11-3-09 Situational Helping/ Group Processes Outline: Situation and helping Characteristics of groups Effects of low cohesive groups Situation and helping Bystander effect - the greater the number of bystanders, the less likely any of them is to help Latane and Darley, 1970: 5-step model of bystander intervention? Step 1: Notice the event Problem: we often lack motivation/ability Example: rural vs. urban helping behavior Darley and Batson, '73: Seminary students were asked to give a talk about: Good Samaritan parable Something else They were either Late On time Man slumped in doorway: 63% of on time participants noticed 10% of late participants noticed Step 2: Interpret the event as an emergency In ambiguous situations we look to others and they look to us Problem: emergencies are often ambiguous Latane and Darley, '70: Smokey room study Participants complete survey alone or in a group of 3 Experimenter pumps smoke into room Who goes for help within 2 minutes? 50% of alone participants 12% of 3-person-groups Step 3: Assume responsibility to help Problem: Diffusion of responsibility As the number of bystanders increase, each bystander's sense of responsibility decreases Step 4: Know how to help (have ability to help) Do you know CPR? Can you dial 911? Step 5: Decide to implement help Problem: costs to helping Danger to self Legal fears Performance fears Characteristics of groups Definitions: Group - two or more people that interact and are interdependent Collective - two or more people that interact minimally and are not interdependent Groups vary By cohesiveness - qualities of a group that bind members together and promote liking "Tightly knit"? Clear group identity? Collectives --> low cohesion 3 majors effects of low cohesive groups Social facilitation: the tendency to perform well on easy tasks and poor on complex tasks in the presence of others How does the mere presence of others affect our performance? Triplett, 1898: Children wound fishing reels faster with others present Zajonc's explanation: Presence of others -> arousal Arousal -> "dominant response" Dominant response depends on task Easy task: performance increases Hard task: performance decreases Cockroaches ran easy maze Other cockroaches were present or absent Easy maze: Cockroaches ran faster with others watching Hard maze: Cockroaches ran more slowly when others were present Michaels et al., '82: Researchers went to pool hall and observed good players and poor players from afar or next to the pool player Good players did better with those around and poor players did worse with people around Social loafing Deindividuation Groups --> higher cohesion
Want to see the other 2 page(s) in Lecture Notes 11-3-09 (Situational helping/Group Processes)?JOIN TODAY FOR FREE!