Tuesday, 26 June 2012

How to reverse the Bystander Effect

You see a shopper trip over in a busy street. Someone else can help. That's what you tell your conscience. This is the Bystander Effect in action - the dilution of our sense of responsibility in the presence of other people - and it's been demonstrated in numerous studies over many years.

But life is complicated and psychologists have begun looking at the circumstances that can nullify or even reverse the effect. For a new paper, Marco van Bommel and his team tested the idea that the presence of others could in fact increase our proclivity for helping if we're nudged into a self-aware mindset and thereby reminded of our social reputation.

Two experiments were conducted using an online chat room for people with extreme emotional problems. Eighty-six students were logged into the forum and shown five messages posted by troubled forum users - for example, one was written by a person who wanted to commit suicide. The participants were told they could write a reply if they wanted, but it was entirely up to them.

In the baseline condition, each participant could see his or her name in the top left-hand side of the screen alongside other users' names. A counter also told them if the forum was quiet, with just one other person logged-in, or if it was busy, with 30 others online.

This basic arrangement replicated the classic Bystander Effect - participants were less likely to post replies when there were more people logged into the forum. However, when the researchers cued self-awareness by highlighting the participant's name in red on the screen, the Bystander Effect was reversed - they now posted more replies when the forum was busy compared with when it was quiet.

A second study built on these findings, but this time self-awareness was cued by the presence, or not, of a web-cam on the computer. Over one hundred participants took part. For those in the web-cam condition, their attention was drawn to the device by having them check that its LED indicator light was on, although they were told that the camera wouldn't be used until a later task. In the absence of a web-cam, the Bystander Effect was again replicated - participants on a busy forum, compared to a quiet forum, posted fewer replies to users in need. By contrast, participants cued to be self-aware by the presence of a web-cam actually wrote more replies when the forum was busy, compared with when it was quiet.

"The Bystander Effect can be reversed by means of cues that raise public self-awareness in social settings," the researchers said.

van Bommel and his team acknowledged the limitations of using an online arrangement for testing their ideas, but they also defended its relevance to modern life, in which our social activities are increasingly taking place online. Their results also have interesting implications for the debate around the proliferation of security cameras in public places. "While certain forms of self-awareness may not always be welcomed by people, the present findings do underscore their power to promote helping one another," the researchers said.

  ResearchBlogging.orgMarco van Bommel, Jan-Willem van Prooijen, Henk Elffers, and Paul A.M. Van Langea (2012). Be aware to care: Public self-awareness leads to a reversal of the bystander effect. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology DOI: 10.1016/j.jesp.2012.02.011

Further reading: The responsive bystander.
Meta-analysis of the Bystander Effect.
The truth behind the story of Kitty Genovese and the bystander effect

Post written by Christian Jarrett for the BPS Research Digest.


Unknown said...

Christian, thanks for pointing us to this paper. I wonder if you have seen Levine and Crowther's 2008 JPSP in which they also show reversals of the bystander effect? Mark Levine has actually done quite a bit of really outstanding work problematizing the basic effect, which I highly encourage you (and everyone) to get to know.

ProfHerb said...

The biggest thing is we need to stop perpetuating the Myth of Kitty Genovese. Lavine's research showed that there was no "bystander effect". There weren't 38 people with a clear view of what was happening. There were only 12 witnesses identified. Several did call the police, on yelled out the window which stopped the first attack. Prior to the attack one saw them walking close together. The attack changed locations. So at best, for some on lookers there was an ambiguous situation. Others when it was clear what was happening, did act. Which is the case in most crimes and assaults. there's a moment of disbelief where you can't believe what you think you are seeing. When it becomes clear as to what's happening, many people do intervene. Maybe we should talk more about the Reginald Denny case and on looker intervention.

Unknown said...

hi Jessica, thanks for the reminder, I'll add a link to Mark's work.

Unknown said...

hi Herbert - I agree. I put a relevant link under further reading at the bottom of the post.

Post a Comment

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.