How far can laboratory research on bystander intervention account for ‘real life’ acts of heroism?
How far can laboratory research on bystander intervention account for 'real life' acts of heroism?
Darwin's Origin of Species was published in 1859 and is perhaps the starting point for the paradoxical issue of altruism and one of its more specific sub-components bystander intervention. According to the biological rules of our evolution, only the fittest of any species survive. The act of helping others contradicts this rule because the stronger are enabling the weaker to survive, thus interrupting the process of natural selection. In a more advanced stage of Darwinism grew the industrialised nations. Capitalist societies are themselves characterised by their philosophy of individualism which is in direct conflict with the theory of altruism. Regardless of this, 'real life' acts of heroism do take place and in their vocation of understanding and predicting human behaviour, psychologists are obliged to account for these acts. Laboratory studies on bystander intervention, the less extreme form of heroism, provide a vital insight into the processes that are involved in these decisions although the extent to which these results can be generalised is still under debate.
Laboratory research has generated theories and these can then be applied to real life situations. The use of the word 'heroism' implies an extreme, although if altruism is to be judged on a scale, then it could be argued that heroism is only quantitatively different from, for example, helping an elderly person across the road. Therefore, in examining the extent to which research can explain 'real life' heroism, the same premises should apply. However, it may be interesting to note that heroism tends to be accompanied by publicity and this may bring its own source of motivation.
Bystander intervention involves an unrelated individual coming to the aid of another. Darley and Batson (1973) devised the classic study on bystander intervention. They organised three groups of unsuspecting subjects and arranged for all three groups to be expected at the building next door. One group was told that they were early, one group was told that they were just on time, and the third were told that they were late. Half of all the subjects were informed that they were to film a video on careers whereas the other half were told to make a film on the parable of the Good Samaritan. On the way to the appointment, all the subjects had to pass an 'injured' man and their responses to this victim were recorded. Darley and Batson (1973) found that the amount of time available to the subjects was the main factor influencing their decision to stop and help the 'injured' man. However, the results of this experiment do not help to explain the realism that acts of heroism do take place, regardless of any time constraints.
More recently, more attention has been focused on the motivations behind bystander intervention and by implication acts of heroism. The theories explaining the motives behind helping others tend to fall into three main categories and these do shed some light on possible explanations for heroism. The first involves pure self-interest and would appeal to those advocating the Darwinist view of behaviour. Individuals raised in a capitalist society will inevitably assess situations according to their potential for profit (Lord; 1997, p. 467). Thus, the extent to which a victim is helped will be dependent on the potential gain of ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
More recently, more attention has been focused on the motivations behind bystander intervention and by implication acts of heroism. The theories explaining the motives behind helping others tend to fall into three main categories and these do shed some light on possible explanations for heroism. The first involves pure self-interest and would appeal to those advocating the Darwinist view of behaviour. Individuals raised in a capitalist society will inevitably assess situations according to their potential for profit (Lord; 1997, p. 467). Thus, the extent to which a victim is helped will be dependent on the potential gain of the helper.
Some researchers (e.g. Shotland and Straw; 1976) have seen this self-interest as being divided into possible losses and gains, another capitalist allusion. Darwin would predict that it is perhaps inevitable that individuals' tendency to aid others is directly related to the perceived personal risk of doing so. A study by Shotland and Straw (1976) showed that students were less likely to help a woman in the process of being attacked if they believed her attacker to be her husband rather than a stranger. This was attributed to the husband being perceived as a greater threat than a stranger who would be more likely to retreat. Lord (1997) points out that this perceived risk of possible harm may stem from the breaking of implicit codes of conduct. Thus, if the individual misjudges the situation then they may be vulnerable to ridicule or disapproval. Lord cites a study by Straub (1971) where it was found that children were less likely to go to the assistance of another child if they risked a rebuke from an adult in doing so.
Neither of these examples would seem to account for 'real life' incidents of heroism. However, if an individual were to receive praise for the action of helping another then this may provide the motivation for doing so. Deutsch and Lamberti (1986) found this to be the case. Their study showed that female students given praise for their co-operation were more likely to help a fellow student than those who perceived themselves to be unappreciated by the experimenter. Acts of heroism tend to bring attention from the media and consequently the general public and this could be conceived of as a type of praise.
Research on bystander intervention suggests that guilt also plays a role in real life acts of altruism or heroism. Regan, Williams and Sparling (1972) found that subjects who already felt guilty about 'breaking' a confederate's camera, were more likely to help a second confederate to collect her upset shopping bag. Thus, these studies suggest that some people help in order to alleviate their own feelings of guilt. However, incidents of life-threatening heroism would seem to be an extreme means of restoring equilibrium in the individual.
Other studies on bystander intervention have found that mood can affect the probability of an individual performing an heroic act. Positive moods appear to increase helping generally. Isen and Levin (1972) for example, found that male subjects given a cookie to put them in a good mood were more likely to volunteer to 'help' confederates than to 'annoy' them. However, acts of heroism are often so extreme that it would seem unlikely that they would be affect by something as mundane as the giving of a biscuit. Although these studies on helping and bystander intervention demonstrate circumstances in which individuals are more likely to help, they do not explain the possible sacrifice that some are prepared to make in order to save the life of another.
The two previous explanations for altruistic behaviour present a rather cynical view of human nature. However, some theorists believe that some forms of helping, and particularly acts of heroism, are not necessarily attributable to selfish motivation (e.g. Batson; 1994). However, as Lord (1997) comments, research has often shown that in capitalist and characteristically ethnically diverse societies, the similarity of the victim to the helper is often the biggest factor in determining the level of altruism (e.g. Krebs; 1975). Lord (1997) cites the study by Batson, Duncan, Ackerman, Buckley and Birch (1981) where they found that students taking part in an experiment were more likely to offer to replace a fellow student taking electric shocks if she was perceived as being similar to themselves than if she was different. In this particular experiment, Batson et al demonstrated altruism as opposed to helping because the subjects were given the option to leave the experiment, so they could have avoided negative feelings of guilt. Therefore, according to Bateman et al, those subjects offered selfless help. This relates to 'real life' acts of heroism as it seems unlikely that any 'hero' would risk their life in order to achieve selfish aims such as notoriety. Therefore, the heroic act must be attributed to selfless causes.
Unfortunately, the majority of research which specifically investigates bystander intervention and by implication acts of heroism, is a result of incidents where both have been notable in their absence. In America, initial research into bystander intervention was instigated by the murder of Kitty Genovese in New York. The initial assault was witnessed by 38 people, none of whom made an attempt to help or notify the police. Latane and Darley (1970) subsequently argued that individuals have no social guidelines or rules for emergency situations and thus have difficulty in finding an appropriate response. Latane and Darley developed a model of decision making through which the witness progresses. These include noticing the situation, categorising it as an emergency, evaluating personal responsibility, deciding on a response and implementing that response. This model may account for many incidents of bystander intervention or lack of it, but it still fails to account for acts of heroism where the helper may have no sense of personal responsibility and no appropriate or practised response.
The external validity of all of these studies has come under attack in recent years. The research may show that under experimental conditions, subjects fall into the categories of intervener or non-intervene fairly easily, but there is no evidence to suggest that these results can be generalised. Huston, Ruggiero, Conner and Geis (1981) address these issues. They also refer to the murder of Kitty Genovese but criticise previous studies for a lack of external validity. Specifically, they cite four major concerns over the extent to which the findings can be generalised. Firstly, Huston et al comment that ethical guidelines prevent experimenters from reproducing realistic experimental environments. Thus, the research is based on simulated events, usually using a group of students. Secondly, no research has ever investigated the situation whereby the bystander becomes an involved participant in the violent incident. According to Huston et al this avoids the issue of how the bystander can actually change the course of events. Thirdly, there has been a lack of focus on the effects of violent and criminal emergencies (understandably perhaps) and this means that the research does not correlate with real life situations. Huston et al (1981) argue that previous research has explored the role of personality traits in the potential to intervene.
Huston et al's study attempts to rectify these limitations and provide a more comprehensive account of 'real life' acts of heroism. In doing so they provide a completely different framework through which to analyse bystanders at crime scenes. They measured three different areas which may account for intervention; "exposure to crimes and emergencies,...[relevant] competencies and skills,...inclination to intervene." (1981, p. 15). Therefore, instead of using emotional, almost Freudian cues as were used in previous research, Huston et al choose cognitive cues and appear to view the individual as a rational and practical decision-maker.
Huston et al reported that several factors increased the probability that any individual would intervene to help a stranger, Exposure to crime in the past was a significant factor, but more so, was the individual's perceived competence to intervene. Also those who intervened tended to be heavier and taller than the non-interveners. This suggests that a key factor in the decision making process of the individual is whether they perceive themselves as being capable of making a difference. Interestingly, Huston et al found no significant difference in the personality traits of the two groups of those who intervened and those who did not. They do however, suggest that further studies could include groups of subjects that are matched for their exposure to crime. They also comment that their sample and the samples of other similar studies may not be representative because those who do not intervene, for reasons of social desirability to not come forward in order for their experience to be examined and accounted for.
This study goes some way in accounting for 'real life' acts of heroism. It presents a naturalistic setting, which the previous studies neglected to provide, and suggests some plausible accounts for bystander intervention and acts of heroism. However, the majority of studies do not seem to account for cases of extreme altruism that take place in real life. Many go some way to explaining why many people do not intervene to help others. Self-interest appears to dominate all explanations. As Batson (1994) comments, the main assumption in most research into bystander intervention "is that all human action is ultimately directed toward self-interest." (p. 603), and yet we still persist in volunteering, contributing and rescuing. Altruism is a paradox which defies biological explanation. Laboratory research into bystander intervention goes some way to accounting for acts of heroism but still fails to explain the point in our evolution where we began to perform acts of complete selflessness.
References
Batson, C.D. (1994). Why act for the public good? Four Answers. In Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, pp. 603-610
Brown, R. (1986) Social Psychology: The Second Edition. Free Press.
Darley, J.M. and Batson, C.D. (1973). "From Jerusalem to Jericho" : A study of situational and dispositional variables in helping behaviour. In Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 27, pp. 100-108.
Deutsch, F.M. and Lamberti, D.M. (1986). Does social approval increase helping? In Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 12, pp. 149-158.
Huston, T.L., Ruggiero, M., Conner, R. and Geis, G. (1981). Bystander Intervention into Crime: A Study Based on Naturally-Occurring Episodes. In Social Psychology Quarterly, 44(1), pp. 14-23.
Latane, B. and Darley, J.M. (1970) The Unresponsive Bystander: Why doesn't he help? New York.
Lord, C.G. (1997). Social Psychology Harcourt Brace.
