Social

Approach
The Social Approach: Key Studies
1. What is Social Psychology?
2. Assumptions
3. Methods of Investigation
4. Core Studies from Social Psychology: Milgram (1963) and Perry et al
(2015) and Piliavin et al (1969)
5. Contributions to Psychology
The Social Approach: Understanding Everyday Behavior
🔹 What Does the Social Approach Study?

● How social influences shape our behavior.

● Everyday behaviors like obedience, personal space, and helping others.

🔹 Obedience in Daily Life

● We follow authority figures (parents, teachers, law enforcement) without

questioning.
● Simple acts of obedience include following signs like "Keep Off the Grass" or
"Do Not Touch."
● Reflection Task: What are some examples of obedience in your daily life?

🔹 Helping Behavior

● Imagine seeing an elderly person struggling to cross a busy road, what

would you do?
● Some step in to help, others hesitate, and some may walk away.
● What factors influence whether we help or not?
Main Assumptions of The Social Approach
🔹 Humans as Social Beings

● Our thoughts, emotions, and behaviors are shaped by the

presence, expectations, and influence of others.

🔹 Key Assumptions

● Social Influence: Behavior is affected by the actual, implied, or

imagined presence of others.
● Social Context: Our actions change depending on group
dynamics, cultural norms, and situational factors.

Example: Social Roles

● A business manager behaves formally at work but casually at

home, showing how context affects behavior.
● Even when alone, social expectations guide actions (e.g., dressing
for an event, feeling anticipation before a gathering).
Activity: How Does Social Context Influence Behavior?
Step 1: Initial Scenarios

Read each scenario carefully and answer the following questions:

1. Would you help in this situation? Why or why not?

2. What factors might influence your decision? (safety, social norms, number of people around)
3. How do you think most people would react?

Scenario 1: Helping an Elderly Person

You are walking alone at 10 PM on a quiet street when you notice an elderly man with a cane struggling to cross the
road. There are no cars immediately approaching, but the street is dimly lit.

Scenario 2: Helping a Child

It is midday in a busy shopping area, and you see a young child standing alone, looking distressed. They appear to
be lost and are looking around anxiously.
Activity: How Does Social Context Influence Behavior?
Step 2: Changing the Context

Now, let’s modify the scenarios slightly and discuss:

1. Would your reaction change? Why?

2. How might the presence of others affect your decision?
3. What does this say about social influences on behavior?

Scenario Modifications:

● Scenario 1: Instead of 10 PM, the elderly man is struggling to cross the road at 1 PM in a busy shopping area.
● Scenario 2: Instead of a young child, it is a teenager looking around nervously.
Methods of Investigation

• Experimentation: Social Psychologists carry out

experiments both in the laboratory and on the field.
Both methods involve the manipulation of an
independent variable and the measurement of a
dependent variable.

• Surveys: Social Psychologists carry out

questionnaires. Questionnaires are a useful tool in
researching people’s attitudes.

• Observations: Social Psychologists carry out

observations of real life social settings.
Contributions to Psychology

This area of Psychology has led to a greater understanding of how our behaviour
is influenced by other people. It has been applied to the following areas:

1) Criminology. Social Psychology has revealed how juries can be swayed by a powerful juror.

2) Education. Social Psychology has warned teachers about the dangers of labelling people.

3) Industry. Social Psychology has helped people in industry to identify potential leaders.

4) Sport. We now know more about how an audience affects an athletes performance.

5) The Environment. Social Psychology has revealed that a crowd can change people’s behaviour.
Milgram’s Study on Obedience
Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioural study of obedience. Journal of abnormal and social
psychology, 67, 371-378.
The Psychology Being Investigated
🔹 Social Pressure & Influence

● The power that individuals or groups have over shaping behavior.

● Can be direct (orders, threats, demands) or indirect (social
expectations, approval, fear of disapproval).

🔹 Obedience to Authority

● Following orders from an authority figure, willingly or reluctantly.

● Necessary for society to function, maintaining laws and stability.

🔹 Destructive Obedience

● Obeying without question, leading to psychological or physical

harm.
● Raises key ethical concerns: do people obey because of personal
traits or social pressure?

Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View (Harper

Perennial Modern Thought)
Destructive Obedience & The ‘Germans Are Different’ Hypothesis

Destructive Obedience: The Holocaust

● 11 million people were murdered under Nazi rule, including 6 million Jewish victims.
● Many involved claimed they were "just following orders", a defense used in the Nuremberg Trials.
● Raised the question: How can ordinary people commit extreme acts under authority?

The ‘Germans Are Different’ Hypothesis

● Suggests that Germans at the time had unique traits that made them more
obedient.
● Implies the Holocaust was due to personality, culture, or upbringing, not
ordinary human behavior.

Challenging the Hypothesis

● Social psychologists argue obedience is shaped by social context, not just

personality.
● The Individual vs. Situational Debate explores whether behavior is driven
by traits or environment.
The Individual vs Situational Debate in Obedience
What Drives Obedience?

● Individual Explanation → Obedience is based on personality, biology, past experiences, and

cognitive traits.
● Situational Explanation → Behavior is shaped by environment, social norms, and authority
pressure.

Implications of the Debate

● If obedience is individual, only certain types of people would comply with harmful orders.
● If obedience is situational, anyone could be led to obey under the right conditions.

Milgram’s Findings

● Milgram tested whether obedience was a personality trait or a situational response.

● His study provided strong evidence for situational influence, showing that ordinary people could
follow harmful orders under authority pressure.
Derren Brown’s Re-creation of Milgram’s Experiment
Video Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6GxIuljT3w

● Modern replication of Milgram’s obedience study.

● Tests whether ordinary people will obey harmful orders under authority pressure.

Key Observations

● Participants showed hesitation, distress, and moral conflict.

● Despite this, over 50% continued to 450 volts, just like in Milgram’s original study.
● Authority influence overpowered personal conscience and resistance.
Background of Milgram’s (1963) Study on Obedience
🔹 Milgram’s Motivation

● Inspired by the Holocaust, he sought to test why people obey harmful orders.
● Challenged the “Germans are different” hypothesis, proposing that
obedience is situational, not personality-based.

🔹 Predictions Before the Study

● Milgram described his experiment to psychology students and colleagues.

● They predicted that fewer than 3% of participants would administer the
maximum shock.
● Many believed that no one would follow orders to that extreme.

🔹 What Really Happened?

● The actual results shocked everyone, revealing the power of authority and
Stanley Milgram
social pressure.
 Aim of Milgram’s (1963)
🔹 Investigating Obedience to Authority

● Milgram wanted to test how obedient individuals would be to orders

from an authority figure.
● Specifically, he examined whether people would obey even when it
caused harm to another person(destructive obedience).

🔹 Laboratory-Based Experiment

● Participants were instructed to administer electric shocks to a victim

under the authority of a researcher.
● The shocks were not real, but participants believed they were.

🔹 Key Question: Do people obey because of personality traits, or can

anyone be influenced by authority under the right conditions?

Photo from the Milgram Experiment.

 Method: Research Method & Design of Milgram’s (1963)
🔹 Controlled Observation

● Conducted in a laboratory setting to ensure standardized conditions.

● No independent variable was manipulated, so it was not a true experiment.

🔹 Measuring Obedience

● Operationalized as the maximum voltage administered by participants.

● Observers recorded body language, verbal protests, and signs of distress.

🔹 Why Not a Naturalistic Observation?

● Controlled environment removed external influences.

● Allowed for precise measurement of obedience under authority pressure.
● A real-world setting would not allow participants to fully believe in the
scenario.
Sample of Milgram’s (1963) Study on Obedience
Sample Details

● Recruitment:
○ 40 men aged 20–50 recruited via newspaper advertisement.
○ Volunteer (self-selected) sample from New Haven, USA.
● Diversity:
○ Included unskilled workers, white-collar workers, and professionals.
● Limitation:
○ Sample limited to men; may not generalize to other groups.
Procedure: Recruitment & Initial Set-up
Participant Recruitment

● Participants were recruited through a newspaper advertisement, targeting men

aged 20 to 50.
● The ad framed the study as one on memory and learning, with a promised
payment of $4.50.
● Payment was unconditional, ensuring participants did not feel financially pressured
to continue if they became uncomfortable.

Diversity of Participants: Recruited individuals came from various occupational

backgrounds, including:

○ Unskilled workers
○ White-collar professionals
○ Skilled laborers

Laboratory Setting at Yale University

● The study was conducted in a modern laboratory at Yale

● The scientific appearance of the lab, along with professional-looking equipment,
reinforced an atmosphere of authority and legitimacy → encouraged participants
to trust the experimenter and comply with instructions (impact of situational
factors on obedience).
Procedure: The Experiment
Arrival and Authority of the Experimenter

● Participants were welcomed by a 31-year-old experimenter dressed in a grey

technician’s coat.
● The experimenter maintained a serious and authoritative demeanor, reinforcing an
image of scientific legitimacy.
● His appearance and behavior were deliberately designed to establish trust and
encourage obedience.

Introduction of the Confederate

● Participants met another individual, introduced as a fellow participant.

● In reality, this man was a confederate: a likeable, middle-aged actor trained to
follow a script.

The Role Assignment (Rigged Draw)

● Participants were informed that the study examined the effects of punishment on
learning.
● They drew slips from a hat to determine who would be the teacher and who would
be the learner.
● The draw was rigged: the real participant was always the teacher, while the The “learner” (Mr. Wallace) was strapped to a chair with
confederate played the learner. electrodes.
Procedure: The Shock Generator
The learner (confederate) was strapped into a chair with electrodes attached.

The participant was shown a shock generator with switches ranging from 15V
(“slight shock”) to 450V (“XXX: danger, severe shock”).

Labels such as “moderate shock” and “extreme intensity shock” reinforced the
illusion of real danger.

The experimenter assured the participant that the shocks were painful but not
dangerous.

To enhance realism, the participant received a real 45V sample shock, increasing
their belief in the experiment’s legitimacy and the experimenter’s authority.
Procedure: The Memory Task
The participant sat behind a wall, able to hear but not see the
learner.

They read word pairs aloud (e.g., “blue—sky”) and later tested the
learner’s recall.

For every mistake, the participant was ordered to administer a shock,

increasing by 15V each time.

The learner (confederate) followed a scripted pattern of errors,

ensuring a controlled and consistent experience for all participants.
Procedure: The Learner’s Reactions
Up to 300V, the learner remained silent when shocked.

At 300V and 315V, they banged on the wall in distress.

After 315V, the learner stopped responding, creating the illusion of serious
harm or unconsciousness.

If the participant hesitated, the experimenter used scripted prods, including:

● “Please continue.”
● “The experiment requires that you continue.”
● “You have no other choice; you must go on.”
The Milgram Experiments. Subject in the study
(c) Yale University Manuscripts and Archives
The experimenter’s calm authority pressured participants into obedience,
even against their discomfort.
Completion of The Procedure
The experiment ended when the participant either refused to continue or
reached the maximum shock of 450V.

One-way mirrors were used to observe and record participants’ behavior.

Signs of stress and discomfort were noted, including:

● Sweating, trembling, nervous laughter, and verbal protests.

These observations provided key data on the participants’ emotional

responses to obedience under pressure.
Debriefing & Completion of The Procedure

1. After the experiment, participants were fully debriefed and told that no real
shocks had been given.

2. They met the learner to confirm he was unharmed, helping to reduce

distress and guilt.

3. Participants rated how painful they believed the 450V shock was (0 = not at
all, 14 = extremely painful).

4. This helped researchers assess perceived harm and participants’

psychological states during the experiment.
Video Activity: Milgram’s Obedience Study
What You’ll See in the Video
● Participants:
○ Experimenter: Authority figure giving instructions.
○ Teacher: Participant administering shocks.
○ Learner: Actor pretending to receive shocks.
● Setup:
○ Shock generator with switches (15V to 450V).
○ Learner reacts with increasing distress.

Activity: Describe the Participants

● Emotional Reactions:
○ Did they seem conflicted, stressed, or indifferent?
● Interactions with Authority:
○ How did they respond to the experimenter’s instructions?
● Decision-Making:
○ Did they hesitate, question, or obey without resistance?

Watch here: Milgram Experiment Video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TqJFp4y4zo

The Milgram Experiment (1962) Full Documentary: https://youtu.be/rdrKCilEhC0

Results of Milgram’s (1963)
Results

● Most participants believed they were delivering real, painful shocks.

● In the debriefing, they rated the 450V shock as 13.42 out of 14 on a pain scale.
● This suggests they were convinced they had caused serious harm.

Research Methods: Why Use the Mean?

● The mean (average) was used to summarize pain ratings.

● It includes all scores, making it more representative than the mode or median.
● The mean provides a precise reflection of participants’ perceptions.
Activity: Results of Milgram’s (1963)
Results of Milgram’s (1963) Study on Obedience
High obedience levels:
○ All participants administered at least 300V.
○ 65% delivered the maximum 450V shock, far exceeding the predicted 0-3% obedience rate.
Signs of distress:
○ Sweating, shaking, groaning, and nervous laughter (14 out of 40 participants).
○ One participant suffered a violent seizure due to stress.
○ Some protested: "I can’t do that to a man, I’ll hurt his heart."
Authority over morality: Despite hesitation, most obeyed the experimenter’s prods:
■ "The experiment requires that you continue."
■ "You have no other choice; you must go on."
Aftermath:
○ Many participants sighed with relief, wiped their faces, and shook their heads.
○ A small minority remained calm throughout.
Did payment influence obedience? 43 unpaid Yale students had similar results, suggesting authority was the key
factor, not money.

Would you have resisted, or would you have obeyed?

Conclusions: Why Did Participants Obey?
🔹 Situational Factors Influencing Obedience:
Legitimacy of the study:
○ Conducted in a prestigious academic setting.
○ The experimenter’s lab coat reinforced authority.
Sense of obligation:
○ Participants were paid, which may have encouraged them to continue.
Voluntary participation:
○ Participants believed both they and the learner had freely agreed to take part.
🔹 Key Concept: Legitimacy
● Higher perceived legitimacy = Higher obedience.
● Example: A police officer in uniform is obeyed more than someone in casual clothes.
Conclusions: Why Did Participants Obey?

Milgram’s Two Main Conclusions:

1⃣ People are far more obedient than expected: The majority followed orders, even when uncomfortable.

2⃣ Obedience creates inner conflict.

Participants were torn between:

✅ Obeying authority.
❌ Avoiding harm to others.

This conflict led to distress, shown through sweating, shaking, and nervous laughter.
Strengths of Milgram’s (1963) Study on Obedience
✅ Controlled observation

● Extraneous variables (e.g., stooge’s age & appearance) were kept constant, preventing bias.
● Standardized procedures (same verbal prods) ensured high reliability and replication.

✅ High validity

● Realistic shock generator & example shock convinced participants that the study was real.
● Findings reflect genuine obedience to authority, increasing ecological validity.

✅ Objective and measurable results: Voltage levels provided clear, quantitative data, making obedience easy to
compare and analyze.

✅ Qualitative insights

● Observed behaviors (sweating, trembling, nervous laughter) provided a deeper understanding of moral conflict.
● Interviews helped explain participants' thought processes after the experiment.

✅ Diverse sample in age & profession: Included participants from various backgrounds, showing that even
professionals obey authority figures.
Weaknesses of Milgram’s (1963) Study on Obedience
❌ Low generalisability: Only men from one local area, unclear if women or different cultures would
respond similarly.

❌ Limited explanation of emotional experience: Shock voltages provided quantitative data, but
did not fully capture psychological distress.

❌ Artificial setting

● Lab environment may not reflect real-life obedience.

● Demand characteristics: participants knew they were in a study, which may have influenced
behavior.
Ethical Issues in Milgram’s Study
❌ Lack of Informed Consent

● Participants believed the study was about memory and punishment, not obedience.
● Roles were assigned deceptively: participants thought the draw was random.

❌ Deception: Participants were misled multiple times, including believing the shocks were real.

❌ Right to Withdraw

● Technically allowed, but verbal prods pressured participants to continue.

● Many felt they had no real choice to stop.

❌ Psychological Harm

● Participants showed visible distress (sweating, shaking, groaning).

● One participant suffered a seizure, yet the procedure was rarely stopped early.
● Debriefing reassured participants, but lasting guilt or distress was still possible.

❌ Impact on Psychology

● Public outrage over the study’s ethics.

● Potential damage to psychology’s reputation: could make people less willing to participate in future research.
Summary of Milgram’s Study
Aim: Investigate how far ordinary people will obey authority, even when it involves harming
an innocent person.

Key Findings:

● All participants administered high-voltage shocks when ordered.

● Majority reached 450V, the maximum shock level.
● Signs of stress (sweating, trembling, nervous laughter) suggest moral conflict.
● Situational factors, not personality, were the main drivers of obedience.

Issues and Debates

✔ Real-world applications:

● Findings can help reduce destructive obedience in workplaces and organizations.

● Whistleblowing policies & staff training could empower people to challenge harmful
orders.

✔ Situational vs. Individual Explanations:

● Obedience was not due to personality: all participants went to at least 300V.
● Authority & legitimacy (e.g., Yale setting, lab coat) were key factors.
● Challenges the “Germans are different” hypothesis—obedience is not
culture-specific. Behind the Shock Machine: The Untold Story
of the Notorious Milgram Psychology
Experiments
Perry et al. Study on Personal Space
Perry, A., Mankuta, D., & Shamay-Tsoory, S. G. (2015). OT promotes closer interpersonal distance among
highly empathic individuals. Social cognitive and affective neuroscience, 10(1), 3-9.
Psychology Being Investigated
Edward T. Hall’s Four Zones of Personal Space
 How Empathy Shapes Personal Space
🧠 Personal space is dynamic, influenced by empathy and social cues.

● Highly empathetic individuals adjust their distance based on emotions.

● Distressed individuals may receive more space, while emotional closeness leads to less distance.

🔬 The Role of Oxytocin ("Social Hormone")

● Higher oxytocin levels increase comfort with physical closeness.

● Enhances trust, bonding, and sensitivity to social interactions.

👀 Social Salience & Reading Cues

● People attuned to body language, tone, and expressions adjust their space fluidly.
● Some individuals, such as those with autism spectrum conditions, may have different space preferences due to variations
in social perception.

🌍 Culture & Empathy in Personal Space

● High-contact cultures encourage closer interactions even for highly empathetic individuals.
● Low-contact cultures reinforce greater interpersonal distance, regardless of empathy.

✨ Personal space is an interplay of empathy, social cues, biology, and culture. Understanding these factors helps us
respect boundaries while fostering meaningful connections. ✨
The Evolution of The Brain Across Different Species
The case of SM, the fearless woman
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Hi3JO1rqYw
Background of Perry et al (2015)
Background of Perry et al (2015)
Perry et al. investigated how personal space preferences are influenced by multiple factors.
They examined how close people prefer to be to different social figures, such as friends
versus strangers.
The researchers explored the role of oxytocin (OT) in shaping interpersonal distance
preferences.
They hypothesized that oxytocin's effect on personal space might depend on individual
empathy levels.
This study examined an interaction effect, meaning the relationship between:

● Oxytocin (OT) × Empathy × Social Context

Their goal was to understand how biological and psychological factors work together to shape
social behavior and personal boundaries.
Aim of Perry et al (2015)
To investigate how oxytocin (OT) influences personal space
preferences based on empathy levels.

Hypothesis:

● Highly empathetic individuals → Prefer closer interpersonal distances after OT.

● Less empathetic individuals → Maintain greater distance even after OT.

⭐ Controlled for empathetic traits to examine how individual differences shape OT’s effects.
⭐ Expected a differential effect → OT’s impact on personal space varies by empathy level.
⭐ Demonstrates an interaction effect → OT × empathy × social context influence personal space together, rather than
separately.

Goal: Understand how hormones (biology) and empathy (psychology) interact to regulate personal space in social
situations.
 Method of Perry et al (2015)
📍 Laboratory Experiment – Conducted at the University of Haifa in a controlled setting to minimize external influences.

📍 Mixed Experimental Design – Different variables were tested using different methods of participant allocation.

Independent Variables (IVs):

✅ Condition (Experiment 1 only)

✅ Empathy Level (Naturally Occurring) ● Personal space was tested with:

✅ Treatment (Manipulated Variable)
○ A stranger 👤
● Participants were categorized as high
● Participants received oxytocin (OT) ○ An authority figure 👮
empathy or low empathy based on a
or a placebo in different sessions. ○ A friend 👫
test.
● Repeated measures design: Each ○ An object (ball) 🎾
● Independent groups design:
participant experienced both ● Repeated measures design: Each
Participants stayed in their assigned
conditions. participant experienced all conditions.
group throughout the study.
● Experiment 2 did not include
condition, instead, participants
imagined personal space with the
same individual.
Method of Perry et al (2015)
Sample of Perry et al (2015)
Measuring Empathy: The Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI)
🧠 What is the IRI Test?

● A 28-item questionnaire that measures different types of empathy.

● Divided into four subscales:
○ Perspective Taking (PT): Ability to see things from another’s point of view.
○ Fantasy (FS): Tendency to identify with fictional characters.
○ Empathic Concern (EC): Feeling compassion for others in distress.
○ Personal Distress (PD): Feeling discomfort when seeing others suffer.

📊 How Was It Used in the Perry et al. Study?

● Participants were categorized into two groups based on their IRI scores:
○ High Empathy: IRI score ≥40
○ Low Empathy: IRI score ≤33
● Empathy was a naturally occurring trait, so this part of the study used an independent groups design.
Treatment: oxytocin, placebo (saline solution)
Condition: stranger, authority, friend, ball
Results: Experiment One - CID task
Independent Variables (IVs): Condition, Treatment, Empathy
Dependent Variable (DV): Preferred distance (mean percentage from center)
○ Higher percentage = greater personal distance
Key Findings:
● Condition: Differences in preferred distance based on approaching figure:
○ Stranger: 39.82%
○ Authority: 34.12%
○ Ball: 20.20%
○ Friend: 12.46%

Conclusion: Participants preferred greater distance from strangers and less distance from friends.
Results: Experiment One - Treatment x Empathy
● OT Effect on High Empathy Group:
○ Decreased mean preferred distance (closer to others).
○ Placebo: 26.11%
○ OT: 23.29%

● OT Effect on Low Empathy Group:

○ Increased mean preferred distance (more space from
others).
○ Placebo: 26.98%
○ OT: 30.20%

● Conclusion: OT has a differential effect:

○ Brings high empathisers closer.
○ Makes low empathisers prefer more distance.
Results: Experiment One - Treatment x Condition x Empathy

Key Findings:
○ Placebo Group: High empathisers showed
significant differences in preferred distance
between:
■ Friend vs. Authority
■ Friend vs. Stranger
○ OT Group: Additional differences emerged
between:
■ Ball vs. Stranger
■ Ball vs. Authority

Interpretation:
○ The ball may act as a social cue, enhanced by
OT for high empathisers.
Results: Experiment Two - choosing a room
● High Empathy Group:
○ OT decreased chair distance (closer seating).
○ Placebo: 80.58 cm
○ OT: 78.07 cm
● Low Empathy Group:
○ OT increased chair distance (more space).
○ Placebo: 78.33 cm
○ OT: 80.14 cm
● Key Findings:
○ OT only affected chair distance, not angles or plant-table
distance.
○ Supports the social salience hypothesis: OT affects social
contexts only.
● Correlation:
○ Moderate correlation between Experiment 1 (CID) and
Experiment 2 under placebo.
Summary:
https://prezi.com/p/ax0h_2ovegj5/perry-et-al-personal-space/https://psych
ologyworm.com/courses/perry-et-al-personal-space/https://www.youtube.c
om/watch?v=2FxZigVfiU4
Quizzes:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Wc8Di5j-sDt17trA0NwcuF4fRTTD2
Cf7-L4KGJyPkDg/edit
https://quizlet.com/795110194/perry-et-al-personal-space-flash-cards/
Pillavin et al. Study on Subway Samaritans
Piliavin, I. M., Rodin, J., & Piliavin, J. (1969). Good Samaritanism: an underground phenomenon? Journal of
personality and social psychology, 13(4), 289-299.
The Psychology Being Investigated: Bystander Behaviour
Bystander: Someone present during an event but not directly involved.

Bystander Apathy: When bystanders do not help someone in need.

Bystander Effect: People are less likely to help when others are present.

Kitty Genovese Case (1964):

● Murder of Kitty Genovese in New York City.
● Allegedly, 38 witnesses saw or heard the attack but did not intervene.
● Sparked interest in understanding bystander behavior.
Psychology Being Investigated: Why don’t bystanders help?
Diffusion of Responsibility:
○ When others are present, individuals feel less personal
responsibility to act.
○ Example: Darley & Latané (1968) – bystanders less likely
to help if they believe others are present.

Modelling:
○ Observing others helping can encourage us to help.
○ Example: Bandura’s research on learning through
observation.

Victim Characteristics:
○ Bystanders more likely to help those they perceive as
similar or deserving.
○ Example: Victims seen as ‘not responsible’ for their
situation elicit more sympathy.
 Task: Analysing the Kitty Genovese Case
1. Read the article: Focus on details of the event, bystander actions, and the environment.
2. Identify features:
○ What encouraged or discouraged intervention?
○ Consider social, environmental, and psychological factors.
3. Types of intervention: what kind of help could have been offered?

Goal:
● Identify at least 3 features that influenced bystander behavior.
● Explain how these factors relate to psychological concepts (e.g., bystander apathy, diffusion of responsibility).

Article available at: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jUdnVJdV81Bzn2LTfpWjx2sp0NfWRJfK/view

Answers: Analysing the Kitty Genovese Case
Features That Discouraged Intervention:
1. Diffusion of Responsibility: 38 witnesses assumed someone else would act.
2. Fear of Getting Involved: Bystanders feared for their safety.
3. Misinterpretation of the Situation: Some thought the attack was less serious.

Features That Encouraged Intervention:

1. Bystander Shouting: Temporarily scared off the attacker.
2. Lights and Voices: Showed potential for collective action.

Types of Intervention That Might Have Saved Kitty:

1. Calling the police immediately.
2. Shouting or confronting the attacker.
3. Physically intervening as a group.
4. Offering assistance after the attack.

Psychological Concepts:
● Bystander apathy.
● Diffusion of responsibility.
● Social influence.
Video Task: The Bystander Effect Social Experiment
Video Focus: https://youtu.be/V7toAPlo7J8

Key Questions to Consider:

○ Why do some people help while others don’t?
○ What role does the presence of others play?
○ How does the victim’s appearance affect responses?

Task After Video:

○ Discuss how the video relates to Piliavin et al.’s study.
○ Create a costs and rewards table for helping vs. not helping.
○ Start a glossary of key terms.
Key Observations from The Video:

Bystanders assume someone else will help.

Example: "I looked around and couldn’t believe no Diffusion of Responsibility
one had noticed."

People follow the actions of others. Example:

Social Influence
When one person helped, others joined in.

Victims who appear ‘respectable’ receive help faster.

Example: Actor dressed formally was helped in 6
seconds. Appearance and Group Norms
 Costs & Rewards of Helping vs Not Helping
Helping Not Helping

Rewards: Rewards:

- Feeling good about yourself - Avoiding inconvenience

- Gaining social approval - Avoiding potential danger

- Potentially saving a life - Avoiding embarrassment

Costs: Costs:

- Risk of physical harm - Feeling guilty later

- Inconvenience or time loss - Social disapproval if noticed

- Potential embarrassment - Moral guilt

 Latané & Darleys ‘Smoked-filled Room’ Study
Impact of Kitty Genovese’s Murder

● Sparked research into bystander behavior.

● Key questions: Why do people fail to help in emergencies?
● Led to studies like Latané and Darley’s ‘smoke-filled room’ experiment.

Latané and Darley’s ‘Smoke-Filled Room’ Study

Experiment: Participants in a room filling with smoke.
Key Concepts to Watch For:
○ Diffusion of responsibility: "I thought someone else would do
something."
○ Bystander apathy: Ignoring clear signs of danger.
○ Pluralistic ignorance: Assuming nothing is wrong because no
one else reacts.

Link to video: https://youtu.be/KE5YwN4NW5o