Bystanderism Notes

Darley & Latané (1973):

Aim: To investigate whether the presence of other bystanders reduces the likelihood of helping in an emergency situation.

Method:

• 72 university students (59 female, 13 male) took part in a laboratory experiment where each participant was placed in an individual room with an intercom system in 1 of 3 conditions:
  • Condition 1: Participant + Victim (2-person group).
  • Condition 2: Participant + Victim + 1 other confederate (3-person group).
  • Condition 3: Participant + Victim + 4 other confederates (6-person group).
• They believed they were communicating with other participants, but they were actually listening to pre-recorded audio clips.
• Conversations were structured so that participants took turns speaking, with microphones switching on and off.
• At a certain point, a "victim" (confederate) pretended to have a seizure, gasping for air and choking over the intercom.
• The key dependent variable was the time taken for the participant to inform the researchers about the emergency.

Results:

• Participants showed visible stress during the emergency.
• The number of perceived bystanders significantly affected helping behavior:
  • 2-person group: 85% of participants helped.
  • 3-person group: 62% of participants helped.
  • 6-person group: Only 31% of participants helped.
• The more bystanders participants thought were present, the longer it took them to seek help.

Conclusion:

• Supports the diffusion of responsibility hypothesis as the larger the group, the less likely individuals were to take action because they assumed someone else would.

Evaluation:

• Controlled setting allowed researchers to isolate the effect of perceived bystander presence, increasing internal validity.
• Replicable experiment with clear operationalization of variables increases reliability.
• Demonstrates causality between group size and helping behavior.
• The emergency was staged in an artificial setting.
• Participants may have experienced psychological distress due to the perceived emergency.
• Sampling bias as all participants were university students, limiting generalizability.

Piliavin et al. (1969)

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

Method:

• Opportunity sample of New York subway passengers (unaware they were part of a study)
• Conducted between 11 a.m. and 3 p.m. on a non-stop 7.5-minute subway journey.
• Participants witnessed one of two scenarios:
  • A man with a cane who appeared ill collapsing to the floor.
  • A man who appeared drunk collapsing to the floor.
• The "victims" (confederates) collapsed 70 seconds after departure and remained on the floor until helped.
• If no one helped, a "model-helper" would intervene after 70 seconds.
• Two female observers recorded:
  • Frequency and speed of helping.
  • Sex of the helper.
  • Verbal comments and any movement away from the victim.

Findings:

• Overall helping rates were high:
  • 78% of victims received spontaneous help.
  • 60% of cases involved more than one helper.
• Victim condition influenced response time:
  • Ill victim (cane): Helped in 62 out of 65 trials (95%), median response time 5 seconds.
  • Drunk victim: Helped in 19 out of 38 trials (50%), median response time 109 seconds.
• Gender differences in helping:
  • 90% of helpers were male.
• Group size did not lead to diffusion of responsibility:
  • Larger groups led to faster helping times, contradicting previous research.
• Race of the victim had no significant effect on helping behavior.
• More verbal comments were made when the victim was drunk or when help was delayed.

Conclusion:

• Helping behavior is influenced by perceived costs and benefits rather than diffusion of responsibility.
• People are less likely to help when the perceived cost is higher (e.g. helping a drunk person may be seen as riskier).
• The Arousal-Cost-Reward Model suggests that helping behavior is motivated by the desire to reduce negative emotions rather than pure empathy.

Evaluation:

• Conducted in a real-world setting, increasing generalizability and ecological validity.
• Less control over extraneous variables compared to a lab experiment.
• Measuring "time taken to help" as an indicator of decision-making may be an oversimplification.
• Lack of informed consent as participants did not know they were in a study.
• They were misled into believing the emergency was real.
• There was no debriefing.