Paper 2
Human Relationship (Social responsibility)
Discuss bystanderism
Theory Bystanderism: the phenomenon of a person or people not intervening despite awareness of another
person’s needs. An individual is less likely to help someone in an emergency situation when there are lots
of other bystanders present. This is because people assume someone else has or will help the victim in
need.
- Can be link to SIT (In group bias / outgroup)
Diffusion of responsibility: when you are the only person who can deal with an emergency situation, you
have 100% of the responsibility to do so (choose to intervene or not). However, with more witnesses, each
individual’s share of the responsibility drops and reduces the psychological costs of not intervening.
Informational Social influence: Looking at others to know how to react
- this usually happens when something unexpected happens, and explains why when someone
starts running, others follow through – conformity
Pluralistic Ignorance:
- if people see that others do not react to a supposed emergency, then they won’t react
- they do not want to create a fuss, or stand out
This is a problem.
- a conflict between two social rules: "You must help somebody in need" and "You should do what
everybody does.”
Study Pilliavin et al Darley & Batson
Aim + Hyp - How various situational factors may - To investigate if participants would help a
influence prosocial behaviour stranger that clearly needed help.
- Helping the stranger came at a cost. They
were under time pressure to get to a
meeting, and helping would force them to
deviate from the original plan.
Hypothesis
1. People who encounter someone in need of
help while thinking religious and ethical
thoughts would be no more likely to offer
aid than people thinking about something
else
2. People encountering someone in need of
help when they are in a hurry would be less
likely to offer aid than persons who are not
in a hurry
Procedure - Field experiment → higher rate of - Participants: 40 male students to become
ecological validity priests
- Participants were an opportunity sample of - They were deceived in that they were told
New York subway travellers who were that they were participating in a study on
observed between 11 am and 3 pm religious education and vocations
, - While they were on a non-stop 7.5-minute - In the first session, participants answered
journey between stations, they would personality questionnaires to determine
witness one of two scenarios their level of religiosity
- A man with a came who appeared - In the second session, the participants
ill began experimental procedures in one
- A man who appeared drunk would building and were asked to report to
fall to the floor of the subway car. another building for subsequent procedures
- The victims were men, aged 25-35, who - All participants were tested individually
were dressed and acted identically - When a participant arrived at the
- They collapsed to the floor 70 seconds after experiment, he was told that he was
the train left the station and remained on participating in a study of the vocational
the floor until they were helped. careers of seminary students.
- A “model-helper” was instructed to help - Then he was asked to give a 3-5 minute talk
after 70 seconds if no one else offered based on a text on either what he thought
assistance could be relevant for a good minister
- Two female researchers recorded the data (task-relevant condition) or a passage from
- IV were the type of victim and the size of the Bible (helping relevant condition).
the group - When the participant had read the passage,
- Researchers measured the following the experimenter came back and gave
dependent variables: frequency of help, the instructions on how to reach the other
speed of help, the sex of the helper, building.
movement away from the victim, and - The participants were given further
verbal comments instructions that placed them in either a
- There were 103 trials, and 38 involved a “high hurry” condition or a “low-hurry”
drunk victim who smelled of alcohol and condition.
carried a bottle in a bag, 65 trials with - IV: the degree to which the participants
sober victim with cane were told to hurry.
- DV: whether and how the participants
helped the victim
- When the participants passed through the
alley, the victim was sitting over in a
doorway.
- As the participant passed by the victim
coughed twice and groaned
- If the participant stopped and asked if the
victim was in need of help, the victim would
say that everything was ok
- If participants offered help they were
allowed to do so and thanked them.
- After this incident, the participants had to
deliver the speech and record it, and then
they answered a questionnaire on personal
and social responsibility
- Data was collected as a check of whether
the participant perceived that the victim in
the alley needed help or not
- After this the participants were debriefed
and told about the exact nature of the field
experiment
Results - 78% of the time, someone helped - Helping was significantly influenced by the
Human Relationship (Social responsibility)
Discuss bystanderism
Theory Bystanderism: the phenomenon of a person or people not intervening despite awareness of another
person’s needs. An individual is less likely to help someone in an emergency situation when there are lots
of other bystanders present. This is because people assume someone else has or will help the victim in
need.
- Can be link to SIT (In group bias / outgroup)
Diffusion of responsibility: when you are the only person who can deal with an emergency situation, you
have 100% of the responsibility to do so (choose to intervene or not). However, with more witnesses, each
individual’s share of the responsibility drops and reduces the psychological costs of not intervening.
Informational Social influence: Looking at others to know how to react
- this usually happens when something unexpected happens, and explains why when someone
starts running, others follow through – conformity
Pluralistic Ignorance:
- if people see that others do not react to a supposed emergency, then they won’t react
- they do not want to create a fuss, or stand out
This is a problem.
- a conflict between two social rules: "You must help somebody in need" and "You should do what
everybody does.”
Study Pilliavin et al Darley & Batson
Aim + Hyp - How various situational factors may - To investigate if participants would help a
influence prosocial behaviour stranger that clearly needed help.
- Helping the stranger came at a cost. They
were under time pressure to get to a
meeting, and helping would force them to
deviate from the original plan.
Hypothesis
1. People who encounter someone in need of
help while thinking religious and ethical
thoughts would be no more likely to offer
aid than people thinking about something
else
2. People encountering someone in need of
help when they are in a hurry would be less
likely to offer aid than persons who are not
in a hurry
Procedure - Field experiment → higher rate of - Participants: 40 male students to become
ecological validity priests
- Participants were an opportunity sample of - They were deceived in that they were told
New York subway travellers who were that they were participating in a study on
observed between 11 am and 3 pm religious education and vocations
, - While they were on a non-stop 7.5-minute - In the first session, participants answered
journey between stations, they would personality questionnaires to determine
witness one of two scenarios their level of religiosity
- A man with a came who appeared - In the second session, the participants
ill began experimental procedures in one
- A man who appeared drunk would building and were asked to report to
fall to the floor of the subway car. another building for subsequent procedures
- The victims were men, aged 25-35, who - All participants were tested individually
were dressed and acted identically - When a participant arrived at the
- They collapsed to the floor 70 seconds after experiment, he was told that he was
the train left the station and remained on participating in a study of the vocational
the floor until they were helped. careers of seminary students.
- A “model-helper” was instructed to help - Then he was asked to give a 3-5 minute talk
after 70 seconds if no one else offered based on a text on either what he thought
assistance could be relevant for a good minister
- Two female researchers recorded the data (task-relevant condition) or a passage from
- IV were the type of victim and the size of the Bible (helping relevant condition).
the group - When the participant had read the passage,
- Researchers measured the following the experimenter came back and gave
dependent variables: frequency of help, the instructions on how to reach the other
speed of help, the sex of the helper, building.
movement away from the victim, and - The participants were given further
verbal comments instructions that placed them in either a
- There were 103 trials, and 38 involved a “high hurry” condition or a “low-hurry”
drunk victim who smelled of alcohol and condition.
carried a bottle in a bag, 65 trials with - IV: the degree to which the participants
sober victim with cane were told to hurry.
- DV: whether and how the participants
helped the victim
- When the participants passed through the
alley, the victim was sitting over in a
doorway.
- As the participant passed by the victim
coughed twice and groaned
- If the participant stopped and asked if the
victim was in need of help, the victim would
say that everything was ok
- If participants offered help they were
allowed to do so and thanked them.
- After this incident, the participants had to
deliver the speech and record it, and then
they answered a questionnaire on personal
and social responsibility
- Data was collected as a check of whether
the participant perceived that the victim in
the alley needed help or not
- After this the participants were debriefed
and told about the exact nature of the field
experiment
Results - 78% of the time, someone helped - Helping was significantly influenced by the
