Human Relationships
, Bystanderism
Evaluate/Contrast theories of bystanderism
Intro
Social Responsibility → Refers to an individual’s relationship with society at large
→ how people interact with outgroups as passive bystanders
→ how people interact through prosocial behavior for the benefit of others
Bystanderism
Also known as Bystander effect, refers to how individuals may not help in situation requiring assistance,
especially when other passive bystanders are present.
Discovery of this effect is widely attributed to the tragedy of Kitty Genovese
Theory 1 – Arousal-Cost-Reward Model
Explains bystander behavior in terms of cognitive and emotional processing.
Key idea: when some event or emergency triggers series of mental calculation and physical responses
Cost-benefit analysis --> if benefits of helping outweighs the costs of helping = more likely to help.
3 stages of calculation before they reach a decision
• Physiological arousal → increased heart rate, sweating
• Labelling the arousal → interpretation according to situational cues that indicate whether help is
needed.
• Evaluation of the consequence → weighs the cost and benefits of intervention
• individual will choose the course that reduces their own personal distress at the lowest
possible cost to them
PILIAVIN ET AL. (1969)
Theory 2 – Decision Model of Helping (By Latané and Darley 1970)
An individual’s decision to help or not help in response to an emergency depends upon a series of decisions
Suggests that a bystander’s decision at each stage of the process may be shaped by several factors
influencing bystanderism:
• Event is first noticed
• If event is interpreted as an emergency the person us more likely to help
• Aka pluralistic ignorance
• If the person takes responsibility for helping, they are more likely to help
• Diffusion of responsibility
• If the person knows how to help they are more likely to help
• Evaluation apprehension
LATANÉ AND DARLEY (1970)
Arousal-Cost Decision of Helping
• Model assumes that bystanders make a • Explains the helping behavior process from the
rational analysis rather than acting intuitively perception of a problem to the actual act of
• Assumes that people only help for egoistic helping
reasons • Rather a mechanistic approach to behavior
• Although most of the research is conducted in • People may not have the time for such
experimental conditions finding have been apparently logical decision and are more likely
applied to explain real-life situation to act impulsively
• Taken into consideration that there is • Doesn’t explain why people are helpful
significant individual variance that cannot
attribute to the situation
• Reductionist
, Bystanderism
Discuss factors influencing of bystanderism
Intro
Social Responsibility → Refers to an individual’s relationship with society at large
→ how people interact with outgroups as passive bystanders
→ how people interact through prosocial behavior for the benefit of others
Bystanderism
Also known as Bystander effect, refers to how individuals may not help in situation requiring assistance,
especially when other passive bystanders are present.
Discovery of this effect is widely attributed to the tragedy of Kitty Genovese
Factor 1
Pluralistic ignorance → bystanders take the behavioral cues of other bystander to interpret whether an
apparent emergency is really an emergency.
• If other bystanders do not respond, then the event may not be interpreted as an emergency needing
help.
• Suggests that none of the bystanders know what to do or how to react → ignorant in the plural.
LATANÉ AND DARLEY (1970)
Link
→ Pluralistic ignorance is reinforced by strong social norms → people feel embarrassed to call out an
emergency especially if emergency does not exist or is not visible
Factor 2
Diffusion of responsibility → bystanders may feel less responsible to help in an emergency when there are
other bystanders present who might help instead.
• Explains why people are generally more likely to help when they are the only person available to offer
assistance.
LEVINE AND CROWTHER (2008)
Discussion
→ In earlier research, considerable amount of attention was focused upon the roles of diffusion or
responsibility, evaluation apprehension and pluralistic ignorance
→ Those factors may explain bystanderism in several different contexts.
→ However, this theory is very reductionist and sheer number of variables influence bystander behavior
LATANÉ AND NIDA (1981)
→ Review of available bystander
→ She concluded that bystanderism was influence most by 4 variables that appear to reduce helping
behavior
1. When the number of bystanders increase
2. When the situation is ambiguous
3. When a villain acts → limits bystander intervention
4. Non-emergency incident → less likely to intervene
→ Suggested that bystanders tend to intervene less in ambiguous situation when it may not be clear that
an emergency is taking place. → Therefore they look for group responses for guidance on whether to act or
no.
→ Bystaderism is influenced by a wide range of factors that we’ve gained some understanding of.
→ However it still has not reached full accounting.
, Bystanderism
Evaluate/Contrast theories of bystanderism
Intro
Social Responsibility → Refers to an individual’s relationship with society at large
→ how people interact with outgroups as passive bystanders
→ how people interact through prosocial behavior for the benefit of others
Bystanderism
Also known as Bystander effect, refers to how individuals may not help in situation requiring assistance,
especially when other passive bystanders are present.
Discovery of this effect is widely attributed to the tragedy of Kitty Genovese
Theory 1 – Arousal-Cost-Reward Model
Explains bystander behavior in terms of cognitive and emotional processing.
Key idea: when some event or emergency triggers series of mental calculation and physical responses
Cost-benefit analysis --> if benefits of helping outweighs the costs of helping = more likely to help.
3 stages of calculation before they reach a decision
• Physiological arousal → increased heart rate, sweating
• Labelling the arousal → interpretation according to situational cues that indicate whether help is
needed.
• Evaluation of the consequence → weighs the cost and benefits of intervention
• individual will choose the course that reduces their own personal distress at the lowest
possible cost to them
PILIAVIN ET AL. (1969)
Theory 2 – Decision Model of Helping (By Latané and Darley 1970)
An individual’s decision to help or not help in response to an emergency depends upon a series of decisions
Suggests that a bystander’s decision at each stage of the process may be shaped by several factors
influencing bystanderism:
• Event is first noticed
• If event is interpreted as an emergency the person us more likely to help
• Aka pluralistic ignorance
• If the person takes responsibility for helping, they are more likely to help
• Diffusion of responsibility
• If the person knows how to help they are more likely to help
• Evaluation apprehension
LATANÉ AND DARLEY (1970)
Arousal-Cost Decision of Helping
• Model assumes that bystanders make a • Explains the helping behavior process from the
rational analysis rather than acting intuitively perception of a problem to the actual act of
• Assumes that people only help for egoistic helping
reasons • Rather a mechanistic approach to behavior
• Although most of the research is conducted in • People may not have the time for such
experimental conditions finding have been apparently logical decision and are more likely
applied to explain real-life situation to act impulsively
• Taken into consideration that there is • Doesn’t explain why people are helpful
significant individual variance that cannot
attribute to the situation
• Reductionist
, Bystanderism
Discuss factors influencing of bystanderism
Intro
Social Responsibility → Refers to an individual’s relationship with society at large
→ how people interact with outgroups as passive bystanders
→ how people interact through prosocial behavior for the benefit of others
Bystanderism
Also known as Bystander effect, refers to how individuals may not help in situation requiring assistance,
especially when other passive bystanders are present.
Discovery of this effect is widely attributed to the tragedy of Kitty Genovese
Factor 1
Pluralistic ignorance → bystanders take the behavioral cues of other bystander to interpret whether an
apparent emergency is really an emergency.
• If other bystanders do not respond, then the event may not be interpreted as an emergency needing
help.
• Suggests that none of the bystanders know what to do or how to react → ignorant in the plural.
LATANÉ AND DARLEY (1970)
Link
→ Pluralistic ignorance is reinforced by strong social norms → people feel embarrassed to call out an
emergency especially if emergency does not exist or is not visible
Factor 2
Diffusion of responsibility → bystanders may feel less responsible to help in an emergency when there are
other bystanders present who might help instead.
• Explains why people are generally more likely to help when they are the only person available to offer
assistance.
LEVINE AND CROWTHER (2008)
Discussion
→ In earlier research, considerable amount of attention was focused upon the roles of diffusion or
responsibility, evaluation apprehension and pluralistic ignorance
→ Those factors may explain bystanderism in several different contexts.
→ However, this theory is very reductionist and sheer number of variables influence bystander behavior
LATANÉ AND NIDA (1981)
→ Review of available bystander
→ She concluded that bystanderism was influence most by 4 variables that appear to reduce helping
behavior
1. When the number of bystanders increase
2. When the situation is ambiguous
3. When a villain acts → limits bystander intervention
4. Non-emergency incident → less likely to intervene
→ Suggested that bystanders tend to intervene less in ambiguous situation when it may not be clear that
an emergency is taking place. → Therefore they look for group responses for guidance on whether to act or
no.
→ Bystaderism is influenced by a wide range of factors that we’ve gained some understanding of.
→ However it still has not reached full accounting.
