Understanding Understanding BystanderismBystanderism

Bystanderism has consistently been defined as not helping someone who is in need of help even though one is able to. (Soo Hoo, 2004)

Bystanderism can be considered to be an anti-social behavior, in contrast to helping behavior, which is prosocial.

One type of bystanderism is the bystander effect which is when people do not offer help in emergency situations while other people are present.

The effect of social influence on bystanderism was first hypothesized in 1964 after the famous case of Kitty Genovese.

http://vimeo.com/15592816

This case study lead to many empirical theories associated with this perceived bystanderism.

The bystander effect was first demonstrated in the laboratory by John Darley and Bibb Latané in 1968 after they became interested in the topic following the murder of Kitty Genovese.

Researchers such as Darley and Latané proposed two leading factors in bystanderism:

Diffusion of responsibility

Pluralistic ignorance

First, the presence of other people creates a diffusion of responsibility. Because there are other observers, individuals do not feel as much pressure to take action, since the responsibility to take action is thought to be shared among all of those present.

This diffusion of responsibility theory was tested by Darley and Latané in a laboratory experiment. Subjects thought they were overhearing another student have an epileptic seizure.

In some the control condition, the students were told they were one of two subjects. In the experimental condition, they were told they were one of six subjects in the experiment.

In the six-person condition, 31% of the subjects responded to calls for help. In the two-person condition, 85% of the subjects responded.

Darley and Latane then analyzed what they termed as the situation effect, the idea that because emergencies tend to be initially ambiguous, people look at the reactions of others to determine how they should react (Darley and Latane 1968).

If no one else reacts, people assume that it must not be an emergency and remain inactive as well (Darley and Latane 1968).

Darley and Latane went on to conduct similar studies (“smoke-filled room study, etc.) in order to strengthen their theory on factors that explain bystanderism.

Diffusion of responsibility occurs under both prosocial and antisocial conditions. In prosocial situations, individuals' willingness to intervene or assist someone in need is inhibited by the presence of other people.

It has been demonstrated that the likelihood of a person offering help decreases as the number of observers present increases. Thus, if you are walking down the hall, you will feel less likely to help a stranger if you are surrounded by a large crowd. As the crowd increases, your likelihood of helping decreases. Is this an accurate depiction of our behavior in groups?

This is known as the bystander effect. In antisocial situations, negative behaviors are more likely to be carried out when the person is in a group of similarly motivated individuals. What are examples of this?

The behavior is driven by the deindividuating effects of group membership and the diffusion of feelings of personal responsibility for the consequences.

When people are part of a group, they often experience deindividuation, or a loss of self-awareness. When people deindividuate, they are less likely to follow normal restraints and inhibitions and more likely to lose their sense of individual identity.

The behavior is driven by the deindividuating effects of group membership and the diffusion of feelings of personal responsibility for the consequences.

When people are part of a group, they often experience deindividuation, or a loss of self-awareness. When people deindividuate, they are less likely to follow normal restraints and inhibitions and more likely to lose their sense of individual identity.

Members of groups (such as gangs, fraternities, terrorist groups) have been found to suffer from this diffusion of responsibility when antisocial behavior is exhibited within groups.

This diffusion highlights the sense of “group loyalty” and deindividuation that groups report of feeling (Anderson, 1999).

Darley and Latane then analyzed what they termed as the situation effect, the idea that because emergencies tend to be initially ambiguous, people look at the reactions of others to determine how they should react (Darley and Latane 1968).

If no one else reacts, people assume that it must not be an emergency and remain inactive as well (Darley and Latane 1968).

Darley and Latane went on to conduct similar studies (“smoke-filled room study, etc.) in order to strengthen their theory on factors that explain bystanderism.

Pluralistic ignorance is a process which involves several members of a group who think that they have different cognitions (perceptions, beliefs, or attitudes) from the rest of the group.

While they do not endorse the group norm, the dissenting persons behave like the other group members, because they think that the behavior of the other group members shows that the opinion of the group is unanimous.

In other words, because everyone who disagrees behaves as if he or she agrees, all dissenting members think that the norm is endorsed by every group member but themselves.

In other words, because everyone who disagrees behaves as if he or she agrees, all dissenting members think that the norm is endorsed by every group member but themselves.

It is argued that because of pluralistic ignorance, people may conform to the perceived consensual opinion of a group, instead of acting on their own perception and thinking.

This is argued to lead in bystanderism in humans.

In other words, because everyone who disagrees behaves as if he or she agrees, all dissenting members think that the norm is endorsed by every group member but themselves.

It is argued that because of pluralistic ignorance, people may conform to the perceived consensual opinion of a group, instead of acting on their own perception and thinking.

This is argued to lead in bystanderism in humans.

If everyone else seems calm, we often assume that an emergency must not really be an emergency.

Often times, pluralistic ignorance causes an entire group of people to remain calm in a situation that they should not because everyone checks everyone else's response, with no one person standing out with a clear cut answer of how to act.

If you were sitting in a waiting room and smoke began to billow out of a vent in the wall, you'd probably do something about it.

At least, you'd report the problem to someone.

Or maybe not.

In a famous experiment conducted by John Darley and Bibb Latané during the 1960s, Columbia University students were invited to share their views about problems of urban life.

Those who expressed an interest in participating were asked to first report to a waiting room in one of the university buildings where they would find some forms to fill out before being interviewed.

They hypothesized that bystanders were not likely to intervene in an emergency because they’re misled by the reactions of the people around them.

To test this hypothesis, they ran an experiment in which they asked participants to fill out questionnaires in a laboratory room. After the participants had gotten to work, smoke filtered into the room—a clear signal of danger.

When participants were alone, 75 percent of them left the room and reported the smoke to the experimenter.

With three participants in the room, only 38 percent left to report the smoke.

And quite remarkably, when a participant was joined by two confederates instructed not to show any concern, only 10 percent of the participants reported the smoke to the experimenter.

When participants were alone, 75 percent of them left the room and reported the smoke to the experimenter.

With three participants in the room, only 38 percent left to report the smoke.

And quite remarkably, when a participant was joined by two confederates instructed not to show any concern, only 10 percent of the participants reported the smoke to the experimenter.

This research speaks to our cognitive dissonance felt when we are in situations that cause us to act differently than the group (i.e. in situations of of bystanderism.

It would be reductionist to say that situational factors are the only influence on bystanderism (this is important to mention in your essay).

How can dispositional factors and cultural factors also play a role in bystanderism?

It would be reductionist to say that situational factors are the only influence on bystanderism (this is important to mention in your essay).

How can cognitive and cultural factors also play a role in bystanderism?

Bystanderism is an enormously complex issue and does not only depend on pluralistic ignorance and diffusion of responsibility, but also other factors such as dispositional factors, age, gender, identification with the victim, perception of emergency, and proximity to the victim.

Culture and bystanderism:

Individualism and Collectivism: In relation to individualistic and collectivistic cultures, bystanderism is presented more frequent in an individualistic setting, because people are more concern of their personal well being as for a collectivistic setting, bystanderism is limited as people are subjected to offer their help.

Read more: http://www2.psych.ubc.ca/~ara/Manuscripts/Levine%20et%20al%20helping.pdf

They had no idea that the urban-life study was just a cover story. The real experiment occurred in the waiting room.

Because of th

http://vimeo.com/15592816

Why study Human Relationships?

The study of human relationships helps us understand the society around us, and how it serves some, while sometimes neglecting others.

With this understanding, we can better understand how we impact others, and how others impact us…

Why study Human Relationships?

The study of human relationships helps us understand the society around us, and how it serves some, while sometimes neglecting others.

With this understanding, we can better understand how we impact others, and how others impact us…

Most of us are probably allured by the attractive notion that effortless relationships exist.

Is it possible to maintain fulfilling relationships without the absence of thought for others? Why or why not?

Whether it be happily-ever-after marriages, or friendships which last forever, or parent/child bonds which supersede the need to understand each other, we'd all like to believe that our most intimate relationships are unconditional, and strong enough to withstand whatever may come.

However, at some point in our lives most of us need to face the fact that relationships require effort (sometimes selfless effort) to keep them strong and positive, and that even wonderful, strong relationships can be destroyed by neglect.

How can How can perceivedperceived altruism altruism be seen as a be seen as a biological adaptationbiological adaptation??

(BLOA 3.2, BLOA 3.3, PoHR 1.1, PoHR 1.2, PoHR 2.1, PoHR 2.2)

How can this biological How can this biological explanation help us to explanation help us to

understand how or understand how or why we why we behave a certain way in behave a certain way in familial relationshipsfamilial relationships??

(BLOA 3.2, BLOA 3.3, PoHR 1.1)

What are limitations to this What are limitations to this biologically engineered biologically engineered

theorytheory??(BLOA 3.2, BLOA 3.3, PoHR 1.1)