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  

icebreaker

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”

Results for the ‘smoke-filled room’ experiment

Piliavin, Rodin, & Piliavin, (1969)

Figure 1: Layout of adjacent and critical areas of subway car

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

DisneyABC News: What Would You Do? Host: John Quinones

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

See ABC’s WWYD on the abuse of homeless peoplehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWNQ5zbKw-Q

elements

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

From: Kuntsman & Plant (2008). Racing to help: Racial bias in high emergency situations. JPSP, 95.

Fiske (2011). Envy Up, Scorn Down: How Status Divides Us

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 . . .

WWYD Hazing Scenario:attitudes toward the victim

See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMR7t_A55hk

elements

Sympathy for

victim?

elements

Moral outrage

disgust

WWYD version of Jersey Shore . . .

WWYD: The Drugged Drink Scenario

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

elements

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!

Putting the elements together

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)

Thank you!

• Colgate’s counseling center

• Tech support

Wonderful audience – a hand for the volunteers!