Unit 05

Can failing to help ever be just as evil?

Does ‘not helping’ meet your definition of evil?  Think back to how you personally defined the concept… does evil have to be something that you actively do, or does your definition include the idea that it could be considered evil if you fail to do something that a good person would?  Is it evil to turn your back on someone in desperate need?  Have you personally ever felt guilty for not helping someone else that might have needed your help?  These are critical questions that challenge our definition of good and evil and bring us back to the question of responsibility.

05-A: Likelihood of Helping 

• How did Darley and Batson’s (1973) study on helping behavior at the theology seminary demonstrate that the power of the situation can influence behavior beyond what disposition would predict?  Be prepared to summarize the methodology and results.

To what extent does someone's beliefs about morality influence whether they will help someone in need?  Clearly those with deep beliefs about the importance of helping others would be more likely to help... right?  Well, as we've seen, it's not that simple, and sometimes the situation can exert more power over our behavior than personal beliefs.  This classic study by Darley and Batson (1973) demonstrates that even when reminded, those that would preach the importance of offering help might not take the time to stop and do it.

READ: Now in Files section of ELMS

05-B: Mediators, Moderators, & Meta-Analyses

• What is a mediator?  In the context of things we have already learned about evil, provide clear examples of mediators that help explain a relationship between two variables.

• What is a moderator?  In the context of things we have already learned about evil, provide clear examples of moderators that influence the relationship between two variables.

• How does a meta-analysis advance our scientific understanding beyond what we can learn from an individual research study?

The broader goal of psychological research goes past simply describing what happens - it is to explain WHY and WHEN things happen.  To do that, we need to discover the mediators and moderators involved in the relationships we observe.

In the Darley and Batson (1973) study you just read about, participants under time pressure were less likely to help a stranger.

A mediator is the reason WHY two variables are connected. Perhaps the time pressure CAUSED an increase in cognitive distraction, as they were thinking in their head about how quickly they could get there and what might happen because they are late. That increase in mental workload might have CAUSED a change in their ability to think about the situation and recognize the warning signs of a potential emergency in the moment as they passed quickly by.

Still, not everyone under time pressure ignored the stranger, and not everyone who had all day stopped to help. A moderator is a variable that influences the nature of the connection between two variables. People who are more empathetic might have more of an emotional reaction to seeing a stranger on the floor and are more likely to notice others and be helpful in general. Those people would not be as effected by time pressure, where as people on the other end of the spectrum would be less likely to help no matter how much time they have or don't have.

There are limitations to what any one research study can truly tell us about evil, but luckily there have been so many studies conducted that there is a way to find some bigger-picture answers to big questions.

Sanchez-Meca and Marin-Martinez (2001) wrote a helpful overview of how researchers conduct meta-analyses. You do not need to worry about the statistic details of a meta-analysis for this course, I just want you to understand the overall concept.

READ: Meta-analysis in Psychological Research sections 1 (Introduction) and 2 (Phases in a Meta-analysis) and stop when you get to Table 1.

05-C: The Bystander Effect

• What is the five-step psychological process that Latane & Darley (1970) outlined for bystander interventions in emergency situations?  How does diffusion of responsibility, pluralistic ignorance, and evaluation apprehension interfere with that process?

• What did Fischer et al.’s (2011) meta-analysis of bystander effect research find to be significant moderators?  Be prepared to explain the effect of:

  • • Number of passive bystanders

    • Perceived danger to bystanders

    • Sex of bystanders

    • Relationship among bystanders

    • The opportunity to communicate among bystanders

    • Laboratory vs. field environments (control)

    • Urban vs. rural environments (population density)

• What did Beaman et al. (1978) find regarding the effect of learning about the bystander effect?

• How might this five-step process of intervention map onto situations at a national level (e.g., genocide)?

• Is there any evidence supporting the role of danger as a moderator in bystander intervention in real emergencies?

READ: The abstract of another recent meta-analysis that explores whether the moderating effect of danger appears to hold true in real-life emergencies caught on security cameras.  Does Danger Level Affect Bystander Intervention in Real-Life Conflicts? Evidence From CCTV Footage (Lindegaard et al., 2021).

Closing Thoughts...

As you've seen, learning about the bystander effect is the first step in overcoming it.  Now that you know how the social situation can influence you and the others around you, you are more likely to notice yourself falling into the psychological trap that keeps you from stepping up and offering help to someone who needs it.  The same knowledge could, one day, also save your life if you can apply it to influence others and get the help you need.

If you're interested in learning more...