person doesn't need help, finding other sources of help, etc.

2. Evaluating the consequences of helping

EVALUATION OF THE cost-reward model of helping

1. It provides a straightforward framework for understanding behavior.
2. Suggest the influence of intuitive factors on decision-making.
3. It can be adapted to account for individual and cultural differences.

strenghts

1. Oversimplification
1. Human behavior in emergencies is usually more complex.
2. The model focuses on self-interest and does not account for altruism and empathy.
3. It doesn't fully capture the ethical and moral dimensions of helping others.

limitations

Thanks!