http://www.trivia-library.com/b/human-behavior-experiments-bystanders-and-emergency-situations.htm
In class, we learned that because of the bystander effect, a person who is in emergency is more likely to be helped by others when there is only one witness than when there are several. Also, the text book says, "people are less likely to help in urban areas than in rural ones." Bibb Latane and Judith Rodin at Columbia University conducted a study about Inhibiting Effects of Friends and Strangers on Bystander Intervention, and explained that the reason is because "there are too many strangers in cities." In their study, each participant was assigned to fill out a questionnaire in one of four situations: 1. alone in the testing room, 2. with an unresponsive confederate of the experimenter, 3. with another participant who was a stranger, 4. with a friend. While they were filling out their questionnaires, a loud sound of an accident and scream were heard from the representative's office. The result showed that the most helpful situations were when the participant was alone, and when he was with a friend; 70% of the participants in both cases helped out. In contrast, 40% of the participants with strangers, and only 7 % of those with the unresponsive confederates offered help. This result explains that people in rural areas are more helpful, because not only there are less people, but also they are more likely to know each other than people in large cities do.
Since it is proven that a victim will more likely receive aid from an individual witness rather than several witnesses, it makes sense that rural communities with less people are more willing to help than urban areas. However, I have a question for this experiment: were all the participants from rural areas or urban areas or both? The results may have been different if the main participant was from either area. Also, I wonder if the higher chance of the bystander effect in the city is really because there are too many strangers. Since the effect explains that a diffusion of responsibility occurs (diffusion of responsibility: the phenomenon whereby each bystander's sense of responsibility to help decreases as the number of witnesses increases, psychology-lexicon.com), it would be interesting to see two more tested situations: one participant with many strangers, and one participant with many friends. It would also be informative to discover how the results of this experiment varies in other cultures.
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting to see how much bystander's relationships to each other contribute to determining the likelihood of them helping a person in distress. I agree with grace that it would be nice to see this done with a few more configurations; it would be interesting to see if the likelihood of helping is proportional to the number of friends present. This would show whether diffusion of responsibility has the same effect if all of the bystanders are friends with each other as it does when they are all strangers. It would be interesting to see how the presence of 1 bystander friend affects helping compared to 10 bystander friends, or 5 friends and 5 strangers, for example.
ReplyDeleteSocial Influence and Diffusion of Responsibility. These are two factors highlighted by William Howard and William D. Crano in their 1974 article titled "Effects of Sex, Conversation, Location, and Size of Observer Group on Bystander Intervention in a High Risk Situation." In this article, the two men go into much detail on just why some factors prove to be more important when a person or group of people decide to act or not act in a situation of crisis. The article also brings up the issue on location as a decisive factor in action, just as this study articulates. It does appear to be true that in a crisis situation, it is safer to be around fewer people than more, hence the term "Social Influence." Also, when there are more people, those people believe someone else will take responsibility and contact another for help- "Diffusion of Responsibility." However, this article does not go into detail about rural vs. urban reactions, and just like Grace, I too would be interested to know the backgrounds of the students that participated in the "Bystander Effect" study. I would like to know if one grows up in a rural community and then moves to an urban area, does the rural mindset stay intact in crises? If not, how long is it before these issues of Social Influence and Diffusion of Responsibility infuse themselves into the thought processes of that individual?
ReplyDeleteThis is interesting study on diffusion of responsibility, but I agree that it could be a little more in depth. Specifically i would like to see a study done of a group of friends mixed with a group of strangers in reaction to the situation.
ReplyDeleteI do think that this does help with our understanding as to why people are more likely to help in a rural setting as apposed to an urban setting, though, since in an urban setting people are more likely going to be surrounded by strangers in the event of an accident whereas in a rural setting people will probably either be alone or with a friend.
I think this case did a good job at uncovering the truth about how much people are willing to help. However, I also agree that the study could be furthered. While I was reading the article I found myself wondering if the results would have changed if they way in which the test was presented was different. For an example... was the representative a young, attractive woman or a middle aged, average woman? Would the young men (i believe there should have been female test subjects as well) have been more prone to helping a good looking damsel in distress? What if there was no curtain dividing the representatives room and the "accident" took place when the test subjects were looking down at their questionaries? If they saw the woman's facial expressions portraying that she was in great pain and saw her looking at them when she asked for help... would the statistics for subjects that did helped be higher? There are many other factors to consider that would make the conclusion about the study stronger.
ReplyDeleteI agree with everyone else about furthering this study, it would be really interesting to do it in cities of varying sizes with male and female participants. Also, on the rural vs. urban bystander effect: I grew up in a really small town in Indiana, three stop-lights. Everyone knows everyone, or at least knows of everyone. I can totally see how in a rural setting bystanders would be more likely to help someone on the street, because you or someone you know probably knows this person. The 5 steps to helping in an emergency are way more likely to be completed if you know the person or are in a familiar setting. Personally, walking around the streets, especially at night, in New York, I try to keep my head down and go about my business. I'm way less likely to stop here and ask someone if they need help than I would be in Indiana, because I have no idea who this person might be. (It might just be that I've seen way to many horror movies though!) And depending on the neighborhood, it may or may not even be completely safe to go up to a stranger and see if they are ok (it could be the ambiguity of the situation, or a personal safety thing.)
ReplyDeleteA series of experiments done by the same university did scope out some of the alternative situations mentioned above, such as altering the gender of the person in perceived need of assistance, which produced no measurable effect (the attractiveness of the victim was not mentioned, Nicole). An experiment measuring the number of people who report smoke in a room led experimenters to believe that sometimes inaction is caused by disregarding the danger in a situation, which makes sense, as one of the first steps in the helping process is recognizing that there is an emergency. Unsurprisingly, the inaction of confederates suppressed the subjects' willingness to intervene in any of the situations in which responsibility for action was unclear.
ReplyDeleteI found the experiment to be really interesting, but am not too surprised when I found out the results. In class, we discussed how many factors play a part when going to help an individual. People are often afraid of getting judged by others. In a heavily populated city environment, people tend to assume that because there are so many people around, that someone else will jump in to help, so they do not have to bother. In a more rural environment, people tend to be more willing to help. In a rural environment, that person is also more inclined to know the person in the accident because of the area being so small as opposed to a large city full of strangers. I agree with everyone else about wishing the study went more in depth with the people involved in the experiment. I would have liked to see the study go more in-depth regarding the participants, It would be interesting to find out which sex, men or women, are more likely to help out in a critical situation.
ReplyDeleteI agree that it would be interesting to see how different genders, ages and ethnicities deal with helping others. I believe that it would be more likely for people within the same categories would help each other out more so than someone outside of their social group. It does not surprise me that rural rather than urban communities have more people willing to help. I feel as if I would help a stranger just as readily as I would help a close friend but that stands to be tested.
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting not only that having another person with them encouraged the members of the study to help or not (all according to the bystander effect) but also that the relation that the other person had with you could have an impact on your reaction to the situation. I can see someone having a friend with them cause their reaction to be even more strongly linked to that friend's reaction to that of a stranger. But it is interesting that having a friend with the subject rather than just having a stranger with them lead them to be more active. I could see this being the case seeing as it is easier to persuade and talk with a friend about the situation you are witnessing than it would be with a stranger. I think it would be an interesting study to see if the closeness of a particular friendship plays a role, in other words does the closer the friendship have a stronger chance of responding? My guess would be yes it would. I believe the five steps of an emergency would be much easier to complete if one had the confidence of a close friend near by them. I agree with Katelin that it is true that rural settings might tend to be safer because one would more likely feel comfortable to help in a safe setting compared to the sometimes dangerous unknown urban environment. I think it's interesting to link the "familiar" of rural with the "familiar" of having a friend near by.
ReplyDeleteNicole brings up some really valid points about the gender and visibility of the confederate asking for help. The study also says that the odds of two friends helping was higher than with a stranger. I see two possible explanations. The first is that if you are with a friend your actions have a certain amount of accountability. There is chance that your actions could be shared with other people in your social circle. The second explanation is that you are more comfortable around a friend, which means you wouldn’t be embarrassed to take a chance on helping someone who possibly doesn’t need help.
ReplyDelete