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
The bystander effect is a the phenomenon in which the more people are are around the less likely someone will step-in or help in a given situation. THe most prominent example of this is the tragic death of Kitty Genovese. In march of 1964 Kitty genovese was murdered in the alley outside of her apartment. That night numerous people reported hearing the desperate cries for help made by Kitty Genovese who was stabbed to death. Her screams ripped through the night and yet people walked idly by her murder. No one intervened and not even a measly phone call to the police was made.
Kitty Genovese case led to the development of the 911 emergency call system and inspired a long line of research led by psychologists Bibb Latané and John Darley around the time of 1970 into what circumstances lead bystanders to help someone in need. They discovered that, the more people available to help, the less likely any individual person would help—a phenomenon they called the “bystander effect.” If you are the only one around when an elderly person stumbles and falls, the responsibility to help is yours alone, but, with more people present, your obligation is less clear. Latané and Darley called this the “diffusion of responsibility” (CSI). A more recent case of the bystander effect was when assault victim Marques Gains laid motionless in the street due to by a hit-and-run; traffic whizzed past along with a few people stopped and seemed to stand over Gaines, who was crumpled near the curb on North State Street. No one tried to lift him from the pavement or block traffic. The lack of action by passers-by cost the hotel cocktail server his life after a cab turned the corner and drove over him. Experts says that a traumatic or odd event occurring in a public setting triggers an array of social and cultural cues and, combined with human nature, often leads to the lack of action by witnesses
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
Martin Luther King, Jr. once said, “The ultimate tragedy is not the oppression and cruelty by the bad people but the silence over that by the good people.” We are All Bystanders by Jason Marsh and Dacher Keltner is an article that reflects on the psychological and social phenomenon that refers to cases in which people do not offer any assistance or help to a victim. Studies say that a person's personality can determine how they react to a bystander situation. In a book called, The Heart of Altruism, author Kristen Monroe writes the altruistic perspective. Altruistic people are strongly connected to other humans and have a concern for the well-being of others. Markus Zusak’s The Book Thief exemplifies the bystander theory through Liesel and
A culture’s tendency to be individualistic or collectivistic can be found at the root of
Latane and Darley (1968) investigated the phenomenon known as the bystander effect and staged an emergency situation where smoke was pumped into the room participants was in. Results showed that 75% of participants who were alone reported the smoke, whereas only 38% of participants working in groups of three reported (Latane & Darley, 1968). Their findings provide evidence for the negative consequence of the diffusion of responsibility. In line with the social influence principle, bystanders depend on reactions of others to perceive a situation as an emergency and are subsequently less likely to help. Latane and Darley’s findings were also supported in recent research: Garcia and colleagues (2002) found that even priming a social context by asking participants to imagine themselves in a group could decrease helping behaviour. It can be contended that these findings are examples of social proof where individuals believe actions of the group is correct for the situation, or examples of pluralistic ignorance where individuals outwardly conform because they incorrectly assumed that a group had accepted the norm (Baumeister & Bushman,
Relationships are an important focus in the subject of bystander intervention, as interactions with others will influence the decision making of a person in terms of a decision to intervene, in part. The severity of a situation is related to this decision-making, and may lead to a person who will potentially intervene in forming a conclusion of if the event if an emergency. Additionally, both the previous and following studies involve undergraduate students as participants. This is helpful, as an undergraduate student is generally eager to express an honest opinion, which may lead to a more valid
Prosocial behaviors are actions taken to help and benefit other individuals. Examples of prosocial behaviors include helping an elderly woman cross a busy street, baking cookies for someone, or even buying a stranger a cup of coffee. Prosocial behavior is an act of kindness that everyone should be aware of for the sake of helping others around them progress mentally and physically. After spending the past week practicing more prosocial behavior to friends, family, and strangers, I have learned that prosocial behavior not only makes others feel good but it is also self-rewarding.
...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.
However, that opposing argument can be found as hypocritical. If a person was getting robbed in an ally and they saw many witnesses taking no action they would likely be upset by the fact of no one is offering any assistance to them. Bystanders should put themselves into the shoes of the person in need and ask themselves how they would expect others to respond if they were the one in need. Often time’s bystanders take no intervention because of the diffusion of responsibility. “When there are four or more people who are bystanders to an emergency situation, the likelihood that at least one of them will help is just 31%” (Gaille). Another statistic shows that 85% of people who were bystanders would intervene if they knew or at least though they were the only person present in the situation. Often the only thing keeping people from intervening in bystander situations are other people. It is important for bystanders to understand the statistics of the people around them in order to create action because often times they do not realize that if they were to intervene other people would likely support them in the situation. Bystanders need to make it a personal responsibility to intervene in situations for the good of other. If people were to always take action the amount of bullying, sexual harassment, crime, and many other significant issues within a society would drastically
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.
Darley, J.M., Latane, B. (1968). Bystander intervention in emergencies: Diffusion of responsibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8 (4), 377-383.
Darley, J. M. & Latané, B. (1968) Bystander intervention in emergencies: Diffusion of responsibility, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 8, 377–383
This dimension describes the relationship between the individual and the collectivism that prevails in a given society. Individualism means mostly caring of oneself and one’s immediate family. In contrast, collectivism relates to caring for both oneself and other groups.