Bystander Effect Bystander Effect

Running Head: Bystander Effect

The Bystander Effect: A Correlational Study between Altruism and the Number of People Present
In partial fulfillment on the requirements for the Degree Bachelor of Science in Psychology

The Bystander Effect: A Correlational Study between Altruism and the Number of People Present
Prof. Miriam Grace Aquino-Malabanan Janine Mae V. Corpuz Raina Mae S. Reyes
Lyceum of the Philippines University-Batangas Abstract This research probes the validity of the concept of the Bystander

Prof. Miriam Grace Aquino Malabanan Janine Mae Corpuz Raina Mae S. Reyes
September 2011

Effect. They attempted to examine if there is a correlation between the reaction time (in seconds) before help is extended and the number of people present. Furthermore, they tried to investigate whether the results of asking for help within LPU-Batangas Main Campus differ when done outside the University. The 150 participants (75 within the Campus; 75 outside) in this study were randomly selected. Each was approached by a person in need

Bystander Effect Bystander Effect

(experimenter as the actor) and was asked for Php20.00 without knowing that they were being observed by the other experimenter. By using Pearson-r Correlation (p < 0.05), the researchers found out that the reaction time is moderately correlated with the number of people present. Keywords: bystander effect, diffusion of responsibility, altruism, reaction time INTRODUCTION On Friday, March 13, 1964, 28-year-old Catherine Kitty Genovese was returning home from work. As she approached her apartment entrance, she was attacked and stabbed by a man later identified as Winston Moseley. Despite Genoveses repeated cries for help, none of the dozen or so people in the nearby apartment building who heard her cries called police to report the incident. The attack first began at 3:20 AM, but it was not until 3:50 AM that someone first contacted police. When talking about the bystander effect, the case above is the most frequently cited example. Soon after the story was sensationalized, social psychologists started studying the bystander effect and determined the more people are present when a person needs emergency help, the less likely any one of them will lend a hand. Myers (2005) defined bystander effect as the tendency for any given bystander to be less likely to give aid if other bystanders are present. There are two major factors that contribute to the bystander effect. First, the presence of other people creates a diffusion of responsibility. Because there are other observers, individuals do not

feel as much pressure to take action, since the responsibility to take action is thought to be shared among all of those present. The second reason is the need to behave in correct and socially acceptable ways. When other observers fail to react, individuals often take this as a signal that a response is not needed or not appropriate. Other researchers have found that onlookers are less likely to intervene if the situation is ambiguous (http://psychology.about.com/od/socialpsychology/a/bystandereffect.ht m). In a series of classic study, researchers Bibb Latane and John Darley found that the amount of time it takes the participant to take action and seek help varies depending on how many other observers are in the room. The purpose of this study is to determine if there is a statistically significant relationship between speed in exhibiting altruism and the number of people present. Furthermore, the researchers aim to know if the results vary in different settings. They believe that the results will provide deeper insights on altruism and its relation to human behavior and in the society. OBJECTIVE This study seeks to assess the validity of Bystander Effect in Social Psychology by collecting data from 150 randomly selected participants. The researchers aim to determine if there is a statistically significant correlation between the reaction time (in seconds) before help is extended and the number of people present. They also intend to probe whether the results for the experiment will differ within a University and outside it. As future psychologists, they are concerned if the presence of other people can affect an individuals exhibition of altruism.

Bystander Effect Bystander Effect

what the experiments reveal, lets consider what might motivate helping. LITERATURE REVIEW Overview of Altruism Altruism is selfishness in reverse. An altruistic person is concerned and helpful even when no benefits are offered or expected in return. This is a motive to increase anothers welfare without conscious helping acts, social psychology for ones self interests. Helping: Prosaically Behaviour Altruism is one form of helping or doing something, often at a cost or risk, for reasons other than expectation of material of social reward. Altruistic people often do things that touch our hearts. Consider 87-year-old Osceola McCatty, who handwashed clothes most of her life for grateful clients. When she finally retired at age 86, she donated most of her life savings, an amazing $150, 000, to the University of Southern Mississippi to finance scholarships for the areas African American students. I want them to have education, said McCatty, who never married and has no children of her own. I had to work hard all my life. They can have the chance that i didnt have (Plummer & Ridenhour, 1995, p.40). As this example, people help in emergencies, and others help by donating time or money. Why do we help? To study of helping acts, social psychologists identify circumstances in which people perform such deeds. Before looking at When for people help? According to Social psychologist were curious and concerned about bystanders lack of involvement during such events as Kitty Genovese murder. So they undertook experiments to identify when people will help in an emergency. Then they broadened the question to, who is likely to help in nonemergency- by such deeds as giving money, donating blood, or contributing time? Among their answers: Helping often increases among people who are feeling guilty, thus providing a way to relieve the guilt or restore self-image; in a good mood; or deeply religious (evidence by higher rates of charitable giving and volunteerism). Social psychologists also study the circumstances that enhance helpfulness. The odds of our helping someone increase in these circumstances: We have just observed a helpful model; we are not hurried; the victim is similar to ourselves; we are in a small town or rural area; or there are few other bystanders. In 1968 social psychologists John Darley and Bibb Latan published an alarming paper on human behaviour. They staged an emergency situation where an actor would go into the convolutions of a seizure, and then they measured other peoples responses to the victim in crisis. Their studies showed that the likelihood of responding to a stranger in need declined inversely by the number of other bystanders present. To quote their paper: Eighty-five percent of the subjects who thought they alone knew of the victims plight reported the seizure before the victim was cut off, only 31% of those who thought four other by-standers were present did so. (John Darley and Bibb Latan, Bystander intervention in emergencies: Diffusion of

Bystander Effect Bystander Effect

responsibility (Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1968, 8) pp. 377383) The theories for this phenomenon are numerous: Why do some peopleincluding many managerswaver, rather than acting effectively to stop behaviour they find to be unacceptable? The most common reasons for hesitation are: fear of loss of relationships, and loss of privacy, fear of unspecified bad consequences or retaliation, and insufficient evidence. (Mary Rowe, Linda Wilcox, Howard Gadlin, Dealing withor ReportingUnacceptable Behaviour with additional thoughts about the Bystander Effect (Journal of the International Ombudsman Association 2 (1): pp. 5264. (http://www.jamesshelley.net/2011/04/the-bystander-effect/) Bystander Effect Theory Bystanders in an emergency sometimes feel strange helping out while others look on. Since humans tend to rely on one another for social cues, if others at the scene are not helping out then a bystander may feel that it is socially inappropriate to do so. In the case of Kitty Genovese, because no one saw the entirety of the attack, witnesses felt that the situation was ambiguous. No one wanted to assume the worst, call the police and have it turn out to be a harmless lovers quarrel. The Bystander Effect is an idiosyncrasy in human social behaviour. Though most people like to believe that theyd be the first to step forward and help in an emergency, numerous anecdotes and controlled experiments show evidence to the contrary. We are social animals, but sometimes our need to fit in can prove to be fatal. (http://helpingpsychology.com/bystander-effect-theory)

The bystander-effect: A meta-analytic review on bystander intervention in dangerous and non-dangerous emergencies. (http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/bul/137/4/517/) The bystander effect is also called the Genovese Effect, Genovese Syndrome or diffusion of responsibility. The theory behind this phenomenon is that an individuals likelihood of helping a person in need is directly tied to the number of people witnessing the persons need at the same time. According to the psychological literature on the bystander effect, a person is far less likely to help someone else in need if he or she is not the sole witness to the person in need. (http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-bystander-effect.htm) Gang rape raises questions about bystanders' role For more than two hours on a dark Saturday night, as many as 20 people watched or took part as a 15-year-old California girl was allegedly gang raped and beaten outside a high school homecoming dance, authorities said. As hundreds of students gathered in the school gym, outside in a dimly lit alley where the victim was allegedly raped, police say witnesses took photos. Others laughed. "As people announced over time that this was going on, more people came to see, and some actually participated," Lt. Mark Gagan of the Richmond Police Department told CNN. (http://articles.cnn.com/2009-1028/justice/california.gang.rape.bystander_1_bystander-crimeprevention-kitty-genovese?_s=PM:CRIME) The newspaper article about the incident says 38 people saw the murder as it happened. Whether or not the account was accurate, social psychologists started studying the bystander effect soon after the story went viral, and determined the more people are present when a person needs emergency help, the less likely any one of them will

Bystander Effect Bystander Effect

lend a hand. (http://youarenotsosmart.com/2010/03/08/bystandereffect/) Explanations for the Bystander Effect There are two major factors that contribute to the bystander effect. First, the presence of other people creates a diffusion of responsibility. Because there are other observers, individuals do not feel as much pressure to take action, since the responsibility to take action is thought to be shared among all of those present. The second reason is the need to behave in correct and socially acceptable ways. When other observers fail to react, individuals often take this as a signal that a response is not needed or not appropriate. Other researchers have found that onlookers are less likely to intervene if the situation is ambiguous. In the case of Kitty Genovese, many of the 38 witnesses reported that they believed that they were witnessing a "lover's quarrel," and did not realize that the young woman was actually being murdered. (http://psychology.about.com/od/socialpsychology/a/bystandereffect.ht m)

According from social psychologists Bibb Latan and John Darley (1970) were unconvinced. They staged ingenious emergencies and found that a single situational factor-the presence of other bystanders-greatly decreased intervention. By 1980, four dozen experiments had compared help given by bystanders were more likely to help (Latan & Nida, 1981). Sometimes, the victim was actually less likely to get help when many people were around, when Latan and Dabbs (1975), and 145 collaborators accidentally dropped coins or pencils during 1, 497 elevator rides they were helped 40 percent of the time when one other person was on the elevator and less than 20 percent of the time when there were six passengers. Why do other bystanders sometimes inhibit helping? Latan and Darley surmised that as the number of bystander increases, any given bystander is less likely to notice the incident, less likely to interpret the incident as a problem or emergency, and less likely to assume responsibility for taking action.

Assuming Responsibility Misinterpretation is not the only cause of bystander effect (the inaction of strangers faced with ambiguous emergencies). What about those times when an emergency is obvious? Those who saw and heard Kitty Genovese pleas for help correctly interpreted what was happening. But the lights and silhouetted figures in neighbouring windows told them that others were also watching. This diffused the responsibility for action. Few of us have observed a murder. But all of us have at times been slower to react to a need when others were present. Passing a stranded motorist on a highway, we are less likely to offer help than on a country road. To explore bystander inaction in clear emergencies, Darley and Latan (1968) simulated the Genovese drama. They

Number of Bystanders Bystander passivity during emergencies has prompted social commentators to lament peoples alienation, apathy, indifference, and unconscious sadistic impulses. By attributing the nonintervention to bystanders disposition, we can reassure ourselves that, as caring people, we would have helped. But were the bystanders such inhuman characters?

Bystander Effect Bystander Effect

placed people in separate rooms from which the participants would hear a victim crying for help. To create this situation, Darley and Latan asked some New York University students to discuss their problems that to guarantee their anonymity, no one would be visible, nor would the experimenter eavesdrop. During the ensuing discussion, when the experimenter turned his microphone on, the participants heard one person lapse into a seizure. With increasing intensity and speech difficulty, he pleaded for someone to help. Of those led to believe there were no other listeners, 85 percent left their room to seek help. Of those who believed four others also overheard the victim. Only 31 percent went for help. Were those who didnt respond apathetic and indifference? When the experimenter came into end the experiment, she did find this response. Most immediately expressed concern. Many had trembling hands and sweating palms. They believed an emergency had occurred but were undecided whether to act. After the smoke-filled room, the woman-in-distress, and the seizure experiment. Latan and Darley asked the participants whether the presence of other and influenced them. We know the others had dramatic effect that yet participants almost invariably denied the influence. They typically replied, I was aware of the others, but i would have reacted just the same if they werent there. This response reinforces a familiar point: We often do not know why we do what we do that is why experiments are revealing. A survey of uninvolved bystanders following a real emergency would have left the bystander effect hidden. These experiments raised questions against the issue of research ethics. Is it right to force hundreds of subway riders to witness someones apparent collapse? Were the researchers in the seizure experiment ethnical when they forced people to decide whether to abort the discussion to report the problem? Would you object to being

in such a study? Note that it would have been impossible to get your informed consent; doing so would have destroyed the cover for the experiment. In defence of the researchers, they were always careful to debrief the laboratory participants. After explaining the seizure experiments, probably the most stressful, the experimenter gave the participants a questionnaire. One hundred percent said the deception was justified and that they would be willing to take part in similar experiment in the future. None reported feeling angry at the experimenter. Other researchers confirm that overwhelming majority of participants in such experiments say that their participation was both instructive and ethically justified (Schwartz & Gottlieb, 1981). In field experiments, such as the one in the subway car, an accomplice assisted the victim if no one else did, thus reassuring bystanders that the problem was being dealt with. Remember that the social psychologist has a twofold ethical obligation: to protect the participants and to enhance human welfare by discovering influences upon human behaviour. Such discoveries can alert us into unwanted influences and show us how we might exert positive influences. The ethical principle seems to be: After protecting participants welfare, social psychologists fulfil their responsibility to society by doing such research. Will learning about the factors that inhibit altruism reduce their influence? Sometimes, such enlightenment is not our problem but one of our goals. Experiments with University of Montana students by Arthur Beaman and his colleagues (1978) revealed that once people understand why the presence of bystanders inhibits helping, they become more likely to help in group situations. The researchers used a lecture to inform some students how bystander inaction can affect the interpretation of an emergency and feelings of responsibility. Other

Bystander Effect Bystander Effect

students heard either a different lecture or no lecture at all. Two weeks later, as part of a different experiment in a different location, the participants found themselves walking (with an unresponsive confederate) past someone slumped over or past a person sprawled beneath a bicycle. Of those who had not heard the helping lecture, one-fourth paused to offer help; twice as many of those enlightened did so. Having read his module, you, too perhaps have changed. As you come to understand what influences peoples responses, will your attitudes and your behaviour be the same? Coincidently, shortly before I wrote the last paragraph, a former student, now living in Washington, D.C., stopped by. She mentioned that she recently found herself part of a stream of pedestrians striding past a man lying unconscious in the sidewalk. It took my mind back to our social psych class and the accounts of why by, too, whose going to help him? so she made a call to an emergency help number and waited with the victim-and other bystanders who now joined her- until help arrived. Personality and helping The fact that several aspects of personality are involved in prosocial acts has led some investigators to propose that a combination of relevant factors constitutes what has been designated as the altruistic personality. A cluster of traits (e.g., high in empathy, belief in a just world) that predispose individuals to behave in a prosocial manner. The tendency to help others is not equal across different people. In fact, it is strongly influenced by emotions, empathy, and by several aspects of personality.

This study entitled The Bystander Effect: A Correlational Study between Altruism and the Number of People Present is quantitative in approach. This section represents the research methodology of the study in terms of research design, subjects of the study, instrument used, data-gathering procedure and statistical treatment of data. This present study is quantitative in approach. The researchers employed a field-based design of experiment, that is, it was conducted in a natural setting. Research Design The researchers utilized correlation design (Pearson-r) to determine the relationship between altruism and the number of people present. The reaction time of the participants before they exhibit altruistic behavior and the number of people present was used as the x and y variables, respectively. Participants Seventy five randomly selected male and female individuals roaming around the Lyceum of the Philippines University-Batangas Main Campus served as the participants in one group. Another 75 participants (of either gender) who were passers-by in Bay City Mall, Basilica Church and in Batangas City Plaza were randomly selected to be in the other group. Apparatus In this study, the researchers utilized a script in acting out the situation for the experiment. In addition to that, the researchers made use of a stopwatch to measure the reaction time and a notebook to write down the speed measured.

METHOD

Bystander Effect Bystander Effect

Procedure The instruments and protocol employed in this study were first reviewed and validated by the researchers adviser in experimental psychology. A pilot experiment was conducted to iron out any problems and to know if revisions are needed. After the validation, the researchers proceeded with the data gathering. They went to various places in Batangas City like Bay City Mall, the Church, and Mabini Plaza and also within the Lyceum of the Philippines University. One experimenter pretended that she lost her wallet and asked the participants if they could give her PHP 20.00 so she could go home. At the same time, the other experimenter observed and measured the reaction time of the participant nearby. DATA ANALYSIS The statistical methods employed in this study are: 1. Summation 2. Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient RESULTS AND DISCUSSION This chapter contains the results of the analysis of the data that the researchers gathered. The discussions and interpretations are also presented at this part. The results were obtained through statistical analysis. Table 1

Summation of the Reaction time in Seconds (x) and the Number of People present (y) for Within the University (LPU-Batangas)
Participant 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 x 1 1 6 3 1 3 5 3 6 6 1 5 1 8 2 4 5 3 1 1 3 4 1 y 20.05 22.52 27.18 33.30 23.10 56.07 20.07 66.07 64.00 15.30 18.29 45.10 22.05 13.29 14.07 27.41 17.29 39.96 16.30 21.41 21.85 33.52 16.63 x2 1.00 1.00 36.00 9.00 1.00 9.00 25.00 9.00 36.00 36.00 1.00 25.00 1.00 64.00 4.00 16.00 25.00 9.00 1.00 1.00 9.00 16.00 1.00 y2 402.003 507.150 738.752 1108.890 533.610 3143.845 402.805 4365.245 4096.000 234.090 334.524 2034.010 486.203 176.624 197.965 751.308 298.944 1596.802 265.690 458.388 477.423 1123.590 276.557 xy 20.050 22.520 163.080 99.900 23.100 168.210 100.350 198.210 384.000 91.800 18.290 225.500 22.050 106.320 28.140 109.640 86.450 119.880 16.300 21.410 65.550 134.080 16.630

Bystander Effect Bystander Effect

24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 4 4 3 6 3 1 5 4 1 4 4 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 3 1 5 7 1 1 8 49.30 56.63 54.63 29.18 22.42 16.10 42.18 42.63 23.41 64.18 37.96 34.07 18.85 20.63 19.41 20.07 21.07 17.96 27.18 48.00 19.00 32.74 44.30 20.85 71.07 16.00 16.00 9.00 36.00 9.00 1.00 25.00 16.00 1.00 16.00 16.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 9.00 1.00 1.00 9.00 1.00 25.00 49.00 1.00 1.00 64.00 2430.490 3206.957 2984.437 851.472 502.656 259.210 1779.152 1817.317 548.028 4119.072 1440.962 1160.765 355.323 425.597 376.748 402.805 443.945 322.562 738.752 2304.000 361.000 1071.908 1962.490 434.723 5050.945 197.200 226.520 163.890 175.080 67.260 16.100 210.900 170.520 23.410 256.720 151.840 34.070 18.850 20.630 19.410 60.210 21.070 17.960 81.540 48.000 95.000 229.180 44.300 20.850 568.560 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 2 1 4 1 7 1 3 7 1 2 2 1 3 1 1 4 1 3 2 1 2 1 6 6 5 30.00 34.40 39.18 26.52 35.73 32.96 22.30 32.29 29.74 36.18 30.52 26.29 34.74 19.30 25.07 49.07 31.27 36.97 27.85 11.63 33.85 27.16 22.63 32.41 29.63 4.00 1.00 16.00 1.00 49.00 1.00 9.00 49.00 1.00 4.00 4.00 1.00 9.00 1.00 1.00 16.00 1.00 9.00 4.00 1.00 4.00 1.00 36.00 36.00 25.00 900.000 1183.360 1535.072 703.310 1276.633 1086.362 497.290 1042.644 884.468 1308.992 931.470 691.164 1206.868 372.490 628.505 2407.865 977.813 1366.781 775.623 135.257 1145.823 737.666 512.117 1050.408 877.937 60.000 34.400 156.720 26.520 250.110 32.960 66.900 226.030 29.740 72.360 61.040 26.290 104.220 19.300 25.070 196.280 31.270 110.910 55.700 11.630 67.700 27.160 135.780 194.460 148.150

Bystander Effect Bystander Effect

74 75 Total 4 7 x=227 ( x2)= 51529 45.63 32.96 y=2344.93 ( y2)= 5498696.71 16.00 49.00 x2= 1011.00 2082.097 1086.362 y2= 86766.111 182.520 230.720 xy=7764.470 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 4 1 1 3 4 1 1 3 1 1 5 1 1 1 3 1 5 1 3 1 3 1 3 6 1 1 3 3 1 1 1 5 1 1 3 1 71.41 31.05 19.18 31.96 42.41 27.07 15.41 47.08 13.29 18.09 71.00 21.03 30.30 29.17 21.29 20.96 28.27 21.00 38.18 17.30 56.18 34.16 49.18 13.96 18.30 37.18 27.30 29.63 47.63 27.16 11.18 25.30 14.29 13.74 17.74 37.18 16.00 1.00 1.00 9.00 16.00 1.00 1.00 9.00 1.00 1.00 25.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 9.00 1.00 25.00 1.00 9.00 1.00 9.00 1.00 9.00 36.00 1.00 1.00 9.00 9.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 25.00 1.00 1.00 9.00 1.00 5099.388 964.103 367.872 1021.442 1798.608 732.785 237.468 2216.526 176.624 327.248 5041.000 442.261 918.090 850.889 453.264 439.322 799.193 441.000 1457.712 299.290 3156.192 1166.906 2418.672 194.882 334.890 1382.352 745.290 877.937 2268.617 737.666 124.992 640.090 204.204 188.788 314.708 1382.352 285.640 31.050 19.180 95.880 169.640 27.070 15.410 141.240 13.290 18.090 355.000 21.030 30.300 29.170 63.870 20.960 141.350 21.000 114.540 17.300 168.540 34.160 147.540 83.760 18.300 37.180 81.900 88.890 47.630 27.160 11.180 126.500 14.290 13.740 53.220 37.180

Based on the data gathered. The researchers found out that there is a statistically significant relationship with the speed before the participants agreed to the favor asked and the number of people present in the location, rxy=0.320, p < .05. During the debriefing, the participants were asked how they felt when they were approached not knowing that it was an experiment. Most participants reasoned out that they gave money as they (them & the actress) were both Lyceans. Others claim that they know how it feels to lose ones wallet/money. Table 2 Summation of the Reaction time in Seconds (x) and the Number of People present (y) for Outside LPU-Batangas Main Campus
Participant 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 x 1 6 5 3 4 1 3 1 3 1 y 14.41 53.41 28.32 26.85 94.07 23.74 30.63 23.18 41.87 14.07 x2 1.00 36.00 25.00 9.00 16.00 1.00 9.00 1.00 9.00 1.00 y2 207.648 2852.628 802.022 720.923 8849.165 563.588 938.197 537.312 1753.097 197.965 xy 14.410 320.460 141.600 80.550 376.280 23.740 91.890 23.180 125.610 14.070

Bystander Effect Bystander Effect

47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 Total 4 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 5 1 1 1 1 3 1 4 4 1 5 1 1 6 3 4 7 4 7 1 x=186 ( x2)= 34596 38.41 48.18 18.26 48.85 18.52 43.07 17.63 27.96 21.96 25.96 96.18 16.18 36.98 22.74 45.87 32.74 16.29 48.33 17.85 35.85 26.74 60.40 52.63 52.69 49.07 32.29 39.18 32.79 19.30 y=2469.01 ( y2)= 6096010.38 16.00 9.00 1.00 9.00 1.00 9.00 1.00 9.00 1.00 25.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 9.00 1.00 16.00 16.00 1.00 25.00 1.00 1.00 36.00 9.00 16.00 49.00 16.00 49.00 1.00 x2=684.00 1475.328 2321.312 333.428 2386.323 342.990 1855.025 310.817 781.762 482.242 673.922 9250.592 261.792 1367.520 517.108 2104.057 1071.908 265.364 2335.789 318.623 1285.223 715.028 3648.160 2769.917 2776.236 2407.865 1042.644 1535.072 1075.184 372.490 y2= 103728.886 153.640 144.540 18.260 146.550 18.520 129.210 17.630 83.880 21.960 129.800 96.180 16.180 36.980 22.740 137.610 32.740 65.160 193.320 17.850 179.250 26.740 60.400 315.780 158.070 196.280 226.030 156.720 229.530 19.300 xy=6884.820

between the two variables, rxy=0.341, p < .05, with the setting outside LPU-Batangas. Some participants agreed to the favor asked within a few seconds because they saw the actress as kawawa. Some even asked whether Php 20.00 was enough for her to reach her home. Still, others were wary (especially when in groups) to extend help, thinking that it was a part of a modus operandi. Table 3 Comparison of the Results for Within and Outside LPU-Batangas Main Campus
Setting Within the University Outside the University Level of Significance p < .05 p < .05 Computed r 0.320 0. 341

Gathering the data from two groups, within and outside the University, the researchers discerned that there is no great difference in the computed r of the two above settings. This shows that be it within or outside the campus, people extend help faster when alone than when in a group/crowd. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the study conducted by the researchers, the Bystander effect can indeed affect peoples behavior in extending help to a person in need. Altruism is faster shown by an individual who is alone than to those who are in a group or in a crowd. When alone, a person asked for help will readily give aid to the person in need. They feel the sole responsibility towards that other persons welfare. Being in a group may result to diffusion of responsibility. This is the thought that someone else will help. The presence of other people causes the prolonged reaction time because they are seen as equally responsible to the person in need. Participants who were within a

Utilizing the statistical computation for Pearson-r, the researchers determined that there is a moderately positive correlation

Bystander Effect Bystander Effect

group when approached were observed to make imploring glances to other people before giving help to the person in need. Hence, the researchers conclude that, the Bystander Effect, or the concept that people are less likely to provide needed help when they are in groups than when they are alone, is still existent in the society. The results confirm that an individuals actions and behaviors are greatly affected by the other people. Readers may utilize their learning in this study by being mindful with how they act, especially when subjected to a situation where they are to extend help to another person. For future experimenters who will be interested in doing an extensive research on altruism, the researchers humbly suggest the following: 1. Make use of other grouping beside the location of the experiment (within/outside). Interchanging the gender of the experimenter who will act is recommended. 2. Aside from the two phenomena used as variables (reaction time & number of people present), the different demographic profile may also be utilized as the z variable.

Bystanders.http://www.slideshare.net/colonelhomer/bysta nder-effect-article. Retrieved on September 25, 2011

Cherry, Kendra. (2007)) Bystander Effect - What is the Bystander Effect. Published by about.com at http://psychology.about.com/od/ socialpsychology/a/bystandereffect.htm. Retrieved on September 23, 2011. Davers, David G. (2008). Social Psychology 9th Edition. Appeals to Altruistic Norms. 474-475 Retrieved on September 23, 2011 Darley, J. M. & Latane, B. Bystander intervention in emergencies: Diffusion of responsibility. 1968, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8, 377-383. http://neohumanism.org/b/by/bystander_effect.html. Retrieved on September 23, 2011 Fischer, Peter, et al. Psychological Bulletin, Vol 137(4), (Jul 2011).http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/bul/137/4/517/, 517537. /. Retrieved on September 23, 2011 Gale Encyclopedia of Psychology, 2nd ed. Gale Group, (2001).http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_g2699/is_0000 /ai_2699000050/. Gross, Richard & Rolls, Goef.(2006). Essential As A2 Psychology. 204-8, -205-8. Retrieved on September 25, 2011

REFERENCES

Baron, Robert A. & Brancombie, Nylar R. (2008). Social Psychology, 12th Edition. Personality and Helping. 325326, 330 Retrieved on September 20, 2011 Burkley, Ph.D., Melissa. Created Nov 4 2009.Bystander effect article. Published on Psychology Today. Why Dont We Help? Less Is More, at Least When It Comes to

Bystander Effect Bystander Effect

McRaney, David. (March 8, 2010). Bystander effect. Published by youarenotsosmart.com.http://youarenotsosmart.com/ 2010/03/08/bystander-effect/./.Retrieved on September 25, 2011 Myer, David G. (2008). Exploring Social Psychology. When do people help?. Pages 364, 371 Retrieved on September 20, 2011

Stephanie, Chen. (October 28, 2009). Gang rape raises questions about bystanders' role. Published by cnn.com.http://articles.cnn.com/20091028/justice/californi a.gang.rape.bystander_1_bystander-crime-preventionkitty-genovese?_s=PM:CRIME. Date retrieved September 26, 2011. Tricia Ellis-Christensen. (2003-2011). What is the Bystander Effect? Published by Conjecture Corporation. http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-bystandereffect.htm. Date retrieved September 26, 2011
APPENDICES

Plotnik, Rod.(2006). Introduction to psychology 7th Edition.

Altruism. Page 595. Retrieved on September 20, 2011

Olivarez, Brittany. (Apr 20th, 2010). Introduction to Psychology.

Bystander effect Theory. Published by Helping Psychology | Sponsored by Argosy University, available at http://helpingpsychology.com/bystander-effect-theory. Retrieved on September 23, 2011
Shelley, James. (April 6, 2011). The Bystander Effect. Published

by jamesshelley.net.http://www.jamesshelley.net/2011 / 04/the-bystander-effect/. Date retrieved September 26, 2011

The Researchers

Bystander Effect Bystander Effect

Instruments utilized

Data Gathering

Bystander Effect Bystander Effect

Locations of the Experiment

AUTHORS INFORMATION

Janine Mae Corpuz is a third year Psychology Student at Lyceum of the Philippines University-Batangas. She is the present Vice President for Internal Affairs of the Psychology Association and active member of the English Society. Janine loves to read books in connection with her field of interest such as Theories of Personality, Abnormal Psychology and Physiological Psychology. In addition to this, she prefers to work in line with Clinical and Forensic Psychology. She has plans of pursuing her medical studies. Address: Sampaguita Subdv., Gulod Itaas, Batangas City Contact Number: +639056574210 Email Address: janinemae.corpuz@yahoo.com

Ms. Raina Mae S. Reyes, having a degree course of Bachelor of Science in Psychology, is currently studying at Lyceum of the Philippines University-Batangas. She is interested in the filed of Clinical and Industrial Psychology. She wants to pursue her mastered degree in University of Santo Tomas. She lives in Lot 67 Villa Cortez Subdivision Brgy. Lumingon Tiaong Quezon. She is 18 years old. She loved singing and surfing in the internet. She graduated her secondary level at St. John Parochial School Tiaong, Quezon. She is the only child / unica hija of Mrs. Luz Reyes and Mr. Carlito Reyes. She was born on the 19th day of January1992. Address: Tiaong, Quezon Contact Number:09108863886 Email Add: raina_mae19@yahoo.com

Bystander Effect Bystander Effect