Helping Behavior, Bystanders, and Compliance Gaining

1. Helping Behavior, Bystanders, and Compliance Gaining

2. the case of Kitty Genovese in general, groups are less likely to lend assistance in an emergency than an individual the presence of other people tends to inhibit helping behavior the larger the crowd, the less likely people are to help Pluralistic ignorance: people wait for someone else to act who knows what to do Diffusion of responsibility: the personal responsibility of each individual is reduced. people assume someone else has called for help or will call for help Social proof: others’ inaction implies the situation is not that serious The bystander effect

3. Bystander behavior • When a waiting room filled with smoke, people did nothing if they saw others doing nothing (Latane & Darley, 1968) • Bystanders failed to act when a person feigned having an asthma attack or a seizure (Harris & Robinson, 1973; Schwartz & Clausen, 1970).

4. The influence of status on pedestrians’ failure to follow a road-safety rule Independent variable: comparison of three types of attire: Well-dressed Casually dressed Poorly-dressed Control condition: no confederate Confederate crossed at crosswalk against a red light Large sample size: 2,883 pedestrians waiting at a crosswalk for a light to change Dependent Variable: violating the “do not walk” signal and following the confederate across the street. Results Control condition: 15.6% violations of no walk signal Well-dressed: 54.5% violations Casually dressed: 17.9% violations Poorly dressed: 9.3% violations Note: the control condition produced more compliance than the low-status clothing condition. Gueguen & Pichot (2001)

5. The effect of Shoplifter’s status on reporting a crime: An evaluation in a natural setting Independent variable: a male confederate was well-dressed or poorly dressed Neatly dressed: suit &tie Slovenly: Dirty jeans, torn jacket, sneakers Neutral: Clean jeans, tee-shirt and jacket, moccasins The confederate asked a shopper to move aside so he could get a CD, then pocketed the CD Dependent variable: Whether the subjects did nothing or told the store security officer or a clerk about the theft Results: 73% of the shoppers did nothing. Most didn’t want to get involved. For the well dressed shoplifter, only 10% of the shoppers intervened (90% did nothing) For the poorly dressed shoplifter, 39% of the shoppers intervened (60% did nothing) For the neutrally dressed shoplifter, 37% intervened (63% did nothing) Note: intervention rates for the slovenly and neutrally dressed shoplifters were almost the same. Gueguen (2003)

6. Status symbols and prosocial behavior: The effect of the victim’s car on helping Independent variable 1: Sex of the subject Independent variable 2: status of the person’s car Shiny Buick Electra Dirty Ford Impala The person was an attractive, well-dressed female loading groceries into her car. As a subject was approached she “dropped” her bag of groceries. Dependent variable: Helping behavior was defined as physically picking up the groceries Results: Male subjects were more likely to help a high status than low status victim (73% versus 33%) Female subjects were only slightly more likely to help a high status than low status victim (27% versus 20%) Note: Male compliance for the low status victim was still higher than female compliance for the high status victim Note: Situational demands favor males helping more than females Solomon & Herman (1977)

7. Effects of attractiveness and nature of the request on helping behavior Shoppers were approached when entering or leaving a supermarket or department store. Confederates asked the shoppers for directions. Independent variable 1: attire Well-dressed: clean, conservative clothes, clean shaven Poorly dressed: simulated tattoos, cigarettes rolled in sleeves, dirty t-shirt, torn dirty trousers, uncombed hair Independent variable 2: status of destination Exclusive tennis club in nearby vicinity Thrift shop in nearby vicinity Dependent variable: the amount of time spent giving directions Results: The most time spent giving directions was to poorly dressed undergrads going to the low-status destination Low status may have been associated with low intelligence: e.g., Speak slowly and clearly Pity explanation: greater sensitivity to the low status person’s plight e.g. This person really needs a change of clothes Note: this finding runs counter to previous studies that found higher status produced greater compliance Juhnke et al (2001)

8. The reciprocity-arousing potential of the requester’s occupation, its status and the cost and urgency of the request as determinants of helping behavior 2 X 2 X 2 design, using a variation of the “wrong number” technique Independent variable 1: a male confederate introduced himself as a: physician or accountant fireman or gas station attendant Independent Variable 2: urgency of the request urgent versus non-urgent request Independent variable 3: effort or cost of compliance disconnected phone number for 30 min. disconnected phone number for 60 min. Dependent variable: the confederate asked strangers if they would call his wife to tell her he would be late Results: Compliance was significantly greatest for the physician Compliance had less to do with status and more to do with the potential for reciprocity Compliance was greater for urgent requests Compliance was greater for lower-cost, lower-effort requests Yinon & Dovrat (1987)

9. Motorists in luxury cars were less likely to be honked at than motorists in medium to low priced cars Motorists sat behind the wheel a light turned green Some motorists drove new expensive cars Others drove older ordinary cars The drivers behind them waited significantly longer before honking, based on the status of the car. Would the same hold true today? Doob & Gross (1968)