Helping Behavior, Bystanders, and Compliance Gaining

the bystander effect• the case of Kitty Genovese• in general, groups are less likely

to lend assistance in an emergency than an individual

• the presence of other people tends to inhibit helping behavior

• the larger the crowd, the less likely people are to help

• apathy and indifference are not the main reasons bystanders fail to act

• Pluralistic ignorance: people wait for someone else to act who knows what to do

• Diffusion of responsibility: the personal responsibility of each individual is reduced.

• people assume someone else has called for help or will call for help

• Social proof: others’ inaction implies the situation is not that serious

• Intervention inertia: easier to do nothing than something

bystander behavior• I don’t want to look stupid.

• When a waiting room filled with smoke, people did nothing if they saw others doing nothing (Latane & Darley, 1968)

• I don’t want to get involved• Bystanders failed to act when a person

feigned having an asthma attack or a seizure (Harris & Robinson, 1973; Schwartz & Clausen, 1970).

• Danger in numbers• The more strangers present, the less

likely anyone will be to help

when do bystanders help?• friends more likely to help that

strangers

• sense of “we”ness; some sense of connectedness

• in-group members, common category members are more likely to help

• role expectations; female/male, teacher student, customer/cashier

• fear of negative evaluation

• when people are singled out as individuals

helping behavior and attractiveness

• Juhnke et al. (2001) Effects of attractiveness and nature of the request on helping behavior

• Shoppers were approached when entering or leaving a supermarket or department store. Confederates asked the shoppers for directions.

• Independent variable 1: attire• Well-dressed: clean, conservative clothes,

clean shaven• Poorly dressed: simulated tattoos,

cigarettes rolled in sleeves, dirty t-shirt, torn dirty trousers, uncombed hair

• Independent variable 2: status of destination

• Exclusive tennis club in nearby vicinity• Thrift shop in nearby vicinity

• Dependent variable: the amount of time spent giving directions

• Results:• The most time spent giving directions

was to poorly dressed undergrads going to the low-status destination

• Low status may have been associated with low intelligence:

• e.g., Speak slowly and clearly• Pity explanation: greater sensitivity to the

low status person’s plight • e.g. This person really needs a change of

clothes• Note: this finding runs counter to

previous studies that found higher status produced greater compliance

helping behavior and status• Solomon & Herman (1977) Status

symbols and prosocial behavior: The effect of the victim’s car on helping

• Independent variable 1: Sex of the subject

• Independent variable 2: status of the person’s car

• Shiny Buick Electra• Dirty Ford Impala

• The person was an attractive, well-dressed female loading groceries into her car.

• As a subject was approached she “dropped” her bag of groceries.

• Dependent variable: Helping behavior was defined as physically picking up the groceries

• Results:• Male subjects were more likely to help a

high status than low status victim (73% versus 33%)

• Female subjects were only slightly more likely to help a high status than low status victim (27% versus 20%)

• Note: Male compliance for the low status victim was still higher than female compliance for the high status victim

• Note: Situational demands favor males helping more than females

helping behavior and social status• Yinon & Dovrat (1987)The reciprocity-

arousing potential of the requester’s occupation, its status and the cost and urgency of the request as determinants of helping behavior

• 2 X 2 X 2 design, using a variation of the “wrong number” technique

• Independent variable 1: a male confederate introduced himself as a:

• physician or accountant• fireman or gas station attendant

• Independent Variable 2: urgency of the request

• urgent versus non-urgent request• Independent variable 3: effort or cost of

compliance• disconnected phone number for 30 min.• disconnected phone number for 60 min.

• Dependent variable: the confederate asked strangers if they would call his wife to tell her he would be late

• Results:• Compliance was significantly greatest for the

physician• Compliance had less to do with status and more

to do with the potential for reciprocity• Compliance was greater for urgent requests• Compliance was greater for lower-cost, lower-

effort requests

aggressiveness and status• Doob & Gross (1968)

Motorists in luxury cars were less likely to be honked at than motorists in medium to low priced cars

• Motorists sat behind the wheel as a light turned green• Some motorists drove

new expensive cars• Others drove older

ordinary cars• The drivers behind them

waited significantly longer before honking, based on the status of the car.

• Would the same hold true today?

social proof• people look to

others to determine social norms

• most pronounced in ambiguous social situations

social proof and attire• Gueguen & Pichot (2001) The influence of

status on pedestrians’ failure to follow a road-safety rule

• Independent variable: comparison of three types of attire:

• Well-dressed• Casually dressed• Poorly-dressed• Control condition: no confederate

• Confederate crossed at crosswalk against a red light

• Large sample size: 2,883 pedestrians waiting at a crosswalk for a light to change

• Dependent Variable: violating the “do not walk” signal and following the confederate across the street.

• Results• Control condition: 15.6% violations of no walk

signal• Well-dressed: 54.5% violations• Casually dressed: 17.9% violations• Poorly dressed: 9.3% violations

• Note: the control condition produced more compliance than the low-status clothing condition.

social proof and attire• Gueguen (2003) The effect of

Shoplifter’s status on reporting a crime: An evaluation in a natural setting

• Independent variable: a male confederate was well-dressed or poorly dressed

• Neatly dressed: suit &tie• Slovenly: Dirty jeans, torn

jacket, sneakers• Neutral: Clean jeans, tee-shirt

and jacket, moccasins• The confederate asked a shopper

to move aside so he could get a CD, then pocketed the CD

• Dependent variable: Whether the subjects did nothing or told the store security officer or a clerk about the theft

• Results:• 73% of the shoppers did

nothing. Most didn’t want to get involved.

• For the well dressed shoplifter, only 10% of the shoppers intervened (90% did nothing)

• For the poorly dressed shoplifter, 39% of the shoppers intervened (60% did nothing)

• For the neutrally dressed shoplifter, 37% intervened (63% did nothing)

• Note: intervention rates for the slovenly and neutrally dressed shoplifters were almost the same.

social proof and college drinking

• freshmen consume an average of 5.26 drinks weekly (7.39 drinks for men, 3.86 drinks for women)

• freshman emulate drinking behaviors of other students

• new social setting, living environment

• desire to fit in