Problem 2
Black-sheep effect, The tendency for group members to evaluate a group member who performs an
offensive behavior more harshly than an outgroup member who performs the same offence.
Bystander effect, The tendency for people to help less when they know others are present and
capable of helping. The effect was initially thought to be the result of apathy and a selfish
unwillingness to get involved, but research suggests a number of cognitive and social processes,
including diffusion of responsibility and misinterpretation that help is not needed, contribute to the
effect.
Diffusion of responsibility, a reduction of personal responsibility experienced by individuals in
groups and social collectives.
Social impact theory, the more people there are in comparisons to the target person(s), the bigger the
social influence.
Pluralistic ignorance, when people think that their behavior/feelings are different from the rest, as a
result each member wrongly interprets the other’s inaction as reflecting their better understanding of
the situation.
Audience inhabitation, not wanting to help for fear of making yourself look bad.
Social norm, a set of unwritten rules most members of a social group comply with.
Altruism, helping without expecting a reward.
Just-world hypothesis, people need to believe that the world us a just place where one gets what they
deserve. As evidence of undeserved suffering undermines this belief, people may conclude that
victims get what they deserve.
Bystander intervention, when an individual breaks out of the group to help another.
Terror management theory, the human motion to reduce the terror of death.
Prior commitment, a self-agreement to be more responsible.
Forsyth
Human groups are essential for survival, but also have their negative aspects(Ex: peer pressure). One
of the negative processes is the bystander effect.
The Killing of Kitty Genovese: What Else Does This Case Tell Us?
Catherine Genovese was murdered in Queens, New York 1964, while not one of the 38 bystanders
tried to intervene or call the police until it was too late. Many blamed the bystandes, suggesting a lack
of empathy. Bib Latane and John Darley offered a different explanation, social pressure interfered
with peoples capacity to help. This event inspired the study of bystander intervention and eventually
lead to the discovery of what is now known as the bystander effect. In a most fitting, if not ironic,
conclusion to Moseley’s crime spree, the perpetrator whose actions spawned the narrative of the
nonresponsive urban bystander was captured precisely because of the intervention of urban bystander.
To some extent, the precise number is a moot point. The bystander effect was born of this case and
Moseley’s capture 6 days later because of the actions of two neighbors reminds us that social and
situational parameters are all important in predicting bystander intervention. A recent meta-analysis
indicates that while the bystander effect is robust, the inhibiting effect of others is diminished when
bystanders know each other than when they are strangers.
Gorilla
, In a classic experiment, Simons and Chabris (1999) presented subjects with a short video clip of six
adults-three in white shirts, three in black shirts-passing a basketball to each other. They asked the
subjects to count silently the number of times the players in white shirts pass the ball. For 9 seconds
over the course of the video, someone in a gorilla costume walks through the room, faces the camera,
and pounds its chest before leaving. When later asked about the clip, half the subjects tested did not
even see the intrusive figure. As a result of “inattentional blindness,” it was as if the gorilla was
invisible.
BYSTANDER INTERVENTION IN EMERGENCIES: seizure
Ss overheard an epileptic seizure. They believed either that they alone heard the emergency, or that 1
or 4 unseen others were also present. As predicted the presence of other bystanders reduced the
individual's feelings of personal responsibility and lowered his speed of reporting. In groups of size 3,
males reported no faster than females, and females reported no slower when the 1 other bystander was
a male rather than a female. In general, personality and background measures were not predictive of
helping. Bystander inaction in real-life emergencies is often explained by "apathy," "alienation," and
"anomie." This experiment suggests that the explanation may lie more in the bystander's response to
other observers than in his indifference to the victim.
A person witnessing an emergency situation, particularly such a frightening and dangerous one as a
stabbing, is in conflict. There are obvious humanitarian norms about helping the victim, but there
are also rational and irrational fears about what might happen to a person who does intervene
(Milgram & Hollander, 1964). "I didn't want to get involved," is a familiar comment, and behind it
lies fears of physical harm, public embarrassment, involvement with police procedures, lost
work days and jobs, and other unknown dangers.
The responsibility for helping was diffused among the observers; there was also diffusion of any
potential blame for not taking action; and finally, it was possible that somebody, unperceived, had
already initiated helping action. When only one bystander is present in an emergency, if help is to
come, it must come from him. When there are several observers present, the pressures to intervene do
not focus on any one of the observers; instead the responsibility for intervention is shared among all
the onlookers and is not unique to anyone. As a result, no one helps.
Personality measures showed no important or significant correlations with speed of reporting the
emergency. In fact, only one of the 16 individual difference measures, the size of the community in
which the subject grew up, correlated with the speed of helping.
It might be helpful in understanding this lack of difference to distinguish two general classes of
intervention in emergency situations: direct and reportorial. Direct intervention (breaking up a
fight, extinguishing a fire, swimming out to save a drowner) often requires skill, knowledge, or
physical power. It may involve danger. American cultural norms and Berkowitz's results seem to
suggest that males are more responsible than females for this kind of direct intervention. A second
way of dealing with an emergency is to report it to someone qualified to handle it, such as the police.
For this kind of intervention, there seem to be no norms requiring male action. In the present study,
subjects clearly intended to report the emergency rather than take direct action. For such indirect
intervention, sex or medical competence does not appear to affect one's qualifications or
responsibilities. Anybody, male or female, medically trained or not, can find the experimenter.
Social Influence and the Bystander Effect
Why do people in groups not help as much as individuals:
Black-sheep effect, The tendency for group members to evaluate a group member who performs an
offensive behavior more harshly than an outgroup member who performs the same offence.
Bystander effect, The tendency for people to help less when they know others are present and
capable of helping. The effect was initially thought to be the result of apathy and a selfish
unwillingness to get involved, but research suggests a number of cognitive and social processes,
including diffusion of responsibility and misinterpretation that help is not needed, contribute to the
effect.
Diffusion of responsibility, a reduction of personal responsibility experienced by individuals in
groups and social collectives.
Social impact theory, the more people there are in comparisons to the target person(s), the bigger the
social influence.
Pluralistic ignorance, when people think that their behavior/feelings are different from the rest, as a
result each member wrongly interprets the other’s inaction as reflecting their better understanding of
the situation.
Audience inhabitation, not wanting to help for fear of making yourself look bad.
Social norm, a set of unwritten rules most members of a social group comply with.
Altruism, helping without expecting a reward.
Just-world hypothesis, people need to believe that the world us a just place where one gets what they
deserve. As evidence of undeserved suffering undermines this belief, people may conclude that
victims get what they deserve.
Bystander intervention, when an individual breaks out of the group to help another.
Terror management theory, the human motion to reduce the terror of death.
Prior commitment, a self-agreement to be more responsible.
Forsyth
Human groups are essential for survival, but also have their negative aspects(Ex: peer pressure). One
of the negative processes is the bystander effect.
The Killing of Kitty Genovese: What Else Does This Case Tell Us?
Catherine Genovese was murdered in Queens, New York 1964, while not one of the 38 bystanders
tried to intervene or call the police until it was too late. Many blamed the bystandes, suggesting a lack
of empathy. Bib Latane and John Darley offered a different explanation, social pressure interfered
with peoples capacity to help. This event inspired the study of bystander intervention and eventually
lead to the discovery of what is now known as the bystander effect. In a most fitting, if not ironic,
conclusion to Moseley’s crime spree, the perpetrator whose actions spawned the narrative of the
nonresponsive urban bystander was captured precisely because of the intervention of urban bystander.
To some extent, the precise number is a moot point. The bystander effect was born of this case and
Moseley’s capture 6 days later because of the actions of two neighbors reminds us that social and
situational parameters are all important in predicting bystander intervention. A recent meta-analysis
indicates that while the bystander effect is robust, the inhibiting effect of others is diminished when
bystanders know each other than when they are strangers.
Gorilla
, In a classic experiment, Simons and Chabris (1999) presented subjects with a short video clip of six
adults-three in white shirts, three in black shirts-passing a basketball to each other. They asked the
subjects to count silently the number of times the players in white shirts pass the ball. For 9 seconds
over the course of the video, someone in a gorilla costume walks through the room, faces the camera,
and pounds its chest before leaving. When later asked about the clip, half the subjects tested did not
even see the intrusive figure. As a result of “inattentional blindness,” it was as if the gorilla was
invisible.
BYSTANDER INTERVENTION IN EMERGENCIES: seizure
Ss overheard an epileptic seizure. They believed either that they alone heard the emergency, or that 1
or 4 unseen others were also present. As predicted the presence of other bystanders reduced the
individual's feelings of personal responsibility and lowered his speed of reporting. In groups of size 3,
males reported no faster than females, and females reported no slower when the 1 other bystander was
a male rather than a female. In general, personality and background measures were not predictive of
helping. Bystander inaction in real-life emergencies is often explained by "apathy," "alienation," and
"anomie." This experiment suggests that the explanation may lie more in the bystander's response to
other observers than in his indifference to the victim.
A person witnessing an emergency situation, particularly such a frightening and dangerous one as a
stabbing, is in conflict. There are obvious humanitarian norms about helping the victim, but there
are also rational and irrational fears about what might happen to a person who does intervene
(Milgram & Hollander, 1964). "I didn't want to get involved," is a familiar comment, and behind it
lies fears of physical harm, public embarrassment, involvement with police procedures, lost
work days and jobs, and other unknown dangers.
The responsibility for helping was diffused among the observers; there was also diffusion of any
potential blame for not taking action; and finally, it was possible that somebody, unperceived, had
already initiated helping action. When only one bystander is present in an emergency, if help is to
come, it must come from him. When there are several observers present, the pressures to intervene do
not focus on any one of the observers; instead the responsibility for intervention is shared among all
the onlookers and is not unique to anyone. As a result, no one helps.
Personality measures showed no important or significant correlations with speed of reporting the
emergency. In fact, only one of the 16 individual difference measures, the size of the community in
which the subject grew up, correlated with the speed of helping.
It might be helpful in understanding this lack of difference to distinguish two general classes of
intervention in emergency situations: direct and reportorial. Direct intervention (breaking up a
fight, extinguishing a fire, swimming out to save a drowner) often requires skill, knowledge, or
physical power. It may involve danger. American cultural norms and Berkowitz's results seem to
suggest that males are more responsible than females for this kind of direct intervention. A second
way of dealing with an emergency is to report it to someone qualified to handle it, such as the police.
For this kind of intervention, there seem to be no norms requiring male action. In the present study,
subjects clearly intended to report the emergency rather than take direct action. For such indirect
intervention, sex or medical competence does not appear to affect one's qualifications or
responsibilities. Anybody, male or female, medically trained or not, can find the experimenter.
Social Influence and the Bystander Effect
Why do people in groups not help as much as individuals:
