Research has found that social norms have a great effect on bystanders helping response. In a study conducted by Bryan & Test (1967), they conducted 3 experiments, testing the social norm explanation. Experiment 1. Lady in Distress: A Flat tyre story, their findings were that of social norms. The experiment consisted of 2 conditions, a control condition where a lady who had a flat tyre and quite obviously needed assistance to change it, and a model condition where there was a model car parked ¼ of a mile before the control car, the car was raised with a jack, and a female was watching while a male was changing a tire. The results of this study suggest that people are more willing to help when they have previously seen others helping. In the control condition only 35 cars of 4,000 stopped to aid assistance, where as in the model condition 58 of 4,000 stopped to aid assistance. Experiments 2 and 3. Coins in the Kettle. A Salvation Army kettle was placed in a department store and the experimenter reported on the amount of people that donated into the kettle when they had previously seen somebody else donating (confederate) and when they saw nobody donating. The results of this study suggest that people are more willing to donate when they had previously seen it modeled to them.
An experiment on littering, conducted by Cialdini, Reno & Kallgren (1990), that people tend to litter more in an already littered environment, but tend not to litter in an environment that has only piece of litter, suggesting that the one piece of litter was more noticeable to the eye then either no litter or fully littered. The results of this study suggested that people act how society expects them to (social norms) in certain situations. Not littering when it is evident (one piece of litter) that society expects them not to litter, and littering when the environment is clustered with litter, (everybody else is littering, why shouldn’t I?).
This study will test the social norms and diffusion of responsibility concepts. By conducting an experiment by which the experimenter will drop approximately 100 loose sheets of foolscap paper and report on the amount of help he receives by a lone person in a street. There will be three conditions tested. The first will have a confederate present that will help to pick up the papers, the second will have a confederate present that will not help to pick up the papers, the third will have no confederate.
It is hypothesised that this study would reflect that of social norms, people would be more likely to help in a non-emergency situation if they see somebody else helping.
Method
Participants
The sample included 75 participants from four Monash University campuses, 47 participants from distance education students working in the general community, and 3 participants selected from the general public. The age, gender, socioeconomic status or culture of the participants was not recorded, nor is information regarding the environment or size of the Towns or Cities available.
The total amount of participants was 125.
Participants from the general public who participated in this research study were anonymous and unaware of their participation.
The participants were selected by the following criteria:
A person standing alone in a public place with no other person being within 10 meters of this person. The participant should not be involved in any activity consuming their attention. There was no discrimination between age or gender of the participants.
Procedure
Each Participant was tested for one of following three conditions:
HH – Helping confederate
HT – Non-Helping confederate
TH – No confederate (control condition)
A confederate was a person who the experimenter took into their confidence and was told the full procedure of the study.
The experimenter dropped approximately 100 sheets of loose-leaf paper within 3 to 4 meters of the participant. In the HH condition the confederate helped to pick up the papers, In the HT condition the confederate did not help to pick up the papers, and in the TH condition (control) there was no confederate. The experimenter did not request the help of the bystander or the confederate and started picking the papers after an approximate 10-second wait, (so that the bystander didn’t think that help wasn’t needed). The confederate and the experimenter did not make eye contact or give any hints that they knew each other. The confederate stood on the opposite of the participant from the experimenter approximately 3 to 4 meters away. The experimenters at no time looked at or interacted with each other or the bystander (participant).
The participant or bystander was defined as helping if he/she helps to pick up one or more papers within 30 seconds of the drop.
The results were then compiled and the data analyzed.
Results
Table 1 incorporating a Chart provides results of the following findings.
The raw data shows amount and percentages of participants that helped.
In the HH condition (helping confederate) 22 of 40 helped ( 55%),
In the HT condition (non helping confederate) 20 of 45 (44%)
In the TH condition (no confederate) 16 out of 40 (40%) helped.
TABLE 1.
Number and Percentages of Participants Helping
Control Non- help Confed Help Confed Total
TH HT HH
(n=40) (n=45) (n=40) (n=125)
Number helping 16 20 22 58
Percentage helping 40 44 55 46.4
From the data collected, there was no information on gender, age, culture, socioeconomic status, or size of the cities or towns, therefore we were unable to predict differences in these situations. A further study containing these areas of discussion would be desirable.
This study suggests that people are more inclined to help when they see others helping, 55%. Less inclined to help when they see others not helping, 45%. Bystanders are least inclined to help when nobody else is present, 40%.
This study reflects that of the social norm concept, where people are more willing to help when they see others are helping, in non-emergency situations.
Discussion
Bystanders are not allowing others to take full responsibility, they are actually helping when they see others help in non-emergency situations. People are more inclined to do what society expects them do, as the definitions by Ross, (1973, cited in Cialdini et al, 1990.) “cultural rules that guide behavior in society”, and Popenoe (1983, cited in Cialdini et al, 1990), “of how people are supposed to act, think, or feel in specific situations”, stated.
This study coincides with the studies conducted by Bryan & Test (1967), Lady in Distress: A flat tire story and Coins in the Kettle, and Cialdini et al (1990), littering, reflecting that of the social norm concept.
One area of discussion is the possible differences between emergency and non-emergency situations. This study, and the one conducted by Bryan & Test (1967) and Cialdini et al. (1990), have focused on non-emergency situations, where there is no immediate danger to the person helping. Would a bystander stop to assist if it was a dangerous situation, like that of Kitty Genevese? Apparently not.
In dangerous situations, bystanders may feel threatened if they were to intervene. There might be possible danger involved, as that of violence or fire, which prohibits the helping behavior. Emergency situations are no doubt more difficult to simulate, with concerns for the participant’s welfare and ethics that have to be adhered to.
The study conducted by Latane` & Darley (1968), a room filling up with smoke, was as close to an emergency situation that ethics would allow, the results of their study coincided with diffusion of responsibility, groups inhibiting the helping response.
Latane` & Darley (1968), study did not have a group situation where the confederates actually discussed the situation with the participant, to interpret if it was an emergency situation or not, they actually inferred that nothing was wrong. This inference on the confederates behalf that it was not an emergency situation, could have reflected the social norms concept if the confederates were actually acting like they thought there could be a possible problem. The participant might have agreed with them and action would have been taken. By the confederate’s lack of acknowledgement of the situation, the participants were lead to believe that there was not a problem. This lack of acknowledgement could possibly have contributed to the participant’s lack of intervention, (the confederates actions were the right way to act). Incorporating another condition where the confederate behaves like it might be a situation that needs attention, the participants may be more likely to intervene, or think about the situation internally, coming to their own personal conclusion, or a combined conclusion of the situation, considering to report it to the experimenter, reflecting the social norm concept.
It may be possible that in group situations, the type of situation that a bystander is presented with will ultimately determine whether they intervene or not. It may be possible that people are not intervening in emergency situations, but are in non-emergency situations, through the decreased risk involved. Further study in this area would be desirable.
In emergency situations it is easier for the bystander not to help, even if others are helping. Through fear of their own personal being, people may be unwilling to intervene. Not being qualified to deal with the situation, not knowing how to react, feelings of repulsion (blood, death) which could lead to a state of shock, could lead the bystander to diffuse the responsibility. Emergency situations tend to decrease the possibility of intervention in a group situation.
In non-emergency situations people have no fear of intervening, their self is not in danger, therefore the possibilities of bystanders helping are greatly increased.
Non-emergency situations allow the bystander to easily follow the social norm concept rather than diffusion of responsibly. It is more difficult for the bystander not to help when others are helping in non-emergency situations rather than emergency situations. The bystander may have feelings of embarrassment, or guilt if they were not to help, or feel that that others may think baldly of them if they do not help.
In conclusion, this study represents that of the social norm concept in a non-emergency situation. In general people are more willing to help in a non-emergency situation when they see others helping, providing they have the time and the necessary skills to do so.
Further research into emergency and non-emergency situations with group settings would be a valuable asset to this area of study.
References
Bryan, J.H., & Test, M.A. (1967). Models and helping: Naturalistic studies in aiding behaviour. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 6, 400-407.
Cialdini, R.B., Reno, R.R., & Kallgren, C.A. (1990). A focus theory of normative conduct: Recycling the concept of social norms to reduce littering in public places. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 1015-1026.
Eldermann, R.J., (1984). The effect of Embarrassment on Helping. Journal of Social Psychology, 124, 253-254.
Krupat, E., & Epstein, Y. (1973). “I’m too busy”: The effects of overload and diffusion of responsibility on working and helping. The Proceedings of the 81st Annual Convention, American Psychological Association.
Latane`, B., & Darley, J.M. (1968). Group inhibitation of bystander intervention in emergencies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 10, 215-221.