Helping as a Function of Number of Bystanders and Ambiguity of Emergency

Solomon, Linda Zener; Solomon, Herbert; Stone, R. C.

doi:10.1177/014616727800400231

Cited by 52 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The difference between the two types of alarms indicate that social influence is more important for ambiguous fire cues. This conclusion is also supported by similar research about helping behaviour in emergencies [13].…”

Section: Article In Presssupporting

confidence: 81%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Social influence during the initial phase of a fire evacuation—Analysis of evacuation experiments in a cinema theatre

Nilsson

Johansson

2009

Fire Safety Journal

172

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Article In Presssupporting

confidence: 81%

“…Research about helping behaviour has suggested that social influence may be more important for ambiguous emergencies [13]. This may also be relevant for fire emergencies.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Social influence during the initial phase of a fire evacuation—Analysis of evacuation experiments in a cinema theatre

Nilsson

Johansson

2009

Fire Safety Journal

172

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…However, no firm answer can yet be given to this question because Latané and Nida did not statistically test whether there are differences in effect sizes between emergency (high-danger) versus non-emergency (low-danger) situations. In addition, we test whether the expected effect of emergency danger on the bystander effect depends on various moderators investigated by Latané and Nida. Most importantly, Latané and Nida (1981) concluded that helping is reduced when the number of bystanders increases or when the situation is ambiguous (e.g., Clark & Word, 1974;Solomon, Solomon, & Stone, 1978). The effect occurs both in the laboratory and in the fleld (e.g., Shaffer, Rogel, & Hendrick, 1975).…”

Section: The Bystander Literature Before 1981mentioning

confidence: 99%

The bystander-effect: A meta-analytic review on bystander intervention in dangerous and non-dangerous emergencies.

Fischer

Krueger

Greitemeyer

et al. 2011

Psychological Bulletin

717

616

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research on bystander intervention has produced a great number of studies showing that the presence of other people in a critical situation reduces the likelihood that an individual will help. As the last systematic review of bystander research was published in 1981 and was not a quantitative meta-analysis in the modern sense, the present meta-analysis updates the knowledge about the bystander effect and its potential moderators. The present work (a) integrates the bystander literature from the 1960s to 2010, (b) provides statistical tests of potential moderators, and (c) presents new theoretical and empirical perspectives on the novel finding of non-negative bystander effects in certain dangerous emergencies as well as situations where bystanders are a source of physical support for the potentially intervening individual. In a fixed effects model, data from over 7,700 participants and 105 independent effect sizes revealed an overall effect size of g = -0.35. The bystander effect was attenuated when situations were perceived as dangerous (compared with non-dangerous), perpetrators were present (compared with non-present), and the costs of intervention were physical (compared with non-physical). This pattern of findings is consistent with the arousal-cost-reward model, which proposes that dangerous emergencies are recognized faster and more clearly as real emergencies, thereby inducing higher levels of arousal and hence more helping. We also identified situations where bystanders provide welcome physical support for the potentially intervening individual and thus reduce the bystander effect, such as when the bystanders were exclusively male, when they were naive rather than passive confederates or only virtually present persons, and when the bystanders were not strangers.

show abstract

“…Schwartz and Clausen (1970) explained this effect by stipulating that males want to impress female bystanders. In addition, especially for highly dangerous emergencies, women tend to hand over responsibility for helping in the presence of male bystanders (Solomon, Solomon, & Stone, 1978). Thus, future research investigating more thoroughly the effects of expected danger, gender of potential helper, and number and gender of bystanders on helping behaviour will be a promising endeavour.…”

Section: Helping Behaviourmentioning

confidence: 99%

The unresponsive bystander: are bystanders more responsive in dangerous emergencies?

Fischer

Greitemeyer

Pollozek

et al. 2006

Eur. J. Soc. Psychol.

239

172

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous research in bystander intervention found that the presence of other bystanders reduces helping behaviour in an emergency (bystander effect). This research was mainly conducted in the context of non-dangerous, non-violent emergencies. We hypothesize that the classic bystander effect does not occur in more dangerous situations because: a) they are faster and more clearly recognized as emergency situations; and b) higher costs for refusing help increase the accepted costs for helping. Following this line of reasoning, the present research tests whether the bystander effect is affected by the degree of the emergency's potential danger. Results supported our expectations: In situations with low potential danger, more help was given in the solitary condition than in the bystander condition. However, in situations with high potential danger, participants confronted with an emergency alone or in the presence of another bystander were similarly likely to help the victim.

show abstract

Helping as a Function of Number of Bystanders and Ambiguity of Emergency

Cited by 52 publications

References 5 publications

Social influence during the initial phase of a fire evacuation—Analysis of evacuation experiments in a cinema theatre

Social influence during the initial phase of a fire evacuation—Analysis of evacuation experiments in a cinema theatre

The bystander-effect: A meta-analytic review on bystander intervention in dangerous and non-dangerous emergencies.

The unresponsive bystander: are bystanders more responsive in dangerous emergencies?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About