Discuss Factors that Contribute to Bystanderism ERQ

INTRODUCTION - Factors Contributing to Bystanderism

Bystanderism refers to the phenomenon where individuals are less likely to help in an emergency when others are present. Psychological explanations suggest that helping behaviour is influenced by cognitive and social processes such as diffusion of responsibility, evaluation apprehension and pluralistic ignorance. Research by Latané & Darley and Piliavin et al. provides insight into these mechanisms.

Definition - Diffusion of Responsibility

Diffusion of responsibility occurs when the obligation to help is shared among multiple bystanders, reducing the likelihood that any one individual will intervene. Responsibility, blame and moral obligation are perceived as distributed across the group.

Definition - Evaluation Apprehension

Evaluation apprehension refers to the fear of being judged negatively by others when acting publicly. Bystanders may avoid helping due to fear of embarrassment, offering inappropriate assistance, or being outperformed by a more competent helper.

Definition - Pluralistic Ignorance

Pluralistic ignorance occurs when individuals rely on others' reactions to interpret an ambiguous situation. If others appear calm, individuals assume the situation is not an emergency, even if they personally feel concerned.

Latané & Darley (1970) - Five Stage Model

Latané & Darley proposed that helping depends on five stages, with a "no" at any stage results in no helping behaviour:

1. Noticing the event

2. Interpreting it as an emergency

3. Accepting personal responsibility

4. Knowing how to help

5. Implementing the decision to help.

Latané & Darley (1968) - Aim

To investigate the bystander effect and test diffusion of responsibility as an explanation for bystanderism.

Latané & Darley (1968) - Participants

72 New York University students (59 female, 13 male) from an introductory psychology course.

Latané & Darley (1968) - Procedure

Participants believed they were taking part in a discussion via intercom. During the session, a confederate appeared to have a seizure. Participants were placed in three conditions: alone, 3-person group, or 6-person group. The dependent variable was the time taken to report the seizure.

Latané & Darley (1968) - Results

• 85% helped in the alone condition

• 62% in the 3-person condition

• 31% in the 6-person condition.

(By the time that the victim got cut off)

• 100% helped in alone condition by 6 minutes, 62% in 6-person condition

• Helping decreased as perceived group size increased.

Latané & Darley (1968) - Conclusion

Diffusion of responsibility explains bystanderism: individuals are less likely to help when they believe others are present who could intervene.

Latané & Darley (1968) - Strengths

Well-controlled experiment with clear manipulation of group size. Supports diffusion of responsibility hypothesis. Participants showed genuine distress, suggesting realistic reactions and some external validity.

Latané & Darley (1968) - Weaknesses

Ethical concerns including deception and psychological distress. Artificial lab setting lowers ecological validity. Possible demand characteristics. Study would not be replicable today due to ethical standards.

Piliavin et al. (1969) - Aim

To investigate bystander behaviour in a real-life setting and the effect of victim type.

Piliavin et al. (1969) - Participants

Approximately 4,450 passengers on the New York subway between Harlem and the Bronx.

Piliavin et al. (1969) - Procedure

A male confederate collapsed on a subway train (either appearing drunk or ill with a cane). Trials varied by victim race (Black or White) and whether a model intervened early, late, or not at all. Observers recorded helping behaviour across 103 trials.

Piliavin et al. (1969) - Results

• Ill victims received help in 95% of trials

• Drunk victims in 50%

• No model help: all conditions 100% except for black and drunj

• Larger groups did not reduce helping; often multiple people helped.

• Once one person had started helping, others joined

Piliavin et al. (1969) - Conclusion

Diffusion of responsibility was not supported in real-life settings. Instead, helping behaviour may be influenced by cost-benefit analysis, victim characteristics, and situational factors.

Piliavin et al. (1969) - Strengths

High ecological validity due to natural field setting. Large sample increases reliability. Combination of quantitative and qualitative data provides rich insight. Challenges laboratory findings, broadening understanding of bystanderism.

Piliavin et al. (1969) - Weaknesses

Extraneous variables (mood, prior exposure) were uncontrolled. Ethical issues including lack of consent, deception and no right to withdraw. Some passengers may have had obstructed views, affecting data accuracy.

Holistic Discussion - Diffusion of Responsibility

Evidence from Latané & Darley supports diffusion of responsibility in controlled settings. However, Piliavin's field study challenges its universality, suggesting DOR may be more prominent in lab environments than real-life emergencies.

Holistic Discussion - Role of Situation and Context

Bystander behaviour appears highly context-dependent. In the subway study, the "no escape" environment increased helping due to heightened personal cost of inaction. This suggests situational pressures may override diffusion effects.

Holistic Discussion - Evaluation Apprehension and Competence

Fear of negative judgement may inhibit helping, particularly in ambiguous or medical emergencies where individuals doubt their competence. Larger groups may intensify evaluation apprehension.

Holistic Discussion - Pluralistic Ignorance

In ambiguous situations, individuals look to others for cues. If everyone appears calm, no one acts. This process helps explain why bystanders may fail at the interpretation stage of the five-stage model.

Holistic Discussion - Victim Characteristics

Piliavin demonstrated that victim type influences helping behaviour. Ill victims received significantly more help than drunk victims, suggesting moral judgement and perceived responsibility affect intervention.

Holistic Discussion - Methodological Contrast

Latané & Darley used a laboratory experiment with controlled manipulation of group size, increasing internal validity. Piliavin used a field experiment with higher ecological validity but less control over variables. This contrast highlights the importance of research design in understanding bystanderism.

Holistic Discussion - Integrated Explanation

Bystanderism is best understood as multi-factorial. Diffusion of responsibility, evaluation apprehension and pluralistic ignorance operate alongside situational cost-benefit analysis and victim characteristics. No single factor fully explains helping behaviour; instead, context, cognition and social influence interact.

Both studies took place in Western contexts, may be different for collectivist societies