Bystanderism

Bystander Effect

The phenomenon where people do not help others in an emergency situations simply because other people are present

Theory 1: Diffusion of Responsibility

when there are more people present, people are less likely to help

• Informational Social Influence: change in behavior when we assume someone more experienced or knowledgeable than you will act or say something instead of you

Theory 2: Arousal-Cost-Reward Model

arousal is required for helping behavior to occur

• arousal triggers a cost-benefit analysis where person weighs the pros and cons of helping in a situation

• if cons outweigh pros, person does not act

Darley & Latané (Diffusion of Responsibility)

Aim: to investigate whether the presence of bystanders reduces the likelihood of helping behavior in an emergency situation

Findings:

• 2-person group: 85% helped

• 3-person group: 62% helped

• 6-person group: 31%

• the more bystanders perceived to be present, the longer it took for participants to seek help

—>Supports Diffusion of Responsibility, displaying that the larger the group, the less individuals will take action as they assume someone else will

Strengths:

• controlled setting allows for extraneous variables to be controlled, allowing cause and effect relationship to be established

• highly replicable

Limitations:

• highly artificial setting limits ecological validity & mundane realism

• ethical considerations in consent, debriefing & undue stress

• sampling bias as all participants were uni students

Pilivian (Arousal-Cost-Reward Model)

Aim: to investigate how situational factors, such as group size and type of victim, influence helping behavior in an emergency situation

Findings:

• Ill victim w/ cane: received help 95% of the time

• Drunk victim: received help 50% of the time

• 90% of helpers were male

• Race played no role in helping behavior

• Group size did NOT result in diffusion of responsibility; instead, larger groups lead to faster helping times

—>Challenges diffusion of responsibility theory and supports arousal-cost-benefit model

• helping behavior is influenced by perceived costs or benefits rather than diffusion of responsibility

• people are less likely to help when perceived cost (ex: potential danger from drunk victim) is higher

Strengths:

• Conducted in naturalistic, real-life setting granting ecological validity & applicability to real life

• Use of opportunity sampling gives fair representation of broader population as many demographics participated

• Raw reaction sans demand characteristics due to covert nature

Limitations:

• Less control over extraneous variables due to naturalistic setting

• Measuring “time taken to help” as indicator of helping behavior may be an oversimplification

• EXTREME ethical considerations regarding informed consent, debriefing, undue stress

• Cultural differences may affect bystander behavior, meaning findings from one society may not be generalizable to other societies outside of the US