By-standerism 3.1 Social responsibility

By-standerism

The more people present, the less the need to take action

3 contributing factors

1) Diffusion of responsibility

2) Interpretation ambiguity

3) Evaluation Apprehension

Diffusion of responsibility

The assumption that someone else will do something and others are more capable, therefor you don't need to take action

Interpretation ambiguity

A chain reaction where individuals misinterpret others' inactivity as an informed decision. Attributions made about the victim's responsibility over behaviour contribute.

Evaluation apprehension

Fear of others viewing one's reaction negatively. Desire to avoid the cost of social disapproval can inhibit or assist action.

Role of groups

Bystanders silently form a group and everyone conforms. Once someone helps, a new group is formed. A victim being a part of the right group increases chances of help.

Darley and Latane (1968) Aim

To investigate why people fail to intervene in an emergency situation when there are many bystanders present.

Darley and Latane 1968 Research method

Lab experiment

Darley and Latane 1968 Participants

American university students

Darley and Latane 1968 Procedure

Participants were interviewed over an intercom. They were told there were either five participants, two, or that they were the only participant. All comments from other group members were pre-recorded. One of the voices cried out for help and made sounds of severe choking, as if the person was having an epileptic seizure.

Darley and Latane 1968 Findings

Only participant - 85% helped

One other person - 65%

Four other people - 31%

Darley and Latane 1968 Conclusion

Believing somebody else will intervene lowers the probability of a person taking responsibility. Many bystanders create a diffusion of responsibility.

Darely and Latane 1968 Strengths

- Casual relationship established

- Carefully controlled, minimising confounding variables

- High ecological validity

Darley and Latane 1968 Limitations

- Ethical concerns

- Only involved americans, not generalisable

Darley and Batson 1973 Strengths

- Increased ecological validity

- High internal validity

Darley and Batson 1973 Limitations

Ethical considerations (deception) - can be justified

Arousal Cost Reward Model

Piliavin proposed the perception of us as a good person is an incentive to help. Helping behavior is an egoistic motivation to alleviate the unpleasant emotional arousal experienced when observing someone in need

Piliavin et al (1969) Aim

To study how various situational factors may influence prosocial behavior

Piliavin et al 1969 research method

field study

Piliavin et al 1969 participants

Opportunity sample of New York subway travellers

Piliavin et al 1969 procedure

Participants would witness either a man with a cane who appeared ill or a man who appeared drunk fall to the floor of the subway car. "Victims" were dressed and acted identically. They collapsed to the floor 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 researchers recorded the data, gathering both quantitative and qualitative data.

Piliavin et al 1969 Findings

78% of the time, someone helped spontaneously. 60% of the time that someone helped, more than one helper was involved.

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. It was found that 90% of helpers were male.

There were more comments made about the incident the longer that the victim waited for help - and there were more comments made when they thought the victim was drunk.

Most importantly, diffusion of responsibility was not observed. In fact, the researchers found just the opposite - the larger the group, the quicker the help.

Piliavin 1969 Conclusion

People help others based on a cost-reward calculation, not solely out of altruism

Piliavin 1969 Strengths

High ecological validity

Piliavin 1969 Limitations

- Low internal validity

- Americans, limited generalisability

- Ethical concerns (Lack of consent and debrief)