According to Aronson, Wilson, and Akert (2013) prosocial behavior is defined as an act performed for the benefit of another person. Altruism is referred to as the want to help another individual even if it means no benefits, or possibly a cost, for the helper (Aronson, Wilson, & Akert, 2013). One particular factor, the bystander effect, has a profound impact on whether or not people help others. The bystander effect states that as the number of people who witness an emergency increases, the likelihood that any of those people will help decreases (Aronson et al., 2013). Processes associated with the bystander effect such as pluralistic ignorance, diffusion of responsibility, and victim effect all impact the likelihood of prosocial behavior, and can be exaggerated by social, cultural, and ‘self’ beliefs. Once an individual notices an event, he or she must then interpret the event as an emergency in order to help. The problem here is that pluralistic ignorance often takes place when others are around because people think others are interpreting a situation a particular way, when they typically are not (Aronson et al., 2013). In these situations, informational social influence occurs because individuals look to other people for queues regarding the current situation. People usually believe others are better at understanding the situation than they are. Yet, while everyone is looking for social queues because they are concerned or worried, no one is acting as if they are worried because they do not want to act outside of the group norm. The next step in offering assistance in an emergency is assuming responsibility. Often times, diffusion of responsibility takes place instead. Unfortunately, with people around, each ind... ... middle of paper ... ... R.M, (2013). Social Psychology (8th ed.). New Jersey: Pearson Education Inc. Caprara, G.V. & Steca, P. (2005). Self–efficacy beliefs as Determinants of prosocial behavior conducive to life satisfaction across ages. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology. 24(2).191-217. doi: 10.1521/jscp.24.2.191.62271 Hui, C.H. (1988). Measurement of individualism-collectivism. Journal of Research in Personality. 22(1). 17-36. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0092656688900220 Hui, C.H. and Triandis, H.C. (1986). Individualism-collectivism: a study of cross-cultural researchers. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. 17(2). 225-248. Doi: 10.1177/0022002186017002006 Kogut, T. and Ritov, I. (2005), The “identified victim” effect: an identified group, or just a single individual?. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making. 18. 157–167. doi: 10.1002/bdm.492
As our textbook describes the bystander effect as the tendency for any given bystander to be less likely to give aid if other bystanders are present. To put it into my own words, I think that bystander effect is where people are less likely to help because of the diffusion of responsibility. We are more likely to help: the person appears to need and deserve help, if the person is in some way similar to us, the person is a woman, when we have just observed someone else being helpful, if we are not in a hurry, if we are in a small town or rural areas, when we are feeling guilty, when we are focused on others and not preoccupied, and when we are in a great/good mood (Myers).
It was stated that whether or not people help depends on a series of interconnected events and decisions. They must first notice what’s happening, understand that it is an emergency and accept personal responsibility. When this fails to happen that is called the bystander effect (Carpenter & Huffman, 2008, p. 422).
This article provides me a detailed research on a group of American and Chinese adults with plenty of data and analysis. They provided a lot of real and objective opinion on the comparison between individualism and collectivism. The fact of the whole respondents are students gives me an advantage on finding better ways to understand and use this research in my
A culture’s tendency to be individualistic or collectivistic can be found at the root of
Rutkowski and colleagues (1983) showed that group size only decreased helping where bystanders were unacquainted, but facilitated helping where there was high cohesion and acquainted individuals. This can be explained as groups being more likely to conform to the social responsibility norm of helping when there is high group cohesion (Rutkowski et al., 1983). Additional evidence provided by Levine and Crowther (2008) showed that group size encouraged intervention in emergency situations when bystanders were acquaintances. Moreover, Levine and Crowther (2008) found that where bystanders and victims share a salient social category membership, group size could increase helping (Levine & Crowther, 2008; Swann et al., 2015). Drawing on the self-categorisation theory, the results support that individuals are more able to empathise when their identity is attached and fused to their group membership. Consequently, salient group-based identity would increase a bystander’s likelihood of intervening. These studies show that Latane and Darley’s finding that groups reduce helping behaviour is not conclusive. Instead, there are implications that the effects of groups depend on situational factors and the importance of the group to
The following four empirical studies focus on the topic of bystander intervention. Each study focused on various aspects of how bystander intervention related to a particular situation.
The first step is to notice the event or, if they are in a hurry, not notice and ignore it. The second step is to realize the emergency or, in most cases, see that nobody is reacting and assume it is not an emergency. The third is to assume responsibility, meaning to help the person in distress. You could do that or assume that somebody else will which happens in most cases. The fourth is to know what to do in the situation, for example, if someone is having a heart attack, doing CPR would be knowing what to do in that situation, or not. The fifth is to act but in most cases people do not because they are afraid to do so. If it is a dangerous situation, for example an attempted murder, people would be afraid to act because they are afraid to get hurt. They can also be afraid of embarrassment, they may not want the media coverage on them (Bystander Effect).
The next communication gap concerns with the individualism- collectivism dimension, which is the degree an individual is integrated into groups in a society (Hofstede, 2001). Individualistic cultures like the U.S put a strong emphasis on individual autonomy and independence, whereas collectivist cultures like Vietnam believe in belonging, obligation
... (1968). Bystander intervention in emergencies: Diffusion of responsibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8, 377-383.
...though the researchers weren’t looking for it, he results represent ideas that can help the bystander effect in a situation. Smaller numbers increase the percentage of realization when it comes down to an emergency. The victim, if cohesive, actually plays a big role in causing the bystander effect as well. When a victim is unable to verbally communicate with bystanders, it lessens the chance of help. If a victim is capable of communicating, the help given could be more efficient. This is because it can help break the diffusion of responsibility. A victim looking a bystander directly in the eyes can even spark a quicker reaction in them. These are all ideas that psychologists still study today, and many even consider learning about this phenomenon a requirement.
The bystander effect is a social phenomenon, whereby individuals are less likely to help when others are present. This emerged following the murder of Kitty Genovese, 1964. Manning, Levine and Collins (2007) state, ‘this iconic event focused research attention on the psychology of helping and how groups act as impediments to helping.’ (pp. 555). Theorists argue the more bystanders, the less likely people help. Arguably, one cause of the bystander effect is diffusion of responsibility, this is the idea that when a task is presented before a larger group,
Cultures that favor generous, supportive and cooperative behavior promote these responses by reinforcing prosocial behavior. People who are cooperative are also more likely to come to the aid of people in distress. Several of the factors that promote cooperation such as personally adjustment, cognitive level, imitation, and cultural background also affect generosity and helpfulness.
Individualism is the degree of interdependence a society maintains among its members (cia.gov). Individualism deals with individual’s self image in the forms of “I” Or “we”. When people in this dimension belong to group in exchange for loyal this is called collectivist societies. Ireland scored high when it came to individualism culture with a score of 70. Irish employees are expected to show initiative and self reliance when it comes to the industry. Ireland has an exchanged-based industry, for one to advance or be hired into an industry one must have evidence of their skill level.
The norm of reciprocity can cause us to behave in both negative and positive ways towards our neighbours. Entirely altruistic behaviour is rare and egoistic motivations often underlie actions which cause the betterment of others lives. Just as a chimpanzee will groom another's body with the expectation of receiving the same service in return, so do we help others in the hope of being rewarded in some fashion, be it recognition, the avoidance of guilt or the long term well being of the group t...
Culture can also shape individuals’ development of self, which also influence their behaviors. According to Smith (2014) an individual from Western cultures tend to develop independent self-construal which he or she tends to “strive for self-expression, uniqueness and self-actualization, acting autonomously based on his/her own thoughts and feelings, and pursuing his/her own goals” (p. 160). In contrast, an individual from East Asia tends to acquire interdependent self-construal where he or she tends to view “the self as closely connected to the social context” which he or she strive “to fit in and maintain harmony with relevant others, basing their actions and expectations and social norms” (Smith, 2014, p. 160). The different types of self-construal give rise