Forget altruism…sometimes people actually
do nothing when they probably should do
something….
Examine factors influencing bystanderism
Bystanderism
or the Bystander Effect
• Bystanderism can be
defined as the
phenomenon that an
individual is less likely to
help in an emergency
situation when passive
bystanders are present
(Darley and Latané,
1968).
The case of Kitty Genovese
• murdered in New York
City in 1964
• She was attacked, raped,
and stabbed several times
by a psychopath.
• Later, a number of
witnesses explained that
they had either heard
screaming or seen a man
attacking the woman over
a period of 30 minutes.
The case of Kitty Genovese
• None intervened or called
the police until it was too
late.
• Afterwards they said they
said they did not want to
become involved or thought
that somebody else would
intervene.
• This incident inspired social
psychologists to explore
factors that may influence
whether people will help or
not in an emergency
situation.
Ilan Halimi
•
•
•
Ilan Halimi was a French Jew who was kidnapped in Paris
by Moroccan “barbarians,” as they like to be called, on
Janury 21, 2006, and tortured for 24 days, finally dying on
February 13. During this time, his kidnappers, at least 20 of
them, beat him all over his body, especially his testicles,
completely wrapped his head in duct tape, except for his
mouth, so he could breathe and eat, stabbed him, burned
his body and face with lighters and cigarettes, and broke
his fingers in order to extract a ransom of 450,000 Euros
from his family. They stripped him, they scratched him,
they cut him with knives, and finally poured gasoline on
him and set him afire.
During these three weeks, neighbors in the apartment
block where his kidnappers had taken him (and where
they lived) heard the commotion and came to watch. No
one ever called the police. 27 people have so far been
charged with joining in. 19 people have been convicted
and given long prison sentences. One of the torturer’s
fathers knew what was happening and did nothing to stop
them. This man, Alcino Ribeiro, was sentenced to 8
months, but this sentence was suspended. He has served
no time.
Those neighbors known only to have watched were not
convicted, most not even indicted. Halimi was found
handcuffed and bound with nylon rope, naked, to a tree
about 40 yards inside a woodlot from a railway outside
Paris, on February 13. More than 80% of his body had been
burned with acid, as well as gasoline, to the point that he
was difficult to recognize. He had severe contusions, blood
blisters, and hematomas covering most of his body, to the
point that he was more blue than flesh-colored, multiple
broken bones, one ear and one big toe missing, and his
testicles looked like “blackened oranges.”
Halimi died en route to a hospital.
Topsy the Elephant
•
•
•
Not just Topsy the Elephant, but a rather long series
of animals, all of which had shown themselves to be
a danger to humans. This included horses, lions,
tigers, and bears. Edison was happy to oblige the
state of NY in executing these “menaces to society,”
by employing alternating current, but his ulterior
motive was merely to show the world the danger of
alternating current, invented by Nikola Tesla, his
arch-rival. Edison’s direct current didn’t have the
strength to electrocute an elephant, and he
considered it safer.
So, on January 4, 1903, at Luna Park Zoo, Coney
Island, Topsy was hooked up to Edison’s lighting
plant, and electrocuted with 6,600 volts of AC. But
this was after they fed her carrots that had been
soaked in cyanide, just to be sure. They deemed
Topsy to be a permanent threat to humans, as she
had killed three handlers in three incidents, one of
which involved a handler, who regularly whipped
her, trying to feed her a lighted cigarette just to
watch her suffer. She stomped on him.
1,500 people watched, and no one said a word in
complaint. The funny thing is that the ASPCA, which
is supposed to protect the rights of animals,
considered hanging to be cruel, as it would cause
strangulation, not a snap of the neck, and yet had no
problem with cyanide poisoning and electrocution.
The Richmond High School Incident
•
•
•
The events that transpired on the night of
October 27, 2009.
The girl’s name has not been released to date,
as she is 15 years old, but the accounts of the
crime all agree, and it is beyond belief. For 2
and a half hours, while the High School
Homecoming Dance was taking place inside
the gymnasium, approximately 10 men gangraped the 15-year-old student, beating her
savagely the whole time, all the while 10
others stood around laughing and taking
pictures with their cell phones.
The crowd eventually numbered more than 20,
and no one called the police. No one went
inside to tell a security guard or a policeman,
several of which were on campus at the time. A
little earlier, the assistant principal looked out
his office window and saw 12 to 15 grown men
sitting around near the scene of the crime,
none of whom had identification badges, as is
required, and none of whom appeared to be a
teenager, and the assistant principal did not
call the police, or alert any teachers or
students. He returned to his job and ignored
them.
The Holocaust
•
•
The most repugnant, globally violent disgrace
of the reputation of humanity gave rise to
the equally infamous use of the phrase
“diffusion of responsibility,” as the Nazi
officers tried at Nuremberg all claimed the
same defense, “We were just following
orders.”
the populations of the villages near these
camps, Dachau, Buchenwald, Bergen-Belsen,
Sachsenhausen, Mauthausen, and
Ravensbruck, to name a few, knew perfectly
well of the atrocities and horror inside the
camps. The camps were established near
fairly large towns and cities, the inhabitants
of which could not have ignored the stench
coming from them. Allied soldiers all
reported smelling camps before finding
them, from as far as 20 miles if the wind
blew right.
Theory of the unresponsive bystander
Latané & Darley (1970)
• According to the theory
the presence of other
people or just the
perception that other
people are witnessing
the event will decrease
the likelihood that an
individual will intervene
in an emergency due to
psychological processes
like:
Theory of the unresponsive bystander
Latané & Darley (1970)
1. Diffusion of
responsibility:
• Responsibility is
diffused when more
bystanders are present
and this reduces the
psychological costs of
not intervening.
Theory of the unresponsive bystander
Latané & Darley (1970)
2. Informational social
influence (pluralistic
ignorance):
• If the situation is
ambiguous people will
look to other people
around to see what
they do.
Theory of the unresponsive bystander
Latané & Darley (1970)
3. Evaluation
apprehension:
• Individual bystanders
are aware that other
people are present and
may be afraid of being
evaluated negatively if
they react (fear of social
blunders).
Cognitive Decision Model.
Latané and Darley (1968)
They argue that helping
requires that the
bystander:
1. Notice the situation (if
you are in a hurry you
may not even see what
is happening).
Cognitive Decision Model.
Latané and Darley (1968)
2. Interpret the situation as
an emergency (e.g.
people screaming or
asking for help, which
could also be interpreted
as a family quarrel which
is none of your business.
Cognitive Decision Model.
Latané and Darley (1968)
3. Accept some personal
responsibility for
helping even though
other people are
present.
4. Consider how to help
(although you may be
unsure of what to do or
doubt your skills).
Cognitive Decision Model.
Latané and Darley (1968)
5. Decide how to help
(you may observe how
other people react or
decide that it is too
dangerous to
intervene).
• At each of these stages,
the bystander can
make a decision to help
or not.
Experiment to investigate bystander intervention and
diffusion of responsibility
Latané and Darley (1968)
Aim:
• To investigate if the
number of witnesses of
an emergency influences
people’s helping in an
emergency situation.
Procedure:
• As part of a course credit,
72 students (59 female
and 13 male) participated
in the experiment.
Experiment to investigate bystander intervention and
diffusion of responsibility
Latané and Darley (1968)
• They were asked to discuss
what kind of personal
problems new college
students could have in an
urban area.
• Each participant sat in a
booth alone with a pair of
headphones and a
microphone.
• They were told that the
discussion took place via an
intercom to protect the
anonymity of participants.
Experiment to investigate bystander intervention and
diffusion of responsibility
Latané and Darley (1968)
• At one point in the experiment
a participant (a confederate)
staged a seizure.
• The independent variable (IV)
of the study was the number
of persons (bystanders) that
the participant thought
listened to the same
discussion.
• The dependant variable (DV)
was the time it took for the
participant to react from the
start of the victim’s fit until the
participant contacted the
experimenter.
Experiment to investigate bystander intervention and
diffusion of responsibility
Latané and Darley (1968)
Results:
• The number of
bystanders had a major
effect on the participant’s
reaction.
• Of the participants in the
alone condition, 85%
went out and reported
the seizure.
• Only 31% reported the
seizure when they
believed that there were
four bystanders.
What were the factors do you think
played in these results?
• Probably all THREE
reasons of the
bystander effect!!!
• OK…you evaluate this
one for me….
Bystander Effect
• Diffusion of Responsibility
• Pluralistic Ignorance
• Evaluation Apprehension
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxMHqBCB8
eM
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmvPePEwX
6A
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TiiPIK6WhTk
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDJ2PpSxYaU
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9OAV_LQwL9
k
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHLMKC99pm
g
The subway samaritan
Pilliavin et al. (1969)
Aim:
• The aim of this field
experiment was to
investigate the effect of
various variables on helping
behavior.
Procedure
• Teams of students worked
together with a victim, a
model helper, and
observers. The IV was
whether the victim was
drunk or ill (carrying a
cane), and black or white.
The subway samaritan
Pilliavin et al. (1969)
• The group performed a
scenario where the victim
appeared drunk or a scenario
where the victim appeared ill.
• The participants were subway
travelers who were observed
when the “victim” staged a
collapse on the floor short
time after the train had left
the station. The model helper
was instructed to intervene
after 70 seconds if no one
else did.
The subway samaritan
Pilliavin et al. (1969)
Results:
• The results showed
that a person who
appeared ill was more
likely to receive help
than one who appeared
drunk. In 60% of the
trials where the victim
received help more
than one person offered
assistance.
The subway samaritan
Pilliavin et al. (1969)
Conclusion
• The researchers did not
find support for “diffusion
of responsibility”.
• They argue that this could
be because the observers
could clearly see the
victim and decide
whether or not there was
an emergency situation.
The subway samaritan
Pilliavin et al. (1969)
• Pilliavin et al. found no
strong relationship
between the number of
bystanders and speed
of helping, which is
contrary to the theory
of the unresponsive
bystander.
The subway samaritan
Pilliavin et al. (1969)
Evaluation:
• This study has higher
ecological validity than
laboratory experiments.
The cost reward model of helping
Pilliavin et al. (1969)
• The theory stipulates that
both cognitive (costbenefit analysis) and
emotional factors
(unpleasant emotional
arousal) determine
whether bystanders to an
emergency will intervene.
The cost reward model of helping
Pilliavin et al. (1969)
• observation of an
emergency situation
that leads to an
emotional arousal and
interpretation of that
arousal (e.g. empathy,
disgust, fear).
This serves as motivation to either help or not, based
on evaluation of costs and rewards of helping:
• costs of helping (e.g.
effort, embarrassment,
physical harm)
• costs of not helping (e.g.
self-blame and blame
from others)
• rewards of helping (e.g.
praise from victim and
self)
• rewards of not helping
(e.g. being able to
continue doing whatever
one was doing).
Evaluation of the model
• The model assumes
that bystanders make a
rational cost-benefit
analysis rather than
acting intuitively on an
impulse.
• It also assumes that
people only help for
egoistic motives. This is
probably not true.