IB Psychology HL - Relationships - Examine Factors Influencing Bystanderism

phenomenon of a person not intervening despite being aware of another person’s need
i.e. the phenomenon of remaining a bystander

Latané and Darley (1968):

• diffusion of responsibility

• pluralistic ignorance

• evaluation apprehension

Pilliavin et al. (1969):
- potential costs and benefits of helping

• similarity

Levine et al. (2001):
- culture

Latané and Darley (1968) theorized that 3 factors were responsible for bystanderism:
- diffusion of responsibility: responsibility is diff††used when
more bystanders are present, reducing the psychological costs of† not intervening
- pluralistic ignorance: ambiguity of the situation leads to people emulating the behaviour of other bystanders
- evaluation apprehension: fear of social blunders – what if they misunderstood the situation – thereby preventing the bystanders from reacting

main study: Latané and Darley (1968)

• deceived university students into thinking they were participating in research about personal problems experienced by students

• one by one, each was led to one of many small rooms in a corridor and given instructions on how to use the microphone and headphones awaiting them

• they were told that other anonymous participants were being kept in separate rooms and that the researcher was not listening

• they were told to disclose problems in turn and take turns to comment on what had already been said

• but in fact, the voices the participant would hear were pre-recorded – there were no other people present

• the first voice mentioned that he experienced seizures sometimes, particularly when stressed

• other voices disclosed various irrelevant problems, with the real participant speaking last

• the first voice returned to comment and began to experience a seizure

• researchers measured time taken for the participant to leave the room to notify the experimenter

• the IV was the number of people the participant believed were also participating at the same time

• it was noted that when participants thought they were alone with the victim, 85% acted within two minutes compared to only 31% of those who thought there were four other participants

• participant bias: all participants were psychology students

• low ecological validity: unrealistic that bystanders could only hear the victim

• ethical considerations: participants were deceived and exposed to an anxiety-provoking situation

Pilliavin et al (1969):

• cognitive (cost-benefit analysis) and emotional †factors (unpleasant emotional arousal) determine whether bystanders intervene

• focuses on egoistic motivation to escape an unpleasant emotional state

• emotional arousal –> interpretation of arousal –> the interpretation serves as motivation to help (if help occurs)

• evaluates costs and rewards of helping, and costs and rewards of not helping

study: Pilliavin et al. (1969)

• the participants were unsuspecting subway travellers

• 4 conditions: drunk or ill, and black or white

• confederate ‘victim’ staged a collapse on the floor of a subway

• if no one helped the confederate, a second confederate (a ‘helper’) helped the victim up

• found that an ill person was more likely to be helped than a drunk person

• people were more likely to be helped up by others of the same race

the evidence contradicted the Latané and Darley (1968) theory of bystanderism in 2 ways:

• no support for diffusion of responsibility during trials as an ‘ill’ victim – observers could clearly see the victim and decide whether or not it was an emergency

• no support for pluralistic ignorance – number of bystanders had no effect on speed of helping

• as a field study, it has higher ecological validity than laboratory studies

• model assumes that bystanders make a rational cost-bene„fit analysis rather than acting intuitively on impulse

• also assumes that people only help for egoistic motives

• assumptions are probably untrue