Bystander Intervention and Obedience to Authority: Revealing Social Determinants of Behavior

1. Social Psychology 1 First Hour - What do the phenomena of “bystander intervention” and “obedience to authority” reveal about the social determinants of behavior? • Dispositions vs. situations – one of the “BIG” • questions in psychology • The Kitty Genovese story • Latané and Darley’s experiments on bystander • intervention • Group size • Pluralistic ignorance • Diffusion of responsibility • Obedience to authority: • Milgram’s experiments

2. 1 — Subject alonewith victim Subject with victim+ 1 other 0.8 — Subject with victim + 4 others 0.6 — Proportion responding to emergency 0.4 — 0.2 — 0 — — — — — 1 2 3 4 Number of others that one believed were available to respond Latané andDarley: Effect of perceived group size on one’s likelihood to intervene

3. No help given: I am unaware that help might be needed. if no if yes if no 2. Do I interpret the event as an emergency? No help given: I am assuming no help is needed. if yes No help given: I am assuming others will help. 3. Do I decide that I am responsible for intervening? if no if yes if yes if no 4. Do I decide what to do and how to do it? No help given: I do not know what to do. 5. Decide on how to help. Latané and Darley’s 5-step decision model of intervention 1. Do I notice the event?

4. Factors that reduce the likelihood of helping behaviour Ambiguity Pluralistic ignorance Diffusion of responsibility The presence of blood Factors the increase the likelihood of helping behaviour Gender of the victim Bystanders know each other Bystanders share a bond with the victim Bystanders have knowledge of the bystander effect

5. Actor (student) Experimenter Subject (teacher)

6. 1. Two authorities contradicting each other. 2. Authority also being the victim. 3. Free to choose the shock level. 4. Two of the subject’s peers “rebel.” 5. Remote authority. 6. Proximity within range of touch. 7. Proximity beyond range of touch. 9. Two authorities, one as the victim. 10. A peer administers the shocks. Results of alternate experimental manipulations: (in order of conditions generating increasingpercentages of subjects giving the maximum shock) 3-10% obedience 20-30% obedience 8. Remote victim. 65% obedience (baseline condition) 65-90% obedience