Sometimes people fail to help others in need, and this happens even in cases of emergencies. Indeed, most of the theory and research on the bystander effect has basis in one such example. There are situational factors that contribute to this phenomenon. Diffusion of responsibility, pluralistic ignorance and victims’ effects are some of them. Moreover, there is the influence of society, culture along with beliefs about “self” also influence helping behavior.
While people often act to the benefit of others, social psychologists note that an increase in the number of bystanders during an emergency reduces their likelihood of helping. One of the reasons for this observation is the diffusion of responsibility. Hewstone, Jonas & Stroebe (2015) note that this term describes the limiting social influence of the onlookers’ sense of responsibility, and such influence increases with an increase in bystanders. Therefore, they note that diffusion of responsibility materializes when bystanders fail to help because they perceive other onlookers will offer the assistance the emergency demands. Then again, since its limiting influence increases with an increase in the number of onlookers, a reduction in these numbers ought to create a decrease in the diffusion of responsibility (Hewstone et.al , 2015).
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Clearly, the decision to offer help to someone in need is much more complex in practice than in conventional thought. Another situational aspect that also contributes to this phenomenon is pluralistic ignorance, and this one relates to behavior. Here, Graziano and Schroeder (2015) assert that pluralistic ignorance defines the need to behave in ways that are both correct and socially acceptable. In an emergency, this means that when one bystander sees that the other onlookers have withheld assistance, the bystander should interpret it as a situation where assistance is not required. This is somewhat understandable, given the chaotic nature of most emergencies. The lack of clarity and order during a crisis makes onlookers wonder what is happening, a situation which causes people to look to others within the group to determine the correct and acceptable behavior. Therefore, when the bystander effect is in play, if the crowd is not helping then it is less likely that any one will react because the crowd has signaled that no action is needed. Notably, the reverse is also true (Graziano et.al , 2015).
Evaluation apprehension, assert social psychologists is the fear of being judged by others when acting publicly. Generally, people are afraid to make mistakes or act inappropriately when they sense that they are being observed. So, if an individual observes a crowd not intervening in an emergency, they also become more reluctant to act (Hewstone et.al , 2015). Overarchingly, the more the number of onlookers present, the less personal responsibility any individual will sense for not intervening. Notably, Fisher and Greitmeyer (2013), note that there are some exceptions. Their study revealed that there are some circumstances where an additional onlooker increases personal intervention in situations where the ‘intervener’ expects a negative outcome. On the other hand, they note that bystanders have the opposite effect when the risk of negative outcomes are low.
Aiding someone in need should not have a cost attached to it, but it does. The nature of aid in normal situations is such that the cost is almost imperceptible or generally acceptable. However, situations that are not routine also require aid that is equally outside the norm. These situations force possible helpers to analyze potential costs and benefits of helping, as the latter may offset the former (Graziano et.al , 2015). Avoidance of guilt for failing to help, appreciation from the recipient, social praise and money are some of the benefits of aiding someone. Economically speaking, the likelihood of helping others increases when the benefits are greater than the costs. Therefore, in addition to the diffusion of responsibility and pluralistic ignorance, the economics of aid must favor the potential helper for them to overcome the bystander effect.
Furthermore, aid is determined by social and cultural pressures. Apparently, there are sex and gender differences in the manner that aid is offered. However, Graziano et.al (2015) note that both men and women are generally equal in terms of being helpful. Notably, they add that differences feature only in the manner either sexes help. An analysis of costs versus benefits and socialization are responsible for these differences. On matters costs versus benefits, physical difference between males and females holds significant influence. Considering that the average male has greater upper body strength than the average female increases the latter’s costs for aid if the situation calls for upper body strength (Graziano et.al , 2015). For example, confronting a thief carries the risk of a fight. This favors the bigger and stronger average male than it does the average female.
On socialization, men and women are raised according to different social roles, these, in turn affect how they respond to those in need. Notably, people will assist in ways that are consistent to their gender roles. Therefore, while female gender roles require women to be both caring and nurturing, male gender roles require men to take physical risks and to be protective of the less powerful. Generally, this implies that there is specialization of aid along sex and gender lines (Hewstone et. al 2015). Practically, this means that men are more likely to engage in physical confrontations while offering aid while women are likely to offer comfort as aid.
On cultural issues still, different cultures observe social responsibility norms differently. Put differently, cultures based on individualism do not share the same perceptions with those that value collectivism. Hewstone et.al (2015) asserts that both children and adults in the United States were less likely, than their Indian counterparts, to believe that people are obligated to help others. Here, the latter is an example of a non-individualistic society while the former is an individualistic one. Pozzoli, Ang, and Gini (2012) note that weak social bonds create independence as a reward in individualist societies, decreasing the chances of bystanders along with their willingness to assist. Then again, non-individualist societies observe closer social ties which increases both onlookers and their likelihood of offering aid. Furthermore, Levine and Crowther (2013), note that membership of social categories increases chances of individual interventions. When both groups have shared norms, this increases chances of intervention from members of either group.
Elements of the bystander effect provide plausible explanations for the decisions people make on matters assistance. Aiding is not the simple proposition it appears in daily life as there are several elements that affect the decision-making process. Diffusion of responsibility limits a bystander’s sense of accountability; pluralistic ignorance and evaluation apprehension prevents one from intervening; sex and gender differentiate the type of intervention while social circumstances and cultural differences also contribute to the outcome. Therefore, the bystander effect is a complicated social psychology phenomenon and entails varying components on the nature of helping behavior.
References
Fischer, P., & Greitemeyer, T. (2013). The Positive Bystander Effect: Passive Bystanders Increase Helping in Situations with High Expected Negative Consequences for the Helper. Journal of Social Psychology , 153 (1), 1-5. doi:10.1080/00224545.2012.697931
Graziano, W. G., & Schroeder, D. A. (2015). The Oxford handbook of prosocial behavior . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hewstone, M. E., Jonas, K., & Stroebe, W. (2015). An introduction to social psychology . Chichester: The British Psychological Society.
Levine, M., & Crowther, S. (2008). The responsive bystander: How social group membership and group size can encourage as well as inhibit bystander intervention. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 95 (6), 1429-1439. doi:10.1037/a0012634
Pozzoli, T., Ang, R. P., & Gini, G. (2012). Bystanders’ Reactions to Bullying: A Cross-cultural Analysis of Personal Correlates Among Italian and Singaporean Students. Social Development , 21 (4), 686-703. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9507.2011. 00651.
