1. Understanding Bystanderism
“The other side of prosocial behavior”

2. What is bystanderism?
DQ #1

3. Understanding bystanderism
Bystanderism has consistently been defined as not helping someone who is in need of help even though one is able to. (Soo Hoo, 2004)
Bystanderism can be considered to be an anti-social behavior, in contrast to helping behavior, which is prosocial.

4. Understanding bystanderism
One type of bystanderism is the bystander effect which is when people do not offer help in emergency situations while other people are present.
The effect of social influence on bystanderism was first hypothesized in 1964 after the famous case of Kitty Genovese.

5. Understanding bystanderism
This case study lead to many empirical theories associated with this perceived bystanderism.
The bystander effect was first demonstrated in the laboratory by John Darley and Bibb Latané in 1968 after they became interested in the topic following the murder of Kitty Genovese.

6. Two explanations of bystanderism
Researchers such as Darley and Latané proposed two leading factors in bystanderism:
Diffusion of responsibility
Pluralistic ignorance

7. Two explanations of bystanderism
First, the presence of other people creates a diffusion of responsibility. Because there are other observers, individuals do not feel as much pressure to take action, since the responsibility to take action is thought to be shared among all of those present.

8. Does this happen in real life? What are examples?
DQ #2
Does this happen in real life? What are examples?

9. Two explanations of bystanderism
This diffusion of responsibility theory was tested by Darley and Latané in a laboratory experiment. Subjects thought they were overhearing another student have an epileptic seizure.
In some the control condition, the students were told they were one of two subjects. In the experimental condition, they were told they were one of six subjects in the experiment.
In the six-person condition, 31% of the subjects responded to calls for help. In the two-person condition, 85% of the subjects responded.

10. Two explanations of bystanderism
Darley and Latane then analyzed what they termed as the situation effect, the idea that because emergencies tend to be initially ambiguous, people look at the reactions of others to determine how they should react (Darley and Latane 1968).
If no one else reacts, people assume that it must not be an emergency and remain inactive as well (Darley and Latane 1968).
Darley and Latane went on to conduct similar studies (“smoke-filled room study, etc.) in order to strengthen their theory on factors that explain bystanderism.

11. Research findings on Diffusion of Responsibility
Diffusion of responsibility occurs under both prosocial and antisocial conditions. In prosocial situations, individuals' willingness to intervene or assist someone in need is inhibited by the presence of other people.
It has been demonstrated that the likelihood of a person offering help decreases as the number of observers present increases. Thus, if you are walking down the hall, you will feel less likely to help a stranger if you are surrounded by a large crowd. As the crowd increases, your likelihood of helping decreases. Is this an accurate depiction of our behavior in groups?

12. Research findings on Diffusion of Responsibility
This is known as the bystander effect. In antisocial situations, negative behaviors are more likely to be carried out when the person is in a group of similarly motivated individuals. What are examples of this?

13. Bystanderism in gangs, terrorist groups, etc.
The behavior is driven by the deindividuating effects of group membership and the diffusion of feelings of personal responsibility for the consequences.
When people are part of a group, they often experience deindividuation, or a loss of self-awareness. When people deindividuate, they are less likely to follow normal restraints and inhibitions and more likely to lose their sense of individual identity.

14. Bystanderism in gangs, terrorist groups, etc.
The behavior is driven by the deindividuating effects of group membership and the diffusion of feelings of personal responsibility for the consequences.
When people are part of a group, they often experience deindividuation, or a loss of self-awareness. When people deindividuate, they are less likely to follow normal restraints and inhibitions and more likely to lose their sense of individual identity.

15. Bystanderism in gangs, terrorist groups, etc.
Members of groups (such as gangs, fraternities, terrorist groups) have been found to suffer from this diffusion of responsibility when antisocial behavior is exhibited within groups.
This diffusion highlights the sense of “group loyalty” and deindividuation that groups report of feeling (Anderson, 1999).

16. Pluralistic Ignorance
Darley and Latane then analyzed what they termed as the situation effect, the idea that because emergencies tend to be initially ambiguous, people look at the reactions of others to determine how they should react (Darley and Latane 1968).
If no one else reacts, people assume that it must not be an emergency and remain inactive as well (Darley and Latane 1968).
Darley and Latane went on to conduct similar studies (“smoke-filled room study, etc.) in order to strengthen their theory on factors that explain bystanderism.

17. Pluralistic Ignorance
Pluralistic ignorance is a process which involves several members of a group who think that they have different cognitions (perceptions, beliefs, or attitudes) from the rest of the group.
While they do not endorse the group norm, the dissenting persons behave like the other group members, because they think that the behavior of the other group members shows that the opinion of the group is unanimous.
In other words, because everyone who disagrees behaves as if he or she agrees, all dissenting members think that the norm is endorsed by every group member but themselves.

18. Pluralistic Ignorance
In other words, because everyone who disagrees behaves as if he or she agrees, all dissenting members think that the norm is endorsed by every group member but themselves.
It is argued that because of pluralistic ignorance, people may conform to the perceived consensual opinion of a group, instead of acting on their own perception and thinking.
This is argued to lead in bystanderism in humans.

19. Pluralistic Ignorance
In other words, because everyone who disagrees behaves as if he or she agrees, all dissenting members think that the norm is endorsed by every group member but themselves.
It is argued that because of pluralistic ignorance, people may conform to the perceived consensual opinion of a group, instead of acting on their own perception and thinking.
This is argued to lead in bystanderism in humans.

20. DQ #3
Do we have a tendency to look to the environment in certain situations? What are examples?

21. Pluralistic Ignorance
If everyone else seems calm, we often assume that an emergency must not really be an emergency.
Often times, pluralistic ignorance causes an entire group of people to remain calm in a situation that they should not because everyone checks everyone else's response, with no one person standing out with a clear cut answer of how to act.

22. Pluralistic Ignorance in research
If you were sitting in a waiting room and smoke began to billow out of a vent in the wall, you'd probably do something about it.
At least, you'd report the problem to someone.
Or maybe not.

23. The classic “Smoke filled room” study
In a famous experiment conducted by John Darley and Bibb Latané during the 1960s, Columbia University students were invited to share their views about problems of urban life.
Those who expressed an interest in participating were asked to first report to a waiting room in one of the university buildings where they would find some forms to fill out before being interviewed.

24. The classic “Smoke filled room” study
They hypothesized that bystanders were not likely to intervene in an emergency because they’re misled by the reactions of the people around them.
To test this hypothesis, they ran an experiment in which they asked participants to fill out questionnaires in a laboratory room. After the participants had gotten to work, smoke filtered into the room—a clear signal of danger.

25. The classic “Smoke filled room” study
When participants were alone, 75 percent of them left the room and reported the smoke to the experimenter.
With three participants in the room, only 38 percent left to report the smoke.
And quite remarkably, when a participant was joined by two confederates instructed not to show any concern, only 10 percent of the participants reported the smoke to the experimenter.

26. The classic “Smoke filled room” study
When participants were alone, 75 percent of them left the room and reported the smoke to the experimenter.
With three participants in the room, only 38 percent left to report the smoke.
And quite remarkably, when a participant was joined by two confederates instructed not to show any concern, only 10 percent of the participants reported the smoke to the experimenter.

27. The classic “Smoke filled room” study
This research speaks to our cognitive dissonance felt when we are in situations that cause us to act differently than the group (i.e. in situations of of bystanderism.

28. Other factors that can lead to bystanderism
It would be reductionist to say that situational factors are the only influence on bystanderism (this is important to mention in your essay).
How can dispositional factors and cultural factors also play a role in bystanderism?

29. Other factors that can lead to bystanderism
It would be reductionist to say that situational factors are the only influence on bystanderism (this is important to mention in your essay).
How can cognitive and cultural factors also play a role in bystanderism?

30. Other factors that can lead to bystanderism
Bystanderism is an enormously complex issue and does not only depend on pluralistic ignorance and diffusion of responsibility, but also other factors such as dispositional factors, age, gender, identification with the victim, perception of emergency, and proximity to the victim.

31. Other factors that can lead to bystanderism
Culture and bystanderism:
Individualism and Collectivism: In relation to individualistic and collectivistic cultures, bystanderism is presented more frequent in an individualistic setting, because people are more concern of their personal well being as for a collectivistic setting, bystanderism is limited as people are subjected to offer their help.
Read more: %20helping.pdf

32. The classic “Smoke filled room” study
They had no idea that the urban-life study was just a cover story. The real experiment occurred in the waiting room.

33. Limitations to the research
Because of th

34. Understanding bystanderism

35. Why study Human Relationships?
The study of human relationships helps us understand the society around us, and how it serves some, while sometimes neglecting others. With this understanding, we can better understand how we impact others, and how others impact us…

36. Why study Human Relationships?
The study of human relationships helps us understand the society around us, and how it serves some, while sometimes neglecting others. With this understanding, we can better understand how we impact others, and how others impact us…

37. Understanding relationships through the need for selfless behavior
Most of us are probably allured by the attractive notion that effortless relationships exist.
Is it possible to maintain fulfilling relationships without the absence of thought for others? Why or why not?

38. Understanding relationships through the need for selfless behavior
Whether it be happily-ever-after marriages, or friendships which last forever, or parent/child bonds which supersede the need to understand each other, we'd all like to believe that our most intimate relationships are unconditional, and strong enough to withstand whatever may come.
However, at some point in our lives most of us need to face the fact that relationships require effort (sometimes selfless effort) to keep them strong and positive, and that even wonderful, strong relationships can be destroyed by neglect.

39. Understanding relationships through the need for selfless behavior
As Aristotle asserted; Humans are social animals.
Our motivations – which some argue are products of our evolutionary history – push us to seek out relationships with other human beings.
A large body of scientific literature has provided evidence that people easily develop group identifications, attachments to caregivers, and relationships with strangers. This seems to be an innate (biological) behavior….

40. Understanding relationships through the need for selfless behavior
In fact, the etic nature of this type of behavior and the fact that humans almost always have relationships provides strong evidence that human socialization is both innate and universal across cultures.
In addition to these indicators, there is other evidence that suggests humans possess a strong motivation to belong.
But what is required to belong to survive in a group?

41. The importance of altruism in human relationships
Altruism is an expression of concern for the welfare of others without any obvious benefit or motivation on the part of the individual expressing the concern.
It is actually quite difficult to find examples of true altruism in the psychological sense, as many acts which are perceived as altruistic actually carry psychological rewards.

42. How can perceived altruism be seen as a biological adaptation?
DQ #2
How can perceived altruism be seen as a biological adaptation?

43. An evolutionary explanation for altrusim
(BLOA 3.2, BLOA 3.3, PoHR 1.1, PoHR 1.2, PoHR 2.1, PoHR 2.2)
According to evolutionary psychologists, evolution has somehow created a brain that yearns for selfless behavior beyond our capability such as altruism.
Darwin argued that self-sacrificial behavior, though disadvantageous for the individual, might be beneficial at the group.
Thus evolutionary psychologists support the idea that altruistic behavior supports group survival.

44. An evolutionary explanation for altrusim
Darwin suggested, “A tribe including many members who...were always ready to give aid to each other and sacrifice themselves for the common good, would be victorious over most other tribes; and this would be natural selection” (Darwin, 1871).
Darwin's suggestion is that the altruistic behavior may have evolved by a process of between-group selection.

45. Theories of altruism
Arguments for a biological adaptation of altruism:
Kin Selection Theory
Reciprocal altruism

46. Kin Selection Theory As a biological factor that influences relationships
Kin selection is an evolutionary theory that proposes that people are more likely to help those who are blood relatives because it will increase the odds of gene transmission to future generations.
The theory suggests that altruism towards close relatives occurs in order to ensure the continuation of shared genes. The more closely the individuals are related, the more likely people are to help.

47. Kin Selection Theory As a biological factor that influences relationships
The basic idea of kin selection is simple. Imagine a gene which causes its bearer to behave altruistically towards other organisms, e.g. by sharing food with them.
Organisms without the gene are selfish — they keep all their food for themselves, and sometimes get handouts from the altruists. Clearly the altruists will be at a fitness disadvantage, so we should expect the altruistic gene to be eliminated from the population.

48. Kin Selection Theory As a biological factor that influences relationships
The assumption is that the altruistic gene can in principle spread by natural selection.
The gene causes an organism to behave in a way which reduces its own fitness but boosts the fitness of its relatives — who have a greater than average chance of carrying the gene themselves.

49. Kin Selection Theory As a biological factor that influences relationships
So the overall effect of the behavior may be to increase the number of copies of the altruistic gene found in the next generation, and thus the incidence of the altruistic behavior itself.

50. Research on “Kin Selection”
Though this argument was hinted at by Haldane in the 1930s, it was first made explicit by William Hamilton (1964) in a pair of seminal papers.
Hamilton demonstrated rigorously that an altruistic gene will be favored by natural selection when a certain condition, known as Hamilton's rule, is satisfied.

51. Hamilton’s rule
In a seminal paper Hamilton showed that altruism can be selected for when rb − c>0, where c is the cost to the altruist, b is the benefit to the beneficiary, and r is their genetic relatedness (or perceived closeness).
Thus the relationship to the person and the benefit to group survival must outweigh the cost of the altruistic behavior.

52. Hamilton’s rule
If an individual family member shares food with the rest of the family, it reduces his or her personal likelihood of survival but increases the chances of family members passing on their genes, many of which are common to the entire family.
Hamilton's rule simply states that whether or not an organism shares its food with another depends on its genetic closeness (how many genes it shares) with the other organism.

53. Dawkins and the Selfish Gene
If an individual family member shares food with the rest of the family, it reduces his or her personal likelihood of survival but increases the chances of family members passing on their genes, many of which are common to the entire family.
Hamilton's rule simply states that whether or not an organism shares its food with another depends on its genetic closeness (how many genes it shares) with the other organism.

54. Dawkins and the Selfish Gene
If an individual family member shares food with the rest of the family, it reduces his or her personal likelihood of survival but increases the chances of family members passing on their genes, many of which are common to the entire family.
Hamilton's rule simply states that whether or not an organism shares its food with another depends on its genetic closeness (how many genes it shares) with the other organism.

55. DQ #3
How can this biological explanation help us to understand how or why we behave a certain way in familial relationships? (BLOA 3.2, BLOA 3.3, PoHR 1.1)

56. Evaluation of Kin Selection Theory ( PoHR 1.2)
The Kin Selection theory has been supported by many researchers. Dawkins(1976) has been on the leading proponents of this genetic basis for altruism.
His research built on Hamilton’s theory with the idea of “The Selfish Gene”

57. Dawkins and “The Selfish Gene” ( PoHR 1.2)
Dawkins states in his 1976 book, “If we think of an individual as a set of genes rather than as a separate, 'bounded' organism, then it should be regarded as distributed across kin, i.e., it shares some proportion of its genes with relatives, according to how close the relationship is.

58. Dawkins and “The Selfish Gene” ( PoHR 1.2)
It follows that it is possible for an individual to preserve its genes through its own self-sacrifice; if a mother dies in the course of saving her three offspring from a predator, she will have saved 1½ times her own genes (since each offspring inherits one half of its mother's genes).
This theory gives a strong empirically supported biological explanation for altruistic behavior. It suggests that we behave altruistically in relationships as a means of group survival.

59. DQ #4
What are limitations to this biologically engineered theory? (BLOA 3.2, BLOA 3.3, PoHR 1.1)

60. Limitations ( PoHR 1.2, 2.)
How do we account for our care for nature, animals, the elderly, and unrelated people? Does this behavior have an evolutionary explanation? Why or why not?
Can we empirically and ethically test evolutionary adaptations in humans? Many research studies (including Hamilton) study gene adaptations in insects and birds.
It is possible for genes to CAUSE a behavior? Why or why not? Can your culture change the amount of altruism an organism displays?

61. Limitations ( PoHR 1.2, 2.)
How do we account for our care for nature, animals, the elderly, and unrelated people? Does this behavior have an evolutionary explanation? Why or why not?
Can we empirically and ethically test evolutionary adaptations in humans? Many research studies (including Hamilton) study gene adaptations in insects and birds.
It is possible for genes to CAUSE a behavior? Why or why not? Can your culture change the amount of altruism an organism displays?