IB Docs (2) Team
Factors influencing bystanderism
Research into prosocial behaviour began after an incident in 1964 when a young woman named Kitty Genovese was stabbed to death by a serial rapist and murderer. The murder took place over a period of about half an hour, during which the victim was screaming for help. The press reported that 38 of her neighbours watched from their windows as she attempted to escape her murderer, and they did not even call the police to assist her. How could this happen? The US researchers Latané and Darley carried out a number of experiments in order to find an answer.
Latané and Darley suggested a term for not helping someone in need of help: bystanderism. They suggested that the reason for not helping Kitty Genovese was that the witnesses assumed that others were watching the incident, so they thought that other people would call for help. The presence of others seems to determine whether or not people will intervene. It appears that the presence of others has a significant effect on whether we choose to help or not.
Myths about the case of Kitty Genovese
The case of Kitty Genovese played an important role in sparking research into what is now known as the Bystander Effect. However, there is a lot of misinformation about this famous case.
Manning, Levine & Collins (2007) called the Kitty Genovese murder the "Parable of the 38 Witnesses" - that is, it is just a story that teaches a lesson, but it is not based on the truth of what really happened.
Using archival information from the trial, the researchers drew the following conclusions.
1. There weren't 38 witnesses. There is no list of those 38 witnesses, but instead, the assistant district attorney said that there were only about six witnesses whose testimony they could use.
2. Those who did see the attack did not watch the whole thing happen. They saw specific events in the attack, but no one "watched the entire murder for 30 minutes and did not bother to intervene."
3. Finally, it is a myth that "no one helped." First, there was a neighbour, Robert Mozer, who yelled from his window for the attacker to "leave that girl alone!" It was after this that the murderer fled and Kitty tried to get back to her apartment. In addition, there were several people who claimed that they called the police - but this was never verified. Finally, one of the people who lived in the apartment complex where Kitty would eventually die in the stairwell, a woman named Sophie Farrar, called the police and went to sit by Kitty's side as she lay dying. She did this without knowing if the killer would come back and, therefore, jeopardized her own life.
Thinking critically
Why do you think that in spite of the fact that this information is available, introductory psychology texts still tell the story in a way that makes it look like no one helped, but instead watched such a terrible murder?
Teacher only boxThere are a few potential responses to this. First, everyone loves a good story. The story of Kitty Genovese is really a classic in psychology - and it has now been retold for over a generation.
People who are not specialists do not go back and read the original studies. This means that they are influenced both by news media and textbooks. Kitty's story is often part of introductory psychology courses. In most general psychology textbooks. the rather distorted version of the story is what we read. The authors confirm what they already personally know (assuming they are not specialists in prosocial behaviour) and so simply retell the false narrative.
It has always been interesting to me that the story of Sophie Farrar is not seen in psychology textbooks. Knowing how brutal this killer was - and that he could easily have come back for the body - she really put her life in jeopardy by attending to Kitty. Her story is one of heroism, but the focus of textbooks remains on how unlikely people are to help....
ATL: Reflection
Write a reflection about a time when you were a bystander. Describe what happened.
Then write a reflection about a time when you were an "upstander" - that is, a time that you helped someone in need.
Why do you think that you made the choices that you did? Do you think that you can attribute your willingness to help or just stand by simply to the power of the situation?
The role of other people
When several people watch an incident like the Kitty Genovese murder, they seem to reason that somebody else can, should, and probably will offer assistance. This is known as the diffusion of responsibility. This could explain why people are generally more likely to help when they are the only person available to offer assistance. Darley and Latane (1968) did a laboratory experiment in which they told student participants that they were going to be interviewed about the kind of personal problems faced by students when they first move to university. They were told that in order to preserve anonymity they would be interviewed over an intercom. Some of the students were told there were five other people in the discussion group; some were told that there were only two other students, and some were told that there was only one other student taking part in the study. All the comments they heard from other group members were actually pre-recorded. At a certain point, one of the voices cried for help and made sounds of severe choking, as if the person was having an epileptic seizure. When the students thought they were the only person there, 85 per cent rushed to help. When they thought there was one other person, this dropped to 65 per cent. And when they thought there were four other people, the figure dropped again, to 31 per cent. This study shows that believing somebody else will intervene lowers the probability of a person taking responsibility.
ATL: Think critically
When we evaluate research, we discuss the methodological and ethical considerations of a study.
Answer the following questions with reference to Darley & Latané (1968)
1. Explain why it is considered an experiment.
2. The study is considered to be artificial. To what extent do you think that this experiment represents what would happen in a real-life situation? On a scale of 1 - 10, with 10 being the most artificial, how would you rank the artificiality of this study?
3. How might the sample affect the results of the study?
4. What ethical concerns do you have about the way that the experiment was conducted?
Teacher only box1. Explain why it is considered an experiment.
There were three distinct conditions: Participants were told that they were one of five, three, or two people in a discussion group. This condition (the IV) was manipulated by the researcher and the participants were randomly allocated to conditions. The study was also highly controlled to prevent the influence of confounding variables - e.g. they did not see each other, so the physical appearance of the individuals in the group would have no influence on their decision to help.
2. The study is considered to be artificial. To what extent do you think that this experiment represents what would happen in a real-life situation? On a scale of 1 - 10, with 10 being the most artificial, how would you rank the artificiality of this study?
The study is highly controlled and there is a manipulation of the knowledge of how many other people are in the experiment. However, the idea that you would hear someone yelling for help is not so far-fetched. Hearing someone on the street yelling out that they need help - and then choosing to respond or not - may be influenced by whether you think that someone would be closer, more competent, or better understands the situation.
3. How might the sample affect the results of the study?
The study was made up of students. It could be argued that they were more likely to help because they knew that they were in a study with their professor and did not want to look bad. It could be argued that they are young and do not have a lot of life experience and so were less likely to help. Answers from students will vary.
4. What ethical concerns do you have about the way that the experiment was conducted?
Students can easily apply CARDUD to this experiment. Consent was obtained but they were not informed of the true nature of the experiment. They were deceived by commission. They were also filmed, so anonymity is a concern. They could theoretically have withdrawn from the study, but the nature of the study made this unrealistic. There was clear stress caused by the experience - and there may have been self-doubt after the experiment. Debriefing would have been very important - and ideally, a follow-up with the student participants at a later time.
When in a group, people often look to others to know how to react - this is called informational social influence. If people see that others do not react to what seems to be an emergency, then they will not react either - even though there may be a problem like in the Kitty Genovese case. This is termed pluralistic ignorance. This was tested by Latané and Rodin (1969). They asked participants to sit in a waiting room before participating in an experiment. Here the participants heard the female experimenter fall and cry out in the next room. The participants reacted more often and more quickly when they were alone than when they were sitting with a confederate who showed no reaction to the noise and did not offer assistance. The researchers concluded that in order for people to help, they need to understand clearly that help is needed. During post-experimental interviews, the participants revealed that they had felt anxious when they heard the experimenter fall, but since the others in the waiting room appeared calm, they concluded that there was no emergency. Actually, participants were experiencing a conflict between two social rules: "You must help somebody in need" and "You should do what everybody does.” Since often when an emergency happens there is some confusion as to what is actually happening, we look to others to figure out what is the most appropriate response.
The arousal–cost–reward model of pro-social behaviour
Psychologists argue that when it comes to deciding whether to help or not, we tend to weigh the costs (for example, humiliation, pain, financial loss) against the benefits (for example, financial reward, esteem, affection, avoidance of failure or humiliation). This is the basis for social exchange theory, which claims that human relationships are based on a subjective cost-benefit analysis - that is, it is rational. We are more likely to help when we feel that the benefits of helping outweigh the potential costs.
Piliavin and his colleagues have proposed the more complex arousal–cost–reward model (1969). The model says that arousal is a motivational factor because it is unpleasant and the bystander is motivated to reduce it. However, before helping, the individual will assess possible costs and rewards associated with helping, or not helping. This approach is linked to the basic assumptions that prosocial behaviour is motivated by cognitions and emotions as we saw above.
Key studies in psychology: Piliavin et al. (1969)
Piliavin et al. carried out a field experiment in order to study how various situational factors may influence prosocial behaviour. They chose a field experiment rather than a laboratory experiment to guarantee a higher rate of ecological validity.
The participants in the study were an opportunity sample of New York subway travellers who were observed between 11 a.m. and 3 p.m. While they were on a non-stop 7.5 minute journey between stations, they would witness one of two scenarios: either a man with a cane who appeared ill or a man who appeared drunk would fall to the floor of the subway car.
The “victims” were men, aged 25–35, who were dressed and acted identically. They collapsed to the floor 70 seconds after the train left the station and remained on the floor until they were helped. A “model-helper” was instructed to help after 70 seconds if no one else offered assistance.
Two female researchers recorded the data. The independent variables were the type of victim (drunk or ill) and the size of the group. The researchers measured the following dependent variables: frequency of help, the speed of help, sex of helper, movement away from the victim, and verbal comments. In other words, they gathered both quantitative and qualitative data.
There were 103 trials, and of these, 38 involved a drunk victim who smelled of alcohol and carried a bottle in a bag, while the remaining 65 trials involved a sober victim with a cane.
Overall, 78 per cent of the time, someone helped spontaneously; this occurred in 62 of the 65 trials where the victim had a cane and 19 of the 38 trials where the victim was “drunk.” 60 per cent of the time that someone helped, more than one helper was involved.
The median response time for helping the man with the cane was 5 seconds; for the drunk victim, there was a median response time of 109 seconds. Overall, it took people longer to assist the drunk person in need of help than the ill man. It appears that it took people longer to consider the costs and benefits when the man who fell was drunk than when he was ill and had a cane. It was found that 90% of helpers were male. Although there were more men present, this percentage was statistically significant.
Most importantly, diffusion of responsibility was not observed. In fact, the researchers found just the opposite - the larger the group, the quicker the help.
The study has high ecological validity because it was carried out in the field - that is, in a real-life situation. The researchers also obtained a lot of detailed data. However, a field experiment is always less controlled than a laboratory experiment. Finally, although the procedure was highly standardized, it is questionable how some of the dependent variables were measured accurately.
Piliavin et al. argue that observation of an emergency situation always creates emotional arousal in bystanders. This arousal may be perceived as fear, disgust or sympathy, depending on the situation. Arousal can be increased by a number of factors, including empathy with the victim, proximity to the emergency, and the length of time the emergency continues. Arousal can be reduced by a number of factors, including helping, seeking help from another source, leaving the scene or deciding the person does not need or deserve help.
According to this model, we are motivated to help people not by altruism, but as a way of reducing unpleasant feelings of arousal, which is in line with negative-state relief model suggested by Cialdini et al. According to Piliavin the chosen response depends on a cost-reward analysis by the individual.
According to Piliavin, the results of their field experiment in the New York subway can be explained using their arousal–cost–reward model as follows:
● The drunk is helped less often because the perceived cost is greater - helping a drunk is likely to cause disgust, embarrassment or harm. The cost of not helping is less because nobody will blame someone for not helping a drunk, because a drunk person is perceived as partly responsible for his own victimization.
● Diffusion of responsibility is not found in the cane-carrying situation because the cost of not helping is high and the cost of helping is low.
Latané (1981) proposed the Law of Social Impact which posits that helping is the result of SIN - that is, the strength of the situation, the immediacy of the person needing help and the number of people involved. The strength of the situation influences whether we help. I need to decide if I have the knowledge and skill necessary to help and whether the situation is a threat to my own safety. The immediacy of the situation is either physical - how close the person in need of help is to me - or temporal, how much time is left to help or even save the individual. For example, I am more likely to lend money to a friend who will be thrown out of his apartment if he does not have money for rent by this Friday, then I am to help if I know that he is worried that he won't have enough money by the end of the year. And finally, as we already know about diffusion of responsibility, the more people that there are, the less likely an individual is to help.
The role of sociocultural factors in pro-social behaviour
Social norms may play either a positive or negative role in the likelihood of an individual to help. Studies of heroic helpers - such as committed civil-rights workers in the segregated Southern US in the 1960s, or Christians who sheltered Jews from the Nazis during the Third Reich - have found that they often identify strongly with a parent who exemplified norms of concern for others (Oliner and Oliner, 1988).
Cross-cultural research on pro-social behaviour has shown that culture plays a role in one’s likelihood to help in some situations. For example, the family structure seems to influence the likelihood of helping. Whiting and Whiting (1975) reported data on nurturing and helping behaviour by children aged 3 - 11 in six countries. They found considerable differences in the level of helping displayed by children from these countries. Kenyan, Mexican and Filipino children scored high, while US children scored the lowest. Cross-cultural differences in pro-social behaviour were correlated with the children’s involvement in the responsibilities of family life. Helping was least likely in communities where the children were seldom assigned responsibilities for family farming or household chores. It appears that pro-social behaviour can be learned in an environment that both models the behaviour and has social norms that expect all members of the group to contribute to the common good.
CAS: The problem of domestic violence
Social norms, however, can also be problematic. The norm of family privacy can make people reluctant to intervene in what they see as a “family affair”. To test this, Shotland and Straw (1976) did a field experiment where they staged an attack by a man on a woman in front of male and female bystanders. Half the bystanders heard the victim say, “I don’t know you!” while the other half heard, “I don’t know why I ever married you!” Sixty-five per cent of the bystanders tried to prevent the stranger’s assault, while only 19 per cent intervened when they thought it was a marital dispute.
In another series of experiments, the researchers had 126 male and 98 female undergraduates watch a film in which a man and a woman have a fight. When the participants were told that the man and woman were strangers, rather than a married couple, they were more likely to say that the situation was more damaging for the woman and that the woman was in need of help.
What does this tell us about the role of social norms in bystanderism?
Do some research on domestic violence in your country or state. Find out which organizations are available to help people in families where domestic violence happens. As a potential CAS project, consider visiting the center or informing your school community about the services that are available and how your community can help to support these services.
Teacher only boxThe goal of this activity is to get students to learn about one of the most common forms of violence and why it is difficult to help. If you are looking to go even deeper into this topic, you may want to consider the following lesson plan.
It also seems that social identity theory could explain how we determine whether to help someone or not. We tend to provide more help to those whom we perceive to be similar to ourselves - that is, a member of our in-group. To test this, Levine et al (2005) studied football fans. In their study, they had an injured stranger either wearing an in-group sports jersey or an out-group sports jersey. They found that the football fans were more likely to help the in-group stranger. But is it that simple?
Duclos and Barasch (2014) argue that Social Identity Theory plays a stronger role when our group membership is made more salient - that is, when we become more aware that we belong to a particular group. In one of their studies, they used white Americans. In the first part of the experiment, the participants were primed to either think about their own sense of independence (individualism) or their relationships and interdependence on others in their own group (collectivism). After this, the participants were given an amount of money and then shown the stories of survivors of a tornado disaster. Half of the victims were black; half were white. Interestingly, when the sense of independence was primed, participants donated equivalently to in-group and out-group victims; however, when they were primed to think about their own in-group, the participants donated more to white victims than to black victims. Simply being a member of an in-group is not enough to result in helping behaviour.
Checking for understanding
According to Latané's Law of Social Impact, which of the following is not a factor in determining one's likelihood of helping?
Latané and Rodin's (1969) study in which people didn't help if there was a confederate who did not seem concerned when hearing the cries for help from another room demonstrates the power of
Which of the following is not true about Pilivian's (1969) study on the New York subway (metro)?
According to Whiting and Whiting's research, which factor may play a role in whether someone is a bystander?
According to Duclos & Barasch's (2014) study, a collectivistic culture
Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn