In terms of evaluating Latané and Darley’s model, Schroeder et al. (1995) believe that this model provides a valuable framework for understanding Bystander behaviour. Although this model was originally designed to explain intervention in emergency situations it has been successfully applied to many other events. However, it doesn’t provide a complete picture; it doesn’t tell us why these ‘no’ decisions are taken at any of the five steps, particularly when the situation has been defined as an emergency and personal responsibility has been accepted. Also, as Dovidio (1995) points out, the model focuses on why people don’t help others – why people do intervene needs to be considered and research has shown that Piliavin et al.’s (1969,1981) Arousal-Cost-Reward Model investigates this.
The second major theory surrounding Bystander Behaviour is the Arousal-Cost-Reward Model formulated by Piliavin et al. (1969, 1981). This theory was first developed in 1969 as an attempt to provide an explanation for the results of the New York Subway experiment. It was later revised in 1981 to cover both emergency and non-emergency intervention.
The Arousal-Cost -Reward theory is a major alternative to Latané and Darley’s (1970) cognitive model; it has been suggested that it is a fine tuning of some of the processes outlined in the decision model by identifying a number of critical situational and bystander variables that help to determine whether the bystander will intervene in various circumstances. However, Latané and Darley noted that labelling the failure to help a victim in an emergency is too simplistic as it could be concealing other variables and processes. (Hogg & Vaughan 2002)
In 1981 Piliavin et al. revised the model and began to consider the influence of a new range of variables, such as bystander personality and mood, the clarity of the emergency, victim and potential helpers and the attributions made by potential helpers and the victims deservingness. Although some of these variables are addressed in Latané and Darley’s (1970) cognitive model, they are not focused on to the same extent.
According to Piliavin, there are two major influences on Bystander intervention, the first is arousal, the response to the need or distress of others; this is the basic motivational construct. This component suggests that the bystander feels discomfort and seeks to reduce this by intervention. This component differs from Latané and Darley’s model as it moves away from cognitive processes. The second component, cost-reward, is similar to the decision model as it introduces cognition. In this section the Bystander determines the costs and rewards of intervening or remaining uninvolved. This is similar to stage 3 in the decision model whereby the Bystander decides whether to assume personal responsibility. The idea that the Bystander will choose the response that most rapidly reduces the discomfort produced by arousal is supported by Dovidio et al. 1991. (Gross 2001)
Another factor in explaining why bystanders choose not to intervene that can be applied to both theories is the cost of time. This was shown in a content analysis of answers given in response to five written traffic accident scenarios (Bierhoff et al. 1987) (Montada & Bierhoff 1991). People who have demanding lives find waiting frustrating, this is why the willingness to sacrifice time for a person in need can be seen as generous (time is money: Bierhoff & Klein, 1988) (Gross 2001). The most frequently mentioned motives for helping were; enhancement of self esteem and moral obligation. These motives are clearly demonstrated in Piliavin’s model within the cost-reward component.
One fundamental difference between Piliavin et al.’s (1969, 1981) Arousal-Cost-Reward model and Latané and Darley’s (1970) Cognitive model is the structure. Latané and Darley focused on a stage-by-stage procedure to determine whether help would be given; this model suggests that bystander intervention would not occur unless all five stages are completed. However, Piliavin et al. focused specifically on two main components to explain bystander behaviour. A similarity between the structures is the cause and effect relationship, in both the cognitive and the arousal-cost-reward model the preceding stages/components affected the outcome and therefore determined whether intervention occurred.
One theory that connects both Latané and Darley’s Cognitive model and Piliavin et al.’s Arousal-Cost-Reward model is Sherif’s (1935) Autokinetic Paradigm; a study in which Sherif used this optical illusion to determine participants’ reactions when asked to say how far the light was moving. Results showed that 100% of participants changed their answers when put in groups with confederates. This, it has been suggested, is similar to the nature of an emergency as both situations involve uncertainty, ambiguity and a lack of structure in terms of a proper basis for judgement or action. Therefore it could be assumed that in both cases the individual will look to others for guidance on how to think and act. This has been shown in Latané and Rodin’s (1969) experiment (Latané & Nida 1981) and also in the case study of Kitty Genovese case (1964) (Gross 2001).
Research has found that not only does the influence of others determine Bystander Behaviour; gender is also seen to have an effect on Bystander intervention. In terms of the arousal-cost component of Piliavin’s model, research has suggested that women help only certain people in certain ways (Eagly & Crowley 1986). This could help to explain why some bystanders experience higher levels of arousal than others. The idea of gender could also be applied to Latané and Darley’s cognitive model within the final stage in that women may feel more competent in some situations and therefore are more likely to intervene then men.
In conclusion, Latané and Darley’s (1970) Cognitive model and Piliavin et al.’s Arousal-Cost-Reward model have many similarities between them. They both attempt to explain why bystanders intervene in an emergency by using cognitive processes; they also address the possibility of social influences affecting bystander intervention. However a fundamental difference between them is in the cost-reward component of Piliavin’s model as it raises the issue of personal gains or costs from intervening whereas Latané and Darley only address this briefly within stage three of the decision model. Despite these similar and contrasting ideas both theories have had a huge impact on social psychology and continue to generate research.
Word Count: 1854
References:
Cardwell, M., Clark, L., Meldrum C. (2001). Psychology for A2 Level. p64.
Corsini, R.J. (1999) The Dictionary of Psychology. p133.
Eagly, A and Crowley, M. (1986). Gender and Helping Behaviour: A meta analysis review of the social psychology literature. Psychological Bulletin, vol 100, no 3, p284.
Gross, R. (2001). Psychology: The Science of Mind and Behaviour (Fourth Edition). pp434-438.
Hogg M.A., Vaughan G.M. (2002). Social Psychology (Third Edition). pp542-543.
Latané, B. & Nida, S. (1981). Ten years of Research on group size and helping. Psychological Bulletin, vol 89, no 2, pp309-310.
Montada L. & Bierhoff H.W. (1991) Altruism in Social Systems. P58
Sources used:
Cardwell, M., Clark, L., Meldrum C. (2001). Psychology for A2 Level. Collins
Carlson, N.R. Buskist, W., & Martin, G.N. (2000). Psychology: The Science of Behaviour (European Adaptation). Harlow: Pearson Education Ltd.
Corsini, R.J. (1999) The Dictionary of Psychology. Taylor & Francis Group.
Eagly, A and Crowley, M. (1986). Gender and Helping Behaviour: A meta analysis review of the social psychology literature. Psychological Bulletin, vol 100, no 3, 283-308.
Gross, R. (2001). Psychology: The Science of Mind and Behaviour (Fourth Edition). Hodder & Stoughton.
Hogg M.A., Vaughan G.M. (2002). Social Psychology (Third Edition). London: Prentice Hall
Latané, B. & Nida, S. (1981). Ten years of Research on group size and helping. Psychological Bulletin, vol 89, no 2, 308-324
Montada L. & Bierhoff H.W. (1991) Altruism in Social Systems. Hogrefe & Huber Publishers
