See You Around Campus: Why People Help, Why They
Don’t and What To Do About It.
Prepared for Counseling Centers of New
York Caroline F. Keating, Ph.D.
Colgate UniversityJune 6, 2013
A counselor, a social worker, and a social psychologist walk into a bar . . .
Not really
But if we did . . .
Why People Help, Why They Don’t
and What To Do About ItResearch Update
III. Implications for designing programs
I. “bystander-effect” Others don’t have to be
‘present’**Can be a blessing - as well as a curse
Presence of others inhibits helping
II. Identify motivational & situational factors
Prosocial actions intended to benefit othersIntervening in emergency situationsHelping; altruismEmpathy, sympathy, kindnessSupport, inclusionSharing, charity, donating
Antisocial actions intended to harm othersStigmatization, exclusion, rejectionMaltreatment (inflicting punishment,
distress) Aggressive behavior
hostile or instrumentalovert & relational
Harmful Inaction – intended or otherwise
Nonconscious cues
The Big WE
Shared and Nonshared Social Goals
A 2012 meta-analysis of the social goals & aggression of children (18 & younger) revealed a “fit”
versus bystander effect
Classic “Helping Behavior” Paradigms:
Naïve participants
alone OR presence of others
- others may be
naïve OR
confederates
(passive)
“emergency”
Conclusions from Early Bystander Studies
• Bystanders inhibit helping–Diffusion of responsibility– Pluralistic ignorance– Evaluation apprehension
• Implication for intervention programs based on increasing bystander responsiveness
Recent re-analysis of the bystander effect --bystanders may be (some of) your best friends
But only in the most dangerous situations – which few researchers have put to the test
WWYD Scenario: Abuse of Homeless People
Prediction (according to the bystander effect):
3 key features related to college life:
victim: outcast (stigmatized)“campus”emergency = hostile
aggression
Cost of not
helping
(guilt, shame
)
Group action/peer support
elements
Perceived threat
Empathy/sympathy
humanizationcommunity
Responsibility & duty
Helper’s HighEase of escape
arousal
disgust, anger
norms
pride, positive affect
Ability, expertise
Collective action more likely when
• Bystanders are friends& danger is clearly evident• Psychological mechanisms:
Fessler & Holbrook, 2013, Psyc Sci
Adult men, alone or in groups,matched the face of a terrorist with a body, estimating muscularity & other traits.
Sadly, a race bias persists
Individual Whites are quicker to come to the aid of White than Black victims even in high emergency situations
Individual Blacks = aid Blacks and Whites
Can contact with ‘outgroup’ members
prosocial behavior?
• Koschate et al., (2012) studied workgroups in organizations
• Assessed task and personal contacts• Assessed prosocial behavior & empathy
directed toward outgroup generallydirected toward individuals from outgroup
Results
Personal contact increased empathy & helpfor outgroup individuals
Task contact increased expected rewards (& reduced costs) for helping & more help for the outgroup as a whole
Applied to campus . . .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ue_fGd32Ewo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u716oysCtyI
Youtube links for WWYD parts I and II of drugged drink scenario
Presence of like-minded others
Established bond with abusive agent
Concern Relief
Appearance of target
elements
Anger
Attitude toward target
“America”Evaluation
apprehension
Presence of like-minded others
• Empowers
• Blinds in 2 ways
example: political attitudes
(J. Keating, 2013)
Example: enclaves on campus
• Men express less willingness to aid a female sexual assault victim after being embedded in an all male group.
• Women express less willingness to aid a female sexual assault victim after being singly embedded in a group of males; they express more willingness after being embedded in a group of females.
The mere knowledge that similar others share your goal intensifies goal pursuit
Two experiments:• UGs played a game
independently; instructed to either
Study 1: get pointsStudy 2: avoid mistakes
“Similar” others ‘chose’ the same color avatar (minimal group paradigm)
Results:• UGs achieved more
points (or avoided more mistakes) IF they knew that similar others shared their goal.
• Knowing that others share your goal stimulates pursuit; no collaborative effort necessary!
Potential solutions: Easy to identify; challenging to
implementThe problem
• Foster the Big We
Potential solution• Shared social goals*
-campus-wide projectsVirginia Tech
example
• Identity salience/large group- Off-campus opportunities BOB, the bus
• Promote liking among dissimilar individuals*-The Ba
Potential solutions: Easy to identify; challenging to
implementThe problem
• Foster Self-Awareness(reinforce The Self)
Potential solutions• Exposure to individuating
experiences (reduce enclavement)
• Prime the right self
• Reduce social comparison
• Meditation/Mindfulness
Potential solutions: Easy to identify; challenging to
implement
The problem
• Make it easy to intervene
Potential solutions
• Create a culture of interveners- moral peers
• Model interventionWWYD (use media power)
Top Related