PSYCH 204 – Lecture 1: Introduction to Social Psychology & The Bystander Effect

Course: PSYCH 204 – Social Psychology (Semester 2, University of Auckland)
First lecturer: Dr Brian Donn
• NOT the course coordinator
• Course coordinator: Prof Chris Sibley
• Head tutor: Eden Clark
Multiple lecturers across the semester:
• Brian Donn (attraction, intimacy, self-expansion)
• Chris Sibley
• Eden Clark
• Nicola Overall (later stages of close relationships)
• Shiloh — further social-psych topics
Brian’s class “ground rules”:
• Active participation encouraged (peer discussion, lecturer roaming)
• Technology welcome if non-distracting
• Respectful environment & punctuality requested

Purpose: Begin with substantive content before “boring admin.”
Activity: Watch BBC-style video demonstrating Bystander Apathy in London’s Liverpool Street Station.

Victim characteristics: gender, apparent social status (clothing), respectability (e.g., suit vs. shabby clothes)
Number & behavior of bystanders:
• Presence of crowd → diffusion of responsibility
• First helper breaks the norm → others join rapidly
Group norms (implicit rules):
• “Don’t get involved” vs. “Help is appropriate”
Perceived risk / inconvenience for helper
Identification with the victim (shared group membership)

Helping increased when:
• Victim looked high-status / “ingroup”
• Another person helped first (social proof)
• Bystander personally identified with victim
Helping decreased when:
• Crowd remained passive
• Victim looked lower status or “out-group”
• Personal cost or time pressure perceived high

Students should be able to:

Define social psychology and specify its unique focus.
Distinguish social psychology from related disciplines (sociology, clinical psychology, etc.).
Explain why scientific inquiry is needed beyond “common sense.”
Illustrate how situational factors shape cognition, affect, and behaviour (e.g., bystander effect, audience-reaction study, belonging intervention).

Standard definition: Scientific study of how people think, feel, and behave as influenced by the actual, imagined, or implied presence of others.
• “Think” → cognitions
• “Feel” → emotions/affect
• “Behave” → observable actions
Presence of others can be:
• Real (people physically there)
• Imagined (parents, peers in mind)
• Implied (norms, surveillance cameras)

Emphasises systematic manipulation, observation, and measurement.
Example: Bystander effect study
• Manipulate: victim dress, audience size
• Measure: latency to help, proportion who help
Rejects intuitive “arm-chair” explanations; seeks testable hypotheses and replicable data.

Debate: Reagan vs Mondale; participants watched edited versions.
Three conditions:
1. Unedited (jokes + audience laughter)
2. Jokes intact, laughter removed
3. Jokes & laughter removed
DV: Rating of Reagan’s likeability/competence.
Result pattern:
• Jokes w/o laughter → sharp drop in evaluations (“crickets” effect)
• Removing both jokes & laughter ≈ control
• Social perception highly contingent on others’ visible reactions.
Concept: Social proof – we use group response as cue to interpret ambiguous behaviour (e.g., humour).

Issue: Under-representation of women in STEM; hypothesised “chilly climate.”
Participants: First-year engineering students (Canada).
Intervention: Activities fostering reaffirmation, resilience, and explicit message “You belong here.”
Outcome measures: First-year GPA (0–100), self-esteem, coping.
Findings (GPA example):
• Men: M{intervention} \approx M{control} (already felt belonging)
• Women: M{intervention} > M{control} (statistically significant boost)
Interpretation: Social context (belonging cues) significantly impacts academic performance, especially for stereotyped groups.
Practical implication: If lack of belonging is part of the problem, creating belonging can be a scalable solution (tutorial design, mentoring, visible diversity).

WEIRD = Western, Educated, Industrialised, Rich, Democratic.
Majority of social-psych findings derive from WEIRD samples → limited generalisability.
Cultural variation affects: cognition, emotion, numerical reasoning, values, resource allocation, etc.
Necessity: Conduct cross-cultural replications & culturally grounded theory development.

Sociology:
• Primary unit = groups / institutions / social structures
• E.g., national crime rates, religious institution effects.
Social Psychology:
• Primary unit = individual within social context
• E.g., situational triggers of a person’s aggression.
Same topic (aggression) but different levels of analysis.

Clinical: Diagnosing & treating psychopathology (depression, anxiety, etc.).
Social: Universal processes (emotion, persuasion, prejudice) in non-clinical populations.
Intersection: Social processes (e.g., rejection, belonging) can inform clinical phenomena (e.g., depression).

Helping research challenges assumption “safety in numbers.” → informs public campaigns, first-aid training.
Belonging interventions address gender & minority inequity in education and workforce → economic & ethical stakes.
Audience-reaction effects reveal media editing power → ethical considerations for political communication.
Recognition of WEIRD bias pushes the field toward more equitable, inclusive science.

Builds on PSYCH 108 introductions to diffusion of responsibility & conformity.
Links to developmental attachment theories (imagined presence of caregivers).
Resonates with real-world events (e.g., social media “likes” shaping perception, university diversity initiatives).

At each lecture start: copy Learning Outcomes → focus study.
Readings: Selected empirical articles tied directly to lecture content; use after class to reinforce material.
Tutorials: Engage actively; create peer networks (supports belonging + grades).
Expect periodic in-class discussions; participation is part of the pedagogical design.

End of Lecture 1 Notes