Lecture 11 - Bystander Behaviour

Question 1

Define Prosocial behaviour

Answer 1

• acts positively valued by society vs antisocial behaviour

- wellbeing of others

Question 2

What are the reasons we help other people? And who contributed to it?

Answer 2

Altruism – trait with evolutionary survival value (not the full answer)
- helped us survive as a species – helping others
Burnstein et al. (1994) – we are more inclined to:
- help closer kin than distant kin
- Favour the sick over the healthy in everday situations, but the healthy over the sick in life-or-death situations
- This has evolutionary value
Empathy =
- perspective taking (cognitive compononet of empathy (Hagg+ Vaughan, 7th edition). This is a crucial aspect of engaging in helping others – involves putting yourself in someone elses shoes
- Prior experience also contributes

Question 3

Who did the study where men and women had to empathises with a distressed teenager?

Answer 3

Batson et al (1996)

Question 4

Outline Batson et al (1996)

Answer 4

even if men had prior experience of a stressful situation, they didn’t have increased empathy
IF wome had prior experience their empathy increased
Prior experience didn’t seem to affect men
- some research suggests that men are self-directed

Question 5

What theory aims to also explain how prosocial behaviour is acquired?

Answer 5

SLT

• Reinforcement
• Exposure to models (most efficient way of learning helping behaviour)

Question 6

WHo did the study that showed how positive reinforcement was the best?

Answer 6

Rushton + Teachman (1978)

Question 7

Outline Rushton + Teachman (1978) findings

Answer 7

Positive reinforcement seems to work best in increasing generousity and helping behaviour
- it is supported/ underpinned by modelling

Question 8

Attributions about a person in need will effect?

Answer 8

Whether they are helped or not? - e.g. adverts like save the children

Question 9

Research has suggested that what on adverts is the most successful?

Answer 9

Photos of individuals who are indetifiably victims

Question 10

What relationship is there between our emotional response to suffering and the number of victims? And who identifed this?

Answer 10

Our emotional response to suffering is inversly related to the number of victims:
- Collapse of Compassion model
Slovic (2007) – ”Psychic Numbing”

Question 11

How does the indetifiable victim affect success of an advert?

Answer 11

Direct attention to one signle, indetifiable individual – makes an advert more likely to be succesful:

Question 12

Which study looked at how number of victims affected donations?

Answer 12

Vindor & Michael (2009)

Question 13

Outline Vindor & Michael (2009)

Answer 13

Looked at average donation (in £’s) compared to number of victims depicted
Found that being alone provokes most donation, as well as if victims are a meaningful unit (e.g. sisters)
Anymore added, reduces donations

Question 14

What are the 2 methods used to solicit an immediate response in adverts?

Answer 14

1) Emotional blackmail is used
- e.g. facebook advert may say: ”Donate now!” – your first response is to immediately click
2) Or you can donate at a later date – people then feel less pressure: “put me down for a fiver next xmas” – doesn’t solicit an immediate response

Question 15

Which two norms contribute to donations etc?

Answer 15

1) Reciprocity norm – ill do something for you if you do it for me
2) Social responsibilty norm – our belief that we should help those in need. We are responsible for those that need our help, across nations, not just those in our community, those that are physically remote from us.
- Bill & Malinda Gates foundation -> “All live have equal value”

Question 16

Outline the Murder in Kew Gardens and how it inspired research

Answer 16

1960s new york – Kitty Genovese stabbed and killed
38 people later admitted that they had hear her scream – but they didn’t do anything about it
Press were critical of those people, but what explains this non-intervention?
- was it apathy? Indifference? Loss of concern for fellow human beings?
Latane and Darley were interest and intrigued, they thought it was no good just saying: “we’re indifferent”, there may be another factor

Question 17

Define the Bystander effect

Answer 17

Presence or absence of others help intervention?

People are less likely to help when with others than when alone, the greater the number, the less likely they will help

Question 18

Who came up with a cognitive model of deciding whether or not to help?

Answer 18

Latané & Darley (1970)

Question 19

Explain the stages of Latané & Darley (1970) cognitive model

Answer 19

Attend to what is happening + Define event as emergency + Assume responsibility + Decide what can be done = Give help

Question 20

Who did the smoke in the room study?

Answer 20

Latane & Darley (1970)

Question 21

OUtline Latane & Darley (1970)

Answer 21

Participants invited to an interview, completing preliminary questionnaire
Suddenly, smoke comes from under the door
When:
Alone – 75% reported smoke and took action
With 2 or more other participants – 38%
when with 2 confederates ignoring the smoke – 10%

Question 22

Who did the lady in distress study?

Answer 22

Latane & Rodin (1969)

Question 23

Outline Latane & Rodin (1969)

Answer 23

Participants were invited to the study in an office building, a person in the next room was in danger/ emergency – they see this person in distress
Alone – 70%
In pairs (strangers) – 40%
With a passive confederate – 7%
Pairs of friends – 70%

Question 24

Who did the ‘he’s having a fit study’?

Answer 24

Darley and Latane (1968)

Question 25

Outline Darley and Latane (1968)

Answer 25

Students were communicating with each other via microphones while in separate cubiciles, led to believe that 2,4 or 6 other people were present
For this one, they couldn’t physically see the danger
At some point, of the participants would have a fit
Before the end of the fit:
Alone – 85% said/ did something
2 people – 62%
4 people – 31%

Question 26

Which processes contribute to the bystander effect?

Answer 26

• Diffusion of responsibilty
• Fear of social blunders
• Social influence (look to others as models)

Question 27

Who did the guilty helper? Break something then help shopper Study?

Answer 27

Regan et al., 1972

Question 28

Outline Regan et al., 1972

Answer 28

Participants were led to believe they had broken an expensive camera
50% of the guilty participants later helped a women dropping groceries
- 15% of controls (those who just witnessed the women) helped
Process of image-reparation or relieving a negative state affect
- you want to get rid of guilt, so you act prosocially

Question 29

Who did the study where leaders helped before assitants?

Answer 29

Baumeister et al 1988

Question 30

Outline Baumeister et al 1988

Answer 30

Leaders more likely to help than assistants
Got p’s in groups of 4 and randomly allocated one as leader
80% of leaders helped vs only 35% of the assistants
- Counteracting the diffusion of responsibilty
I am the one who will act, on behalf of the group

Question 31

What factos affect helping?

Answer 31

• Bystander effect
• influence of mood
• Social backgroud (small town or large city)
• Prior commitment
• Scrooge effect (go from being stingy to being kind)
• Competence: training, skills, proffesion

Question 32

Who did the study on the beach? can you watch my stuff?

Answer 32

Moriarty 1975

Question 33

Outline Moriarty 1975

Answer 33

Prior commitment can induce a prosocial act
Reponsibile bystanders –
P’s were sitting alone on the beach and were asked, can you just watch my stuff?
- 95% of those who asked to be responsible have complied
If people commit to an act, they are sometimes over-zealous