Bystander Effect Corpuz&Reyes BSPsyIII

Bystander Effect Bystander Effect

The Bystander Effect: A Correlational Study between Altruism and the

Number of People Present

In partial fulfillment on the requirements for theDegree Bachelor of Science in Psychology

Prof. Miriam Grace Aquino – MalabananJanine Mae CorpuzRaina Mae S. Reyes

September 2011

Running Head: Bystander Effect

The Bystander Effect: A Correlational Study between Altruism and the

Number of People PresentProf. Miriam Grace Aquino-Malabanan

Janine Mae V. CorpuzRaina Mae S. Reyes

Lyceum of the Philippines University-Batangas

Abstract

This research probes the validity of the concept of the Bystander

Effect. They attempted to examine if there is a correlation between the

reaction time (in seconds) before help is extended and the number of

people present. Furthermore, they tried to investigate whether the

results of asking for help within LPU-Batangas Main Campus differ

when done outside the University.

The 150 participants (75 within the Campus; 75 outside) in this study

were randomly selected. Each was approached by a person in need

(experimenter as the ‘actor’) and was asked for Php20.00 without

knowing that they were being observed by the other experimenter.


By using Pearson-r Correlation (p < 0.05), the researchers found out

that the reaction time is moderately correlated with the number of

people present.

Keywords: bystander effect, diffusion of responsibility, altruism, reaction time

INTRODUCTION

On Friday, March 13, 1964, 28-year-old Catherine “Kitty” Genovese was returning home from work. As she approached her apartment entrance, she was attacked and stabbed by a man later identified as Winston Moseley.

Despite Genovese’s repeated cries for help, none of the dozen or so people in the nearby apartment building who heard her cries called police to report the incident. The attack first began at 3:20 AM, but it was not until 3:50 AM that someone first contacted police.

When talking about the bystander effect, the case above is the most frequently cited example. Soon after the story was sensationalized, social psychologists started studying the bystander effect and determined the more people are present when a person needs emergency help, the less likely any one of them will lend a hand. Myers (2005) defined bystander effect as the tendency for any given bystander to be less likely to give aid if other bystanders are present.

There are two major factors that contribute to the bystander effect. 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.

The second reason is the need to behave in correct and socially acceptable ways. When other observers fail to react, individuals often take this as a signal that a response is not needed or not appropriate. Other researchers have found that onlookers are less likely to intervene if the situation is ambiguous (http://psychology.about.com/od/socialpsychology/a/bystandereffect.htm).

In a series of classic study, researchers Bibb Latane and John Darley found that the amount of time it takes the participant to take action and seek help varies depending on how many other observers are in the room.

The purpose of this study is to determine if there is a statistically significant relationship between speed in exhibiting altruism and the number of people present. Furthermore, the researchers aim to know if the results vary in different settings. They believe that the results will provide deeper insights on altruism and its relation to human behavior and in the society.

OBJECTIVE

This study seeks to assess the validity of Bystander Effect in Social Psychology by collecting data from 150 randomly selected participants. The researchers aim to determine if there is a statistically significant correlation between the reaction time (in seconds) before help is extended and the number of people present. They also intend to probe whether the results for the experiment will differ within a University and outside it. As future psychologists, they are concerned if the presence of other people can affect an individual’s exhibition of altruism.


LITERATURE REVIEW

Overview of Altruism

Altruism is selfishness in reverse. An altruistic person is concerned and helpful even when no benefits are offered or expected in return. This is a motive to increase another’s welfare without conscious helping acts, social psychology for one’s self interests.

Helping: Prosaically Behaviour

Altruism is one form of helping or doing something, often at a cost or risk, for reasons other than expectation of material of social reward.

Altruistic people often do things that touch our hearts. Consider 87-year-old Osceola McCatty, who handwashed clothes most of her life for grateful clients. When she finally retired at age 86, she donated most of her life savings, an amazing $150, 000, to the University of Southern Mississippi to finance scholarships for the area’s African American students. “I want them to have education,” said McCatty, who never married and has no children of her own. “I had to work hard all my life. They can have the chance that i didn’t have” (Plummer & Ridenhour, 1995, p.40). As this example, people help in emergencies, and others help by donating time or money.

Why do we help?

To study of helping acts, social psychologists identify circumstances in which people perform such deeds. Before looking at what the experiments reveal, let’s consider what might motivate helping.

When for people help?

According to Social psychologist were curious and concerned about bystander’s lack of involvement during such events as Kitty Genovese murder. So they undertook experiments to identify when people will help in an emergency. Then they broadened the question to, who is likely to help in nonemergency- by such deeds as giving money, donating blood, or contributing time? Among their answers: Helping often increases among people who are feeling guilty, thus providing a way to relieve the guilt or restore self-image; in a good mood; or deeply religious (evidence by higher rates of charitable giving and volunteerism).

Social psychologists also study the circumstances that enhance helpfulness. The odds of our helping someone increase in these circumstances: We have just observed a helpful model; we are not hurried; the victim is similar to ourselves; we are in a small town or rural area; or there are few other bystanders.

In 1968 social psychologists John Darley and Bibb Latané published an alarming paper on human behaviour. They staged an emergency situation where an actor would go into the convolutions of a seizure, and then they measured other people’s responses to the victim in crisis. Their studies showed that the likelihood of responding to a stranger in need declined inversely by the number of other bystanders present. To quote their paper: “Eighty-five percent of the subjects who thought they alone knew of the victim’s plight reported the seizure before the victim was cut off, only 31% of those who thought four other by-standers were present did so.” (John Darley and Bibb Latané, Bystander intervention in emergencies: Diffusion of responsibility (Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1968, 8) pp. 377–383)


The theories for this phenomenon are numerous: “Why do some people—including many managers—waver, rather than acting effectively to stop behaviour they find to be unacceptable? The most common reasons for hesitation are: fear of loss of relationships, and loss of privacy, fear of unspecified “bad consequences” or retaliation, and insufficient evidence.” (Mary Rowe, Linda Wilcox, Howard Gadlin, Dealing with—or Reporting—‘Unacceptable’ Behaviour — with additional thoughts about the ‘Bystander Effect’ (Journal of the International Ombudsman Association 2 (1): pp. 52–64. (http://www.jamesshelley.net/2011/04/the-bystander-effect/)

Bystander Effect Theory

Bystanders in an emergency sometimes feel strange helping out while others look on. Since humans tend to rely on one another for social cues, if others at the scene are not helping out then a bystander may feel that it is socially inappropriate to do so. In the case of Kitty Genovese, because no one saw the entirety of the attack, witnesses felt that the situation was ambiguous. No one wanted to assume the worst, call the police and have it turn out to be a harmless lover’s quarrel.

The Bystander Effect is an idiosyncrasy in human social behaviour. Though most people like to believe that they’d be the first to step forward and help in an emergency, numerous anecdotes and controlled experiments show evidence to the contrary. We are social animals, but sometimes our need to fit in can prove to be fatal. ( http://helpingpsychology.com/bystander-effect-theory )

The bystander-effect: A meta-analytic review on bystander intervention in dangerous and non-dangerous emergencies. (http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/bul/137/4/517/)

The bystander effect is also called the Genovese Effect, Genovese Syndrome or diffusion of responsibility. The theory behind this phenomenon is that an individual’s likelihood of helping a person in need is directly tied to the number of people witnessing the person’s need at the same time. According to the psychological literature on the bystander effect, a person is far less likely to help someone else in need if he or she is not the sole witness to the person in need. (http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-bystander-effect.htm)

Gang rape raises questions about bystanders' role

For more than two hours on a dark Saturday night, as many as 20 people watched or took part as a 15-year-old California girl was allegedly gang raped and beaten outside a high school homecoming dance, authorities said.

As hundreds of students gathered in the school gym, outside in a dimly lit alley where the victim was allegedly raped, police say witnesses took photos. Others laughed.

"As people announced over time that this was going on, more people came to see, and some actually participated," Lt. Mark Gagan of the Richmond Police Department told CNN. (http://articles.cnn.com/2009-10-28/justice/california.gang.rape.bystander_1_bystander-crime-prevention-kitty-genovese?_s=PM:CRIME)

The newspaper article about the incident says 38 people saw the murder as it happened. Whether or not the account was accurate, social psychologists started studying the bystander effect soon after the story went viral, and determined the more people are present when a person needs emergency help, the less likely any one of them will lend a hand. (http://youarenotsosmart.com/2010/03/08/bystander-effect/)

http://helpingpsychology.com/bystander-effect-theory

http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/bul/137/4/517/


Explanations for the Bystander Effect

There are two major factors that contribute to the bystander effect. 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.

The second reason is the need to behave in correct and socially acceptable ways. When other observers fail to react, individuals often take this as a signal that a response is not needed or not appropriate. Other researchers have found that onlookers are less likely to intervene if the situation is ambiguous. In the case of Kitty Genovese, many of the 38 witnesses reported that they believed that they were witnessing a "lover's quarrel," and did not realize that the young woman was actually being murdered. (http://psychology.about.com/od/socialpsychology/a/bystandereffect.htm)

Number of Bystanders

Bystander passivity during emergencies has prompted social commentators to lament people’s “alienation,” “apathy,” “indifference,” and “unconscious sadistic impulses.” By attributing the non-intervention to bystanders’ disposition, we can reassure ourselves that, as caring people, we would have helped. But were the bystanders such inhuman characters?

According from social psychologists Bibb Latané and John Darley (1970) were unconvinced. They staged ingenious emergencies and found that a single situational factor-the presence of other bystanders-greatly decreased intervention. By 1980, four dozen

experiments had compared help given by bystanders were more likely to help (Latané & Nida, 1981).

Sometimes, the victim was actually less likely to get help when many people were around, when Latané and Dabbs (1975), and 145 collaborators “accidentally” dropped coins or pencils during 1, 497 elevator rides they were helped 40 percent of the time when one other person was on the elevator and less than 20 percent of the time when there were six passengers. Why do other bystanders sometimes inhibit helping? Latané and Darley surmised that as the number of bystander increases, any given bystander is less likely to notice the incident, less likely to interpret the incident as a problem or emergency, and less likely to assume responsibility for taking action.

Assuming Responsibility

Misinterpretation is not the only cause of bystander effect (the inaction of strangers faced with ambiguous emergencies). What about those times when an emergency is obvious? Those who saw and heard Kitty Genovese’ pleas for help correctly interpreted what was happening. But the lights and silhouetted figures in neighbouring windows told them that others were also watching. This diffused the responsibility for action.

Few of us have observed a murder. But all of us have at times been slower to react to a need when others were present. Passing a stranded motorist on a highway, we are less likely to offer help than on a country road. To explore bystander inaction in clear emergencies, Darley and Latané (1968) simulated the Genovese drama. They placed people in separate rooms from which the participants would hear a victim crying for help. To create this situation, Darley and Latané asked some New York University students to discuss their problems that to guarantee their anonymity, no one would be visible,

http://psychology.about.com/od/dindex/f/diffusion-of-responsibility.htm

http://psychology.about.com/od/dindex/f/diffusion-of-responsibility.htm


nor would the experimenter eavesdrop. During the ensuing discussion, when the experimenter turned his microphone on, the participants heard one person lapse into a seizure. With increasing intensity and speech difficulty, he pleaded for someone to help.

Of those led to believe there were no other listeners, 85 percent left their room to seek help. Of those who believed four others also overheard the victim. Only 31 percent went for help. Were those who didn’t respond apathetic and indifference? When the experimenter came into end the experiment, she did find this response. Most immediately expressed concern. Many had trembling hands and sweating palms. They believed an emergency had occurred but were undecided whether to act.

After the smoke-filled room, the woman-in-distress, and the seizure experiment. Latané and Darley asked the participants whether the presence of other and influenced them. We know the others had dramatic effect that yet participants almost invariably denied the influence. They typically replied, “I was aware of the others, but i would have reacted just the same if they weren’t there. “This response reinforces a familiar point: We often do not know why we do what we do that is why experiments are revealing. A survey of uninvolved bystanders following a real emergency would have left the bystander effect hidden.

These experiments raised questions against the issue of research ethics. Is it right to force hundreds of subway riders to witness someone’s apparent collapse? Were the researchers in the seizure experiment ethnical when they forced people to decide whether to abort the discussion to report the problem? Would you object to being in such a study? Note that it would have been impossible to get your “informed consent”; doing so would have destroyed the cover for the experiment.

In defence of the researchers, they were always careful to debrief the laboratory participants. After explaining the seizure experiments, probably the most stressful, the experimenter gave the participants a questionnaire. One hundred percent said the deception was justified and that they would be willing to take part in similar experiment in the future. None reported feeling angry at the experimenter. Other researchers confirm that overwhelming majority of participants in such experiments say that their participation was both instructive and ethically justified (Schwartz & Gottlieb, 1981). In field experiments, such as the one in the subway car, an accomplice assisted the victim if no one else did, thus reassuring bystanders that the problem was being dealt with.

Remember that the social psychologist has a twofold ethical obligation: to protect the participants and to enhance human welfare by discovering influences upon human behaviour. Such discoveries can alert us into unwanted influences and show us how we might exert positive influences. The ethical principle seems to be: After protecting participants’ welfare, social psychologists fulfil their responsibility to society by doing such research.

Will learning about the factors that inhibit altruism reduce their influence? Sometimes, such “enlightenment” is not our problem but one of our goals.

Experiments with University of Montana students by Arthur Beaman and his colleagues (1978) revealed that once people understand why the presence of bystanders inhibits helping, they become more likely to help in group situations. The researchers used a lecture to inform some students how bystander inaction can affect the interpretation of an emergency and feelings of responsibility. Other students heard either a different lecture or no lecture at all. Two weeks later, as part of a different experiment in a different location, the participants found themselves walking (with an unresponsive


confederate) past someone slumped over or past a person sprawled beneath a bicycle. Of those who had not heard the helping lecture, one-fourth paused to offer help; twice as many of those “enlightened” did so.

Having read his module, you, too perhaps have changed. As you come to understand what influences people’s responses, will your attitudes and your behaviour be the same? Coincidently, shortly before I wrote the last paragraph, a former student, now living in Washington, D.C., stopped by. She mentioned that she recently found herself part of a stream of pedestrians striding past a man lying unconscious in the sidewalk. “It took my mind back to our social psych class and the accounts of why by, too, whose going to help him?” so she made a call to an emergency help number and waited with the victim-and other bystanders who now joined her- until help arrived.

Personality and helping

The fact that several aspects of personality are involved in prosocial acts has led some investigators to propose that a combination of relevant factors constitutes what has been designated as the altruistic personality. A cluster of traits (e.g., high in empathy, belief in a just world) that predispose individuals to behave in a prosocial manner. The tendency to help others is not equal across different people. In fact, it is strongly influenced by emotions, empathy, and by several aspects of personality.

METHOD

This study entitled The Bystander Effect: A Correlational Study between Altruism and the Number of People Present is quantitative in approach. This section represents the research methodology of the

study in terms of research design, subjects of the study, instrument used, data-gathering procedure and statistical treatment of data. This present study is quantitative in approach. The researchers employed a field-based design of experiment, that is, it was conducted in a natural setting.

Research Design

The researchers utilized correlation design (Pearson-r) to determine the relationship between altruism and the number of people present. The reaction time of the participants before they exhibit altruistic behavior and the number of people present was used as the x and y variables, respectively.

Participants

Seventy five randomly selected male and female individuals roaming around the Lyceum of the Philippines University-Batangas Main Campus served as the participants in one group. Another 75 participants (of either gender) who were passers-by in Bay City Mall, Basilica Church and in Batangas City Plaza were randomly selected to be in the other group.

Apparatus

In this study, the researchers utilized a script in acting out the situation for the experiment. In addition to that, the researchers made use of a stopwatch to measure the reaction time and a notebook to write down the speed measured.

Procedure


The instruments and protocol employed in this study were first reviewed and validated by the researcher’s adviser in experimental psychology. A pilot experiment was conducted to iron out any problems and to know if revisions are needed. After the validation, the researchers proceeded with the data gathering. They went to various places in Batangas City like Bay City Mall, the Church, and Mabini Plaza and also within the Lyceum of the Philippines University. One experimenter pretended that she lost her wallet and asked the participants if they could give her PHP 20.00 so she could go home. At the same time, the other experimenter observed and measured the reaction time of the participant nearby.

DATA ANALYSIS

The statistical methods employed in this study are:

1. Summation2. Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

This chapter contains the results of the analysis of the data that the researchers gathered. The discussions and interpretations are also presented at this part. The results were obtained through statistical analysis.

Table 1

Summation of the Reaction time in Seconds (x) and the Number of People present (y) for Within the University (LPU-Batangas)Participant x y x2 y2 xy

1 1 20.05 1.00 402.003 20.050

2 1 22.52 1.00 507.150 22.520

3 6 27.18 36.00 738.752 163.080

4 3 33.30 9.00 1108.890 99.900

5 1 23.10 1.00 533.610 23.100

6 3 56.07 9.00 3143.845 168.210

7 5 20.07 25.00 402.805 100.350

8 3 66.07 9.00 4365.245 198.210

9 6 64.00 36.00 4096.000 384.000

10 6 15.30 36.00 234.090 91.800

11 1 18.29 1.00 334.524 18.290

12 5 45.10 25.00 2034.010 225.500

13 1 22.05 1.00 486.203 22.050

14 8 13.29 64.00 176.624 106.320

15 2 14.07 4.00 197.965 28.140

16 4 27.41 16.00 751.308 109.640

17 5 17.29 25.00 298.944 86.450

18 3 39.96 9.00 1596.802 119.880

19 1 16.30 1.00 265.690 16.300

20 1 21.41 1.00 458.388 21.410

21 3 21.85 9.00 477.423 65.550

22 4 33.52 16.00 1123.590 134.080

23 1 16.63 1.00 276.557 16.630

24 4 49.30 16.00 2430.490 197.200

25 4 56.63 16.00 3206.957 226.520

26 3 54.63 9.00 2984.437 163.890


27 6 29.18 36.00 851.472 175.080

28 3 22.42 9.00 502.656 67.260

29 1 16.10 1.00 259.210 16.100

30 5 42.18 25.00 1779.152 210.900

31 4 42.63 16.00 1817.317 170.520

32 1 23.41 1.00 548.028 23.410

33 4 64.18 16.00 4119.072 256.720

34 4 37.96 16.00 1440.962 151.840

35 1 34.07 1.00 1160.765 34.070

36 1 18.85 1.00 355.323 18.850

37 1 20.63 1.00 425.597 20.630

38 1 19.41 1.00 376.748 19.410

39 3 20.07 9.00 402.805 60.210

40 1 21.07 1.00 443.945 21.070

41 1 17.96 1.00 322.562 17.960

42 3 27.18 9.00 738.752 81.540

43 1 48.00 1.00 2304.000 48.000

44 5 19.00 25.00 361.000 95.000

45 7 32.74 49.00 1071.908 229.180

46 1 44.30 1.00 1962.490 44.300

47 1 20.85 1.00 434.723 20.850

48 8 71.07 64.00 5050.945 568.560

49 2 30.00 4.00 900.000 60.000

50 1 34.40 1.00 1183.360 34.400

51 4 39.18 16.00 1535.072 156.720

52 1 26.52 1.00 703.310 26.520

53 7 35.73 49.00 1276.633 250.110

54 1 32.96 1.00 1086.362 32.960

55 3 22.30 9.00 497.290 66.900

56 7 32.29 49.00 1042.644 226.030

57 1 29.74 1.00 884.468 29.740

58 2 36.18 4.00 1308.992 72.360

59 2 30.52 4.00 931.470 61.040

60 1 26.29 1.00 691.164 26.290

61 3 34.74 9.00 1206.868 104.220

62 1 19.30 1.00 372.490 19.300

63 1 25.07 1.00 628.505 25.070

64 4 49.07 16.00 2407.865 196.280

65 1 31.27 1.00 977.813 31.270

66 3 36.97 9.00 1366.781 110.910

67 2 27.85 4.00 775.623 55.700

68 1 11.63 1.00 135.257 11.630

69 2 33.85 4.00 1145.823 67.700

70 1 27.16 1.00 737.666 27.160

71 6 22.63 36.00 512.117 135.780

72 6 32.41 36.00 1050.408 194.460

73 5 29.63 25.00 877.937 148.150

74 4 45.63 16.00 2082.097 182.520

75 7 32.96 49.00 1086.362 230.720

Total ∑x=227 ∑y=2344.93 ∑ x2=1011.00

∑ y2=86766.111

∑xy=7764.470


∑( x2)= 51529

∑( y2)=5498696.71

Based on the data gathered. The researchers found out that there is a statistically significant relationship with the speed before the participants agreed to the favor asked and the number of people present in the location, rxy=0.320, p < .05.

During the debriefing, the participants were asked how they felt when they were approached not knowing that it was an experiment. Most participants reasoned out that they gave money as they (them & the ‘actress’) were both Lyceans. Others claim that they know how it feels to lose one’s wallet/money.

Table 2

Summation of the Reaction time in Seconds (x) and the Number of People present (y) for Outside LPU-Batangas Main CampusParticipant x y x2 y2 xy

1 1 14.41 1.00 207.648 14.4102 6 53.41 36.00 2852.628 320.4603 5 28.32 25.00 802.022 141.6004 3 26.85 9.00 720.923 80.5505 4 94.07 16.00 8849.165 376.2806 1 23.74 1.00 563.588 23.7407 3 30.63 9.00 938.197 91.8908 1 23.18 1.00 537.312 23.1809 3 41.87 9.00 1753.097 125.610

10 1 14.07 1.00 197.965 14.07011 4 71.41 16.00 5099.388 285.64012 1 31.05 1.00 964.103 31.05013 1 19.18 1.00 367.872 19.18014 3 31.96 9.00 1021.442 95.88015 4 42.41 16.00 1798.608 169.640

16 1 27.07 1.00 732.785 27.07017 1 15.41 1.00 237.468 15.41018 3 47.08 9.00 2216.526 141.24019 1 13.29 1.00 176.624 13.29020 1 18.09 1.00 327.248 18.09021 5 71.00 25.00 5041.000 355.00022 1 21.03 1.00 442.261 21.03023 1 30.30 1.00 918.090 30.30024 1 29.17 1.00 850.889 29.17025 3 21.29 9.00 453.264 63.87026 1 20.96 1.00 439.322 20.96027 5 28.27 25.00 799.193 141.35028 1 21.00 1.00 441.000 21.00029 3 38.18 9.00 1457.712 114.54030 1 17.30 1.00 299.290 17.30031 3 56.18 9.00 3156.192 168.54032 1 34.16 1.00 1166.906 34.16033 3 49.18 9.00 2418.672 147.54034 6 13.96 36.00 194.882 83.76035 1 18.30 1.00 334.890 18.30036 1 37.18 1.00 1382.352 37.18037 3 27.30 9.00 745.290 81.90038 3 29.63 9.00 877.937 88.89039 1 47.63 1.00 2268.617 47.63040 1 27.16 1.00 737.666 27.16041 1 11.18 1.00 124.992 11.18042 5 25.30 25.00 640.090 126.50043 1 14.29 1.00 204.204 14.29044 1 13.74 1.00 188.788 13.74045 3 17.74 9.00 314.708 53.22046 1 37.18 1.00 1382.352 37.18047 4 38.41 16.00 1475.328 153.64048 3 48.18 9.00 2321.312 144.54049 1 18.26 1.00 333.428 18.26050 3 48.85 9.00 2386.323 146.55051 1 18.52 1.00 342.990 18.520


52 3 43.07 9.00 1855.025 129.21053 1 17.63 1.00 310.817 17.63054 3 27.96 9.00 781.762 83.88055 1 21.96 1.00 482.242 21.96056 5 25.96 25.00 673.922 129.80057 1 96.18 1.00 9250.592 96.18058 1 16.18 1.00 261.792 16.18059 1 36.98 1.00 1367.520 36.98060 1 22.74 1.00 517.108 22.74061 3 45.87 9.00 2104.057 137.61062 1 32.74 1.00 1071.908 32.74063 4 16.29 16.00 265.364 65.16064 4 48.33 16.00 2335.789 193.32065 1 17.85 1.00 318.623 17.85066 5 35.85 25.00 1285.223 179.25067 1 26.74 1.00 715.028 26.74068 1 60.40 1.00 3648.160 60.40069 6 52.63 36.00 2769.917 315.78070 3 52.69 9.00 2776.236 158.07071 4 49.07 16.00 2407.865 196.28072 7 32.29 49.00 1042.644 226.03073 4 39.18 16.00 1535.072 156.72074 7 32.79 49.00 1075.184 229.53075 1 19.30 1.00 372.490 19.300

Total ∑x=186 ∑y=2469.01 ∑x2=684.00 ∑ y2=103728.886

∑xy=6884.820

∑( x2)= 34596

∑( y2)= 6096010.38

Utilizing the statistical computation for Pearson-r, the researchers determined that there is a moderately positive correlation between the two variables, rxy=0.341, p < .05, with the setting outside LPU-Batangas. Some participants agreed to the favor asked within a few seconds because they saw the ‘actress’ as “kawawa”. Some even asked whether Php 20.00 was enough for her to reach her home. Still,

others were wary (especially when in groups) to extend help, thinking that it was a part of a modus operandi.

Table 3

Comparison of the Results for Within and Outside LPU-Batangas Main Campus

Setting Level of Significance Computed rWithin the University p < .05 0.320

Outside the University p < .05 0. 341

Gathering the data from two groups, within and outside the University, the researchers discerned that there is no great difference in the computed r of the two above settings. This shows that be it within or outside the campus, people extend help faster when alone than when in a group/crowd.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the study conducted by the researchers, the Bystander effect can indeed affect people’s behavior in extending help to a person in need. Altruism is faster shown by an individual who is alone than to those who are in a group or in a crowd. When alone, a person asked for help will readily give aid to the person in need. They feel the sole responsibility towards that other person’s welfare.

Being in a group may result to diffusion of responsibility. This is the thought that someone else will help. The presence of other people causes the prolonged reaction time because they are seen as equally responsible to the person in need. Participants who were within a group when approached were observed to make imploring glances to other people before giving help to the person in need.


Hence, the researchers conclude that, the Bystander Effect, or the concept that people are less likely to provide needed help when they are in groups than when they are alone, is still existent in the society. The results confirm that an individual’s actions and behaviors are greatly affected by the other people. Readers may utilize their learning in this study by being mindful with how they act, especially when subjected to a situation where they are to extend help to another person.

For future experimenters who will be interested in doing an extensive research on altruism, the researchers humbly suggest the following:

1. Make use of other grouping beside the location of the experiment (within/outside). Interchanging the gender of the experimenter who will ‘act’ is recommended.

2. Aside from the two phenomena used as variables (reaction time & number of people present), the different demographic profile may also be utilized as the z variable.

REFERENCES

Baron, Robert A. & Brancombie, Nylar R. (2008). Social Psychology, 12th Edition. Personality and Helping. 325-326, 330 Retrieved on September 20, 2011

Burkley, Ph.D., Melissa. Created Nov 4 2009.Bystander effect article. Published on Psychology Today. Why Don’t We Help? Less Is More, at Least When It Comes to Bystanders.http://www.slideshare.net/colonelhomer/bystander-effect-article. Retrieved on September 25, 2011

Cherry, Kendra. (2007)) Bystander Effect - What is the Bystander Effect. Published by about.com at http://psychology.about.com/od/ socialpsychology/a/bystandereffect.htm. Retrieved on September 23, 2011.

Davers, David G. (2008). Social Psychology 9th Edition. Appeals to Altruistic Norms. 474-475 Retrieved on September 23, 2011

Darley, J. M. & Latane, B. Bystander intervention in emergencies: Diffusion of responsibility. 1968, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8, 377-383. http://neohumanism.org/b/by/bystander_effect.html. Retrieved on September 23, 2011

Fischer, Peter, et al. Psychological Bulletin, Vol 137(4), (Jul 2011).http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/bul/137/4/517/, 517-537. /. Retrieved on September 23, 2011

Gale Encyclopedia of Psychology, 2nd ed. Gale Group, (2001).http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_g2699/is_0000/ai_2699000050/. Gross, Richard & Rolls, Goef.(2006). Essential As A2 Psychology. 204-8, -205-8. Retrieved on September 25, 2011

McRaney, David. (March 8, 2010). Bystander effect. Published by youarenotsosmart.com.http://youarenotsosmart.com/


2010/03/08/bystander-effect/./.Retrieved on September 25, 2011

Myer, David G. (2008). Exploring Social Psychology. When do people help?. Pages 364, 371 Retrieved on September 20, 2011

Plotnik, Rod.(2006). Introduction to psychology 7th Edition. Altruism. Page 595. Retrieved on September 20, 2011

Olivarez, Brittany. (Apr 20th, 2010). Introduction to Psychology. Bystander effect Theory. Published by Helping Psychology | Sponsored by Argosy University, available at http://helpingpsychology.com/bystander-effect-theory. Retrieved on September 23, 2011

Shelley, James. (April 6, 2011). The Bystander Effect. Published by jamesshelley.net.http://www.jamesshelley.net/2011 /04/the-bystander-effect/. Date retrieved September 26, 2011

Stephanie, Chen. (October 28, 2009). Gang rape raises questions about bystanders' role. Published by cnn.com.http://articles.cnn.com/20091028/justice/california.gang.rape.bystander_1_bystander-crime-prevention-kitty-genovese?_s=PM:CRIME. Date retrieved September 26, 2011.

Tricia Ellis-Christensen. (2003-2011). What is the Bystander Effect? Published by Conjecture Corporation. http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-bystander-effect.htm. Date retrieved September 26, 2011

APPENDICES

The Researchers


Data Gathering

Instruments utilized


Locations of the Experiment

AUTHORS’ INFORMATION

Janine Mae Corpuz is a third year Psychology Student at Lyceum of the Philippines University-Batangas. She is the present Vice President for Internal Affairs of the Psychology Association and active member of the English Society. Janine loves to read books in connection with her field of interest such as Theories of Personality, Abnormal Psychology and Physiological Psychology. In addition to this, she prefers to work in line with Clinical and Forensic Psychology. She has plans of pursuing her medical studies.

Address: Sampaguita Subdv., Gulod Itaas, Batangas City

Contact Number: +639056574210 Email Address: [email protected]

Ms. Raina Mae S. Reyes, having a degree course of Bachelor of Science in Psychology, is currently studying at Lyceum of the Philippines University-Batangas. She is interested in the filed of Clinical and Industrial Psychology. She wants to pursue her mastered degree in University of Santo Tomas. She lives in Lot 67 Villa Cortez Subdivision Brgy. Lumingon Tiaong Quezon. She is 18 years old. She loved singing and surfing in the internet. She graduated her secondary level at St. John Parochial School Tiaong, Quezon. She is the only


child / unica hija of Mrs. Luz Reyes and Mr. Carlito Reyes. She was born on the 19th day of January1992.

Address: Tiaong, Quezon Contact Number:09108863886 Email Add: [email protected]

Documents

Bystander Effect Corpuz&Reyes BSPsyIII