Social Approach
studies altruism and bystander effect/diffusion of responsibility, which are both social principles
bystander effect / diffusion of responsibility
(psychology)
as the group size increases, the amount of helping behavior decreases
plural ignorance
(psychology)
the tendency for people in a group to mislead each other about an emergency situation
Kitty Genovese - 1964
(background)
murdered in 1964 while 38 witnesses stood by and did nothing, despite her crying for help and the attack lasting for 35 minutes
Darley and Latané - 1968
(background)
conducted 3 different experiments to test helping behavior: lady in distress, epileptic seizure, and smoke-filled room
Piliavin - 1969
(background)
believes that Darley and Latane’s study left out a critical piece - danger, because participants assume that no one would be permanently harmed in a lab setting
Aim
to study bystander behavior / diffusion of responsibility in the real world where you have a clear view of the victim
Hypothesis #1
The larger the group, the less likely it is that help will be given
Hypothesis #2
Seeing one person help would encourage others to help
Hypothesis #3
A drunk person will receive less help than an ill person
Hypothesis #4
People would help people that are of the same race
IV #1
victim conditions:
drunk or ill
Black or White
IV #2
model conditions:
critical or adjacent
IV #3
number of bystanders
DV
helping behavior (picking the person up)
number of people who picked up victim
speed of helping
race, sex, and location of helpers
Method
Field study conducted between April 15th and June 26th, 1968 (more subway riders due to better weather), at 11 am to 3 pm on weekdays (avoids rush hour traffic and drinking early on weekends is common in NYC)
2 subway cars; Car A is Critical, Car B is Adjacent
Train journey is 7.5 minutes and makes no stops between 59th and 125th Street
Data is collected as a naturalistic structured observation
Independent measures - participants can only watch the fall once otherwise they may get suspicious
Apparatus
2 subway “cars”, each with 13 seats
All victims, regardless of condition, will be wearing an Eisenhower jacket, old slacks, and no tie
Drunk victims will have an alcohol bottle disguised by brown paper bag and will smell of alcohol
Ill victims will have a cane
Participants
4,450 men and women obtained via opportunity sample from subway in New York City; all unaware they were part of an experiment; 45% Black and 55% White; average of 43 people per trip and average of 8 people immediately critical
Experimenters
all are graduates at Columbia University, likely receiving some sort of credit ; teams of 4 (model, victim, 2 observers) that don’t change to keep teamwork and cohesion between the members
Victims
4 males, 3 White and 1 Black, aged 26 to 35 years
Models
4 white males aged 26 to 29 years modeling helping behavior
Observers
8 females (chosen because women blend in and men were the ones expected to help)
Control #1
The same 7.5 minute journey is used every time
Control #2
The victim will always fall at the same location at the same time
Control #3
The victim will always be wearing the same thing
Control #4
The observers will always sit in the same spots
Step 1
(procedure)
All 4 members of the team enter the subway and assume their positions
Step 2
(procedure)
When the train leaves the station, 70 seconds later, the victim staggers and falls onto their back, staring at the ceiling
Step 3
(procedure)
In the critical car, if no one helps the victim, the model will either help after 70 seconds (early) or after 150 seconds (late). In the adjacent car, the same occurs
Step 4
(procedure)
Observer 1 records the sex, location, and race of all passengers, total number of passengers, how many people are sitting/standing, and number of people that went to help in the Critical Car
Step 5
(procedure)
Observer 2 will get the same demographics as Observer 1 but for the Adjacent Car, plus the time it takes the first helper to help (not the model)
Step 6
(procedure)
There will be 103 total trials, about 6 to 8 each day
quantitative data
frequency of helping (speed and number of helpers)
demographics (race and sex)
qualitative data
verbal comments of passengers
spontaneous help
help occurred before model interference
Finding #1
The ill victim received spontaneous help on 62/65 trials, and the drunk victim received it in 19/38 trials. The median time that the ill victim was helped in was 5 seconds, and 109 seconds for the drunk victim
When it comes to helping, the reason why you need help is taken into consideration. If it’s your fault you need help (high responsibility), you’re less likely to receive help, and if it’s not your fault (low responsibility), you’re more likely to receive help
Finding #2
Spontaneous help occurred in 81 trials, and in 61% of those, more than 1 person helped the victim. There was no difference between race and drunk or ill. 78% of spontaneous helpers were facing the victim
Once first help happens, more people are willing to help. If you see the situation happen in front of you, it’s easier to provide assistance spontaneously
Finding #3
60% of first helpers were in the critical area and were male. Of all people helping, 90% were male, and 64% of the first helpers were white
Based on the racial composition of the subway cars, the difference of white and black helpers is insignificant
Finding #4
When the victim was white, 68% of first helpers were white and 32% were black. When the victim was black, the races of helpers were 50% white and 50% black.
There’s a slight tendency toward same race helping
Finding #5
In the ill condition, there was no difference between black and white helpers. In the drunk condition, same-race helping was more prevalent
When it comes to same race helping, the condition of the victim made a difference
Finding #6
Out of all those trials, 34 people left the critical area when the victim fell. Most people left and more comments were made when the victim was drunk
Help in the ill condition occurred quickly and there wasn’t time for passengers to make comments, and in the drunk condition, passengers made comments to justify not helping
Finding #7
In a train car full of people, when one person helped, more people came and helped
The bystander effect/diffusion of responsibility was disproven
Conclusion #1
The ill victim is more likely to get help than the drunk victim
Conclusion #2
When your audience is mixed gender, it is more likely that men will help
Conclusion #3
Same-race helping is more likely to happen when responsibility is high than low
Conclusion #4
There is no strong relationship between number of people and speed of helping
Conclusion #5
The longer the emergency occurs without help, the less of an impact the model has, and the more likely they are to leave the area
Emergency Situations - Arousal
when an emergency situation occurs in front of someone, it creates an internal state of arousal of fear/panic, sympathy, or empathy
the closer to and longer the emergency, the bigger the arousal
Emergency Situations - Cost Reward Matrix
helping someone could mean putting yourself in danger, but you would receive approval (i.e. “thank you”) as a reward
not helping someone could create a sense of guilt, but you would enjoy the comfort of safety
Ethics
Confidentiality was maintained. Informed consent was not obtained, and participants were deceived in the use of the stooge. Debriefing did not occur, and protection from harm was violated in that passengers may have been distressed by watching someone collapse
Strength #1
The use of a field study increases ecological validity
Strength #2
The task of helping someone, who fell down has high mundane realism
Strength #3
The collection of both quantitative and qualitative data allows for statistical comparison and explanation behind the findings
Strength #4
Demand characteristics could not have interfered with participants/ behavior
Strength #5
The sample is diverse and very large, allowing for generalization
Weakness #1
The use of independent measures brings about participant variables such as personality
Weakness #2
Because the observers were observing different things, there is no inter-scorer reliability
Individual v. Situational
(issues & debates)
The responsibility of the victim and the environment support situational, and personality of the participant supports individual
Application
(issues & debates)
to educate children about breaking stereotypes and to help in different ways
to educate people on bystander effect
to teach people to prevent emergency situations by saying something when they see something