“Do
not wait for extraordinary circumstances to do good actions; try to use
ordinary situations.” - John Paul Richter (1763).
Humans
are by nature social creatures and mirroring the behaviour of others appears to
be an inherent characteristic of human nature. Research suggests that even when,
internally people perhaps have conflicting thoughts, feelings or emotions about
a certain event or situation, when the incident appears to be ambiguous to the
individual, they tend to follow the group consensus. Muzafer Sherif (1963) used
the autokinetic effect to perform an experiment to test this theory with great
success. Conformity can also occur when people believe that they are listening
to, a trusted source such as an expert, a friend and or in a crisis situation
as was the case Halloween Night 1938 (Aronson 2005).
The
famous war of the world’s radio broadcast aired in New York caused millions to
panic and several thousand to flee their homes. In addition people who were
looking out on to their streets to see no evidence of the panic were reportedly
interpreting scenarios such as bridges and roads being destroyed thus blocking
traffic, essentially fabricating scenarios to fit with what they had heard and
believed to be true, dangerous if they were to then pass on the information to
someone else who trusted them, possibly causing the snowball effect that ensued.
The Milgram experiment (1963) looked at the possible negative effects of
conforming to obedience from authority and also offers a plausible explanation
for most if not all of the atrocities committed in the name of humanity (Ibid).
Informational
social influence research suggests that a majority of people tend to seek informational
cues from others for how to behave when they are unsure themselves, the need to
be right in an ambiguous social situation may also be important to people. A
high percentage of participants conform in the various experiments’ results
available even though internally they knew they were wrong (Ibid).
There
is clear evidence of informational social influence effecting behaviour
throughout history; the My Lai massacre, the rise of the Nazi’s, as well many
other atrocities committed in humanities name were whole societies or groups of
people have either stood by and watched in the case of the bystander effect, or
even joined in, some do conform because of personal agreement leading to
private acceptance. Conformity also has some positive applications. The
normative influence, is the need to fit in, can help people communicate without
offending others and is the basis for a set of unspoken and unwritten rules within
a society that govern how people are expected to behave or interact with others
such as; the distance people stand from one another when engaging in a
conversation, how to respect others when they are talking and how people
frequently look away when talking to someone else in a passive manner to avoid
any feelings of discomfort that may result. Conformity can also strengthen
social bonds within a group (Ibid).
The
bystander effect could be a result of informational conformity on a
subconscious level, or at least contain aspects of the theories mentioned and
was first noticed in a densely populated city as recently as 1964 when a woman
was brutally murdered with over 30 ‘witnesses’ present. As nobody else appears to
be apprehensive on the outside, people conform as there may be no need for
concern (Baron 2014).
In
large cities statistically only 15% of people stop to help an injured man
(Amato 1983), that is in essence an 85% conformity rate as most people tend to
do nothing. It appears that personality, mood, gender and cultural identity all
play a role in whether or not an individual may offer assistance, but more
importantly, the social setting people find themselves in appears to play a
large part as similar research conducted suggests that smaller rural
communities behave in a much more altruistic way, although this is not
necessarily due to the overload hypothesis (Aronson 2005).
The
bystander effect has also been observed amongst medical professionals in the
care of others, which could mean the even highly trained clinicians with
assumedly a talent for deductive and inductive reasoning are not immune and
further asserts the assumption that this behaviour could well be intrinsic to
all humans (Stavert 2013).
A
testable explanation was offered by Latane and Darley (1968) who devised
ingenious experiments to test their bystander apathy hypothesis. This suggested
that the size of the group of strangers present played a crucial role in
whether an individual would react in a moment of crisis. Latane and Darley
initially attributed this to a diffusion of responsibility, suggesting that the
larger number of strangers present during a crisis moment, the less responsible
any one individual felt, somehow assuming that someone else should intervene. The
experiment showed that people were far more likely to use their own initiative
and help if they were alone, with a negative correlation to the amount of
strangers present. Further factors have been suggested by Kuntsman and Plant
(2009) such as race or related tensions could also play a part when intervening
in an emergency situation (Baron 2014).
As
pro-social behaviour studies advanced, Latane and Darley (1970) moved away from
their original concern with the number of bystanders and attempted to explain
the cognitive processes involved within the bystander effect. Levine and
colleagues (2005) suggested the reasons as to why on September 11th
2001 passengers on one of the hijacked planes rose up against their attackers
may have been because the strangers had a chance to interact directly as they
could see each other. Unlike in Darley and Latanes’ (1968) experiment were
participants could not interact, this appears to be an important factor in
noticing (or not) that something unusual is happening in a social setting which
is the first step in Latane and Darley’s five step model on deciding whether or
not to help. As individuals may have an incomplete picture of what is occurring,
and as emergencies are unusual and possibly ambiguous situations, they look to
others for their interpretation and may hesitate (Ibid).
The
next step involves possible public embarrassment in the case of being wrong,
actually interpreting the event as an emergency. Latane and Darley (1968)
provided correlational evidence for the theory of pluralistic ignorance. 62% of
people continued to work in a room filling with smoke if there were three
strangers present as opposed to 75% leaving if they were alone, again a clear
link between group size and reacting to the situation and more worryingly,
initially 25% of people did nothing. This suggests that fear of being wrong in
an emergency situation could lead to embarrassment in front of a group of
strangers for over reacting, which means that people may often hold back and do
nothing, waiting for informational cues from others as how to react. Rutkowski,
Grunder and Romer (1983) found that these inhibiting effects are much less
likely to occur if the group consists of friends, as they are more likely to communicate
and the anxiety of being wrong decreases, the same can be said for small towns
and communities were everyone knows each other as opposed to cities being full
of strangers. Alcohol has also been shown to reduce the anxiety of being wrong
leading to altruistic behaviour, sometimes (Ibid).
Deciding
whether to take responsibility and deciding whether or not they had the
required skills to assist are the next steps people consider in the model
before taking action. Emergency situations are often dealt with by
professionals and ordinary people may believe they lack the required skills or
knowledge necessary to help; teachers teach, police deal with criminals,
firemen put out fires and soldiers fight terrorists, when the role of
responsibility is unclear, people may automatically assume that someone in a
leadership role should take charge. However, as has been observed most people
have no problem taking responsibility when alone as there is no alternative
(Baron 2014).
Making
the decision to help is the final step which can still be inhibited by a number
of factors such as fear of negative consequences or injury. The often difficult
decision to intervene could mean that potential helpers engage in “cognitive
algebra” (Fitzshe, Frinkelstein and Penner 2000) weighing up the positive and
negative consequences, positive outcomes being validation for the beliefs of
the helper and the negative being personal harm or possibility of being wrong
in public, clearly there are still many subjective factors involved in making
the decision to help (Baron 2014).
Some
recent studies of the bystander effect have been focused on the positive
effects as it may be reversed in certain situations. Evidence suggests that
when another passive bystander was present in a high risk situation as opposed
to being alone, the chances of intervention are increased suggesting that when
in an obvious emergency situation as in this case the theft of a bicycle,
people may feel more obligated to help as they are being observed or in the
presence of another (Fischer 2013), this may also be a diffusion of risk. The
knowledge that observation is occurring also seems to play a part; being
watched by a camera appears to promote a positive response (Van Bommel 2012).
These situations seem to clarify accountability in deciding whether or not to
intervene. Research (Savitsky 1998) also suggests that being aware of the
bystander effect and the barriers involved in helping in an emergency situation
can increase the likelihood those barriers will be overcome (Aronson 2005).
If
informational social influence and the bystander effect are intrinsic and
instinctive to humans regardless of contradictory evidence, it is possible that
there is an evolutionary explanation. The invention of language in the
evolutionary scale of mankind is fairly recent with the oldest written language
on record being around 8000 years old (Brysbaert 2013). Every single human
being outside of Africa is the descendant of a 200,000 year old human female (Rice
2012), a 3.2 million year old skeleton has also been revealed linking humans to
a previous discovery dating six million years old (Shreeve 2009). The first
written language only accounts for around 0.13% of humanity’s observable ancestry.
As is the case today, having trustworthy and reliable social networks of family
and friends amongst ancient and preliterate societies was most likely the key
to survival and a positive psychological wellbeing; instinct, body language and
primitive spoken language skills would have been the only forms of
communication.
Informational
social influence may have been beneficial for survival amongst the very first
social groups as when humans ran from predators or to hunt a meal for instance,
this would instinctively drive other humans to do the same, similar to any
flock, pack or herd animal, without language, humans would have to guess how
their counterparts were feeling. Also, learning by observation as well as trial
and error offers better survival chances.
It
would be logical to assume that language gave rise to more complex emotions and
progressively higher cognitive functions such as rationality and logic,
foresight of consequences, perception of reality, numeracy, as well as most if
not all socially constructed theories today, including the discipline of
science itself, which are all still very recent in the observable evolutionary time
scale compared to that of informational conformity, which may have been
beneficial for millions of years.
Mirroring
the behaviour of others may well be hardwired into the human genome and brain,
which would support an evolutionary explanation. The discovery of mirror
neurons may provide further evidence to suggest so, and could also be what
allows humans to feel the emotions of others, although neuroscience is in its
infancy, this area of motor and cognitive neuroscience is one of the most
studied and debated topic areas (Purves 2008).
The
psychological distress that can result from being different or having a
difference in opinion may mean that conforming from an early age helps to
minimise negative responses and possible fear of rejection from other members
of society, it then becomes implicit that this is the best form of action for
survival in social groups, which is sometimes carried through in to adulthood
The
bystander effect is the tendency for people to not engage in prosocial
behaviour in a crisis situation when in the presence of strangers. Psychology
has offered examples and possible explanations for this phenomenon, and has
provided some startling evidence that being in the presence of other people can
influence behaviour in many ways. Conformity in various different scenarios and
the bystander effect paint a worrying picture about the possible malleability
of the human mind and how distorted its perception of reality may be at times,
even medical professionals are susceptible, there may also be evolutionary and
biological explanations.
There
are however some useful applications of the bystander effect as it can be
reversed when accountability and responsibility are made clear, when others do
decide to help or when obligation is assumed under observation, research
suggests that other people will join in. Being aware of the bystander effect
also appears to reduce the effects. Informational social influence helps form
friendships and solidify social bonds, but in the presence of strangers can
sometimes backfire when people are unsure of how to act.
References
Aronson, E, Wilson, T, Akert, R (2005). Social psychology. Fifth edition. New
Jersey: Pearson Education Ltd. ISBM 0-13-178686-5.
Brysbaert, M and Rastle, K (2013) Historical and Contextual Issues in
Psychology. Second edition. Gosport: Ashford colour press Ltd. ISBN
978-0-273-71818-5
Fischer, P., & Greitemeyer, T.
(2013). The Positive Bystander Effect:
Passive Bystanders Increase Helping in Situations With High Expected Negative
Consequences for the Helper. The Journal of Social Psychology, 153(1), 1–5.
Shreeve, J (2009) Oldest Skeleton of Human Ancestor Found. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/10/091001-oldest-human-skeleton-ardi-missing-link-chimps-ardipithecus-ramidus.html National
Geographic Magazine.
Stavert, R, Lott, P (2013). The Bystander Effect in Medical Care.
The New England Journal of Medicine. Massachusetts Medical Society.
Rice University (2010). 'Mitochondrial Eve': Mother of all humans
lived 200,000 years ago. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100817122405.htm (Retrieved
October 21, 2013).
Purves, D, Augustine, G, Fitzpatrick, D,
Hall, W, LaMantia, A, McNamara, J, White, L (2008) Neuroscience. Fourth edition. Sunderland: Sinauer Associates, Inc.
ISBN 978-0-87893-679-7
Van Bommel, M., van Prooijen, J.-W.,
Elffers, H., & Van Lange, P. A. M. (2012). Be aware to care: Public self-awareness leads to a reversal of the
bystander effect. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(4),
926–930.
Bibliography
Bernstein, D, Penner, L, Clarke-Stewart,
A, Roy, A. Psychology. Eighth
edition. Boston: Houghton Miffin Company. ISBN 0-618-87407-0
Latane, B. Darley, J (1969) Bystander Apathy. http://www.jstor.org/stable/27828530?seq=3 American
Scientist, Vol. 57 No.2.
Sussman, R, Colinger, R (2011) Developments in Primatology: Progress and
Prospects, Origins of Altruism and Cooperation. http://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-1-4419-9520-9/page/1 ISBN: 978-1-4419-9519-3 (Print)
978-1-4419-9520-9 Volume 36
No comments:
Post a Comment