Latane and Darley (Pluralistic Ignorance)

Aim

To investigate whether individuals are less likely to report a dangerous situation when other people remain passive.

What happened to participants at the start of the procedure?

Participants sat in a waiting room completing a questionnaire.

What event occurred during the procedure?

Smoke began entering the room through a wall vent.

How were ppts observed?

Through a one-way mirror.

When would the experiment end?

If smoke wasn’t reported within 6 minutes.

What were the experimental conditions?

Three conditions: alone, with two passive confederates, or with two other real participants.

What were the results for the alone condition?

75% reported the smoke, average time 2 minutes.

What were the results for the two passive confederates condition?

10% reported the smoke, most participants ignored it.

What were the results for the two real participants condition?

38% reported the smoke.

What was the conclusion of the study?

In ambiguous situations, people rely on others’ reactions.

What are individuals less likely to do if others remain passive?

Intervene, demonstrating pluralistic ignorance.

Strength of Latané & Darley (P.E.E)

Point: High internal validity.

Evidence: Laboratory experiment with controlled smoke, timing, and participant conditions.

Explanation: Changes in helping behaviour can be confidently attributed to the presence and behaviour of others, supporting the link between pluralistic ignorance and the bystander effect.

Weakness of Latané & Darley (P.E.E)

Point: Low ecological validity.

Evidence: Artificial lab setting with smoke while completing a questionnaire.

Explanation: Participants may have behaved differently in real emergencies, so findings may not fully reflect real-life helping behaviour.