Latane and Darley developed a cognitive model to explain bystander behaviour. This consists of five essential elements. These are whether one notices an event is occurring, if the event is seen to be one of great need for input, whether a person wants to undertake responsibility, or diffuse responsibility. How a person perceives they can take action appropriately is vital as to whether they will help, and perhaps most importantly is the decision to take action.
Latane and Darley (1968) conducted research based in a waiting room. Participants believed they were waiting for an interview. The wall vent began to fill the room with smoke. Participants were observed alone and in groups in an attempt to witness identifiable differences. When subjects were alone, 75% reported the incidence within two minutes of it starting. When subjects were in groups, less than 13% reported the smoke at all.
Follow up discussions reflected that for some they did not identify the smoke to be a fire hazard.
Latane and Darley suggest humans are expectant on behaviour of each other in situations where expectations are not defined, safety may be felt in the knowledge others know best, or are more equipped to deal with a situation. It is also easy to make the assumption that others have already identified and responded to a situation, this paradox can be dangerous. This study goes some way to implicate people experience diffusion of responsibility even in situations that display themselves as hazardous to oneself if no action is taken.
Piliavin et al’s (1981) model for the explanation of bystander behaviour differs from Latane and Darley’s model. Piliavin’s model places great significance on interaction between victim, situation and potential helper. Piliavin suggests that gender, victim type and ethnic origin are key components in bystander behaviour. Characteristics displayed are a conjunction of situational occurrence (i.e. diffusion of responsibility) and individual (this relates to people’s varying perceptions of a situation, reasoning for and against intervention). Piliavin’s model is useful in addressing why people act in certain ways and how to account for this and potentially improve situations.
The arousal: cost-reward model relates to persons behaviour in both an emergency and a non-emergency situation and proposed by Piliavin et al (1981) and Dovidio et al (1991).
Situational factors follow on to incorporate issues such as whether the victim asks for help. Trait factors which may influence outcome include whether a person is empathetic or not, also their mood at the time of the incidence, known as a state factor is said to influence behaviour.
Piliavin et al. devised a model to attempt to determine why sometimes people help and why sometimes people do not help.
The Arousal Cost Reward Model relates to two sets of interrelating factors, Situational, bystander and victim characteristics. These are followed by cognitive and affective reactions, relating to arousal levels and attribution. Costs and benefits are weighed up by the potential helper.
In reference to this model motivation to help people is primarily not by altruism, but seeking to reduce unpleasant arousal feelings induced by the situation. Victim appearance, termed victim characteristics, may also determine whether they receive assistance. It is cognitive affective reactions that are important, based upon the fact every situation has unique characteristics, as does each person.
How arousal is attributed is the determinant in helping behaviour. If costs of both helping and not helping are low, Piliavin believes the subject is likely to receive attention. Piliavin theorises that as cost to the potential helper increases, the less likely it is they will offer assistance. In instances of impulsive helping Piliavin suggests there may be evolutionary basis for this.
However Anderson (1974) points out, in some situations people act on impulse regardless of potential possible personal cost, irrespective of the number of others present.
In response to Anderson (1974) Piliavin states:
‘Not coincidentally, {these factors}…have also been demonstrated to be related to greater levels of bystander arousal’.
(Piliavin 1981).
Piliavin tested his theory in a field experiment on the New York Underground. The study compared people’s response to a person with a cane and a person who appeared drunk and was struggling on the underground.
Helping behaviour was markedly higher in relation to the person with the cane, rather than the one who appeared to be drunk. This links cost/reward analysis and shows that it is apparent in general everyday situations.
In conclusion the research of Latane and Darley and Piliavin et al, although differing in accountability for the bystander response both indicate species have innate traits to protect ‘their own'. It seems interactions within a situation, number of individuals present, and perception of potential benefit and loss; are judgements which come into effect when faced with a situation on which another may be solely dependent. Even if it is clear that someone/ or a situation requires input people may choose to stand back and justify this by perceived personal needs. The case of Kitty Genovese shows this.
1088 words.
References:
Hayes, N & Orrell, S (1993) Psychology an Introduction. Longman Group UK Limited. P. 350-352.
Gross, R & Mcilveen, R (1998) Psychology A New Introduction. Hodder and Stoughton. P.537-538.
Malim, T & Birch, A, (1998) Introductory Psychology. Macmillan Press Ltd. P. 642-643.
Cardwell, M (1996) the complete A-Z Psychology Handbook. Hodder & Stoughton. P.37-38.
http://www.holah.karoo.net/glossary.htm
http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~alambert/ch11fall05.ppt#282,1,Chapter 11: Pro-Social Behavior
Shackleton Jones, N, Gross, G & Mcilveen, R (2001) Psychology a new introduction Study Guide. 2.edn. Hodder & Stoughton. P. 83.
