# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Relationship Between Entry Into Child Welfare and Mental Health Service Use

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This study examined the relationship between initiation of outpatient mental health service use and level of child welfare involvement.Three levels of child welfare involvement were examined: in-home care and no child welfare services beyond an initial…

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Bystander effect, the inhibiting influence of the presence of others on a person's willingness to help someone in need. Research has shown that, even in an emergency, a bystander is less likely to extend help when he or she is in the real or imagined presence of others than when he or she is alone. Moreover, the number of others is important, such that more bystanders leads to less assistance, although the impact of each additional bystander has a diminishing impact on helping.

Investigations of the bystander effect in the 1960s and '70s sparked a wealth of research on helping behaviour, which has expanded beyond emergency situations to include everyday forms of helping. By illuminating the power of situations to affect individuals' perceptions, decisions, and behaviour, study of the bystander effect continues to influence the course of social psychological theory and research.

Bystander intervention

The bystander effect became a subject of significant interest following the brutal murder of American woman Kitty Genovese in 1964. Genovese, returning home late from work, was viciously attacked and sexually assaulted by a man with a knife while walking home to her apartment complex from a nearby parking lot. As reported in the The New York Times two weeks later, for over half an hour 38 respectable, law-abiding people heard or saw the man attack her three separate times. The voices and lights from the bystanders in nearby apartments interrupted the killer and frightened him off twice, but each time he returned and stabbed her again. None of the 38 witnesses called the police during the attack, and only one bystander contacted authorities after Kitty Genovese died. (In 2016, following the death of the attacker, Winston Moseley, The New York Times published an article stating that the number of witnesses and what they saw or heard had been exaggerated, that there had been just two attacks, that two bystanders had called the police, and that another bystander tried to comfort the dying woman.)

The story of Genovese's murder became a modern parable for the powerful psychological effects of the presence of others. It was an example of how people sometimes fail to react to the needs of others and, more broadly, how behavioral tendencies to act prosocially are greatly influenced by the situation. Moreover, the tragedy led to new research on prosocial behaviour, namely bystander intervention, in which people do and do not extend help. The seminal research on bystander intervention was conducted by American social psychologists Bibb Latané and John Darley, who found that bystanders do care about those in need of assistance but nevertheless often do not offer help. Whether bystanders extend help depends on a series of decisions.

Bystander decision-making

The circumstances surrounding an emergency in which an individual needs help tend to be unique, unusual, and multifaceted. Many people have never encountered such a situation and have little experience to guide them during the pressure-filled moments when they must decide whether or not to help. Several decision models of bystander intervention have been developed.

According to Latané and Darley, before helping another, a bystander progresses through a five-step decision-making process. A bystander must notice that something is amiss, define the situation as an emergency or a circumstance requiring assistance, decide whether he or she is personally responsible to act, choose how to help, and finally implement the chosen helping behaviour. Failing to notice, define, decide, choose, and implement leads a bystander not to engage in helping behaviour.

In another decision model, bystanders are presumed to weigh the costs and rewards of helping. Bystanders rationalize their decision on the basis of which choice (helping or not helping) will deliver the best possible outcome for themselves. In this model, bystanders are more likely to help when they view helping as a way to advance their personal growth, to feel good about themselves, or to avoid guilt that may result from not helping.

Social influence plays a significant role in determining how quickly individuals notice that something is wrong and define the situation as an emergency. Research has shown that the presence of others can cause diffusion of the responsibility to help. Hence, social influence and diffusion of responsibility are fundamental processes underlying the bystander effect during the early steps of the decision-making process.

Social influence

If a bystander is physically in a position to notice a victim, factors such as the bystander's emotional state, the nature of the emergency, and the presence of others can influence his or her ability to realize that something is wrong and that assistance is required. In general, positive moods, such as happiness and contentment, encourage bystanders to notice emergencies and provide assistance, whereas negative moods, such as depression, inhibit helping. However, some negative moods, such as sadness and guilt, have been found to promote helping. In addition, some events, such as someone falling down a flight of stairs, are very visible and hence attract bystanders' attention. For example, studies have demonstrated that victims who yell or scream receive help almost without fail. In contrast, other events, such as a person suffering a heart attack, often are not highly visible and so attract little attention from bystanders. In the latter situations, the presence of others can have a substantial impact on bystanders' tendency to notice the situation and define it as one that requires assistance.

In situations where the need for help is unclear, bystanders often look to others for clues as to how they should behave. Consistent with social comparison theory, the effect of others is more pronounced when the situation is more ambiguous. For example, when other people act calmly in the presence of a potential emergency because they are unsure of what the event means, bystanders may not interpret the situation as an emergency and thus act as if nothing is wrong. Their behaviour can cause yet other bystanders to conclude that no action is needed, a phenomenon known as pluralistic ignorance. But when others seem shocked or distressed, bystanders are more likely to realize an emergency has occurred and conclude that assistance is needed. Other social comparison variables, such as the similarity of other bystanders (e.g., whether they are members of a common in-group), can moderate the extent to which bystanders look to others as guides in helping situations. In sum, when the need for help is unclear, bystanders look to others for guidance. This is not the case when the need for assistance is obvious.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Bystander effect, the inhibiting influence of the presence of others on a person's willingness to help someone in need. Research has shown that, even in an emergency, a bystander is less likely to extend help when he or she is in the real or imagined presence of others than when he or she is alone.

# data[].attributes.body
David Pelzer, Author Of "A Child Called It: One Child's Courage To Survive" and "The Lost Boy: A Foster Child's Search For The Love Of A Family"

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This article provides a historical perspective on the bystander effect, a social phenomenon that Darley and Latané first studied experimentally in 1968. Critical events that took place prior to the study of the bystander effect are discussed. Specifically, emphasis is placed on the formation of the Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues in 1936, Kurt Lewin's social action research in the late 1930s, and the cognitive revolution of the 1950s. Furthermore, this article explores some of the research on bystander intervention that came after Darley and Latané's classic study on the bystander effect. In the decade after Darley and Latané conducted their experiment, psychologists were interested in investigating the bystander effect and what influenced its occurrence. After the turn of the century, psychologists began to study the applicability of the bystander effect to social issues, which has been demonstrated in more recent studies on prosocial behaviors in an online chat setting and in a study pertaining to cyber bullying.

John Darley and Bibb Latané were the first psychologists to formulate and study the bystander effect. The bystander effect, as defined by Darley and Latané (1968), is the phenomenon in which the presence of people (i.e., bystanders) influences an individual's likelihood of helping a person in an emergency situation. Specifically, Darley and Latané believed that as the number of people who are present in an emergency situation increases, the less likely it is that any single individual will help someone in need. This was the original framework for bystander intervention that guided the researchers' experimentation of a social behavior in a laboratory setting. In order to effectively analyze the history of research relevant to the bystander effect, it is necessary to understand the key historical events that preceded the work of Darley and Latané.

One key event that occurred in the history of psychology was the creation of the Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues (SPSSI). Before the establishment of this organization in 1936, the field of psychology was not involved in studying and applying psychological principles and research to social issues (Benjamin, 2014). That is, most psychologists at the time did not believe that the field of psychology could be engaged in the attempt to solve social problems and still remain a scientific discipline. However, during the time of the Great Depression, the zeitgeist began to change as more people began to think that psychology could be applied to resolving the social conflict in America and abroad (Benjamin, 2014). Indeed, since the establishment of the SPSSI, psychologists have been focused on applying the science of psychology to better understand and solve social problems by looking at group dynamics (Benjamin, 2014). For example, the pioneering work of Kurt Lewin, attributed to the beginnings of research on social action and social change, occurred after 1939 and contributed to the understanding of the dynamics of groups, such as the factors that influence prosocial behaviors in groups.

Kurt Lewin arrived in America from Germany in 1933, escaping the Nazi regime (Benjamin, 2014). He is often credited as a critical figure, if not one of the forefathers, in the field of applied social psychology; his contributions to social psychology are extensively described in several books on the history of psychology (e.g., Baumeister & Vohs, 2007; Benjamin, 2014; Hogg & Cooper, 2003; Mook, 2004). Lewin, upon his arrival in the US, became highly involved in social research and its applications in the world. In fact, he was a key figure in the development of the SPSSI in 1936 (Baumeister & Vohs, 2007; Benjamin, 2014). His main area of interest was in researching the ways that groups function and influence the individual members of the group, as he thought that this was an important piece to solving social problems (Benjamin, 2014).

The situation a person finds him or herself in is a significant determinant of how one will behave under the given circumstances

Lewin, who was heavily influenced by Gestalt psychology, was also interested in studying the situational factors that influence a person's behavior, which led to his development of field theory. He argued that the situation a person finds him or herself in is a significant determinant of how one will behave under the given circumstances (Mook, 2004). Furthermore, Lewin's contribution to theories on the motivational influences of behavior in the 1950s has led social psychologists to speculate what motivates others to engage in prosocial behaviors (Hogg & Cooper, 2003). This focus on motivational factors is characteristic of the "cognitive revolution" that emerged in the 1950s and extended into the 1960s (Baumeister & Vohs, 2007).

The cognitive approach focuses on how people think about themselves and the world around them; this focus on cognition was critical for psychologists who were trying to understand the mental processes guiding an individual's behavior in groups. While the social psychologists at this time were interested in the factors affecting a person's motivation to help others, the research question would change in the 1960s to what causes a person to not provide any help to someone in an emergency situation. This shift was prompted by a tragic event in 1964 and is evident in Darley and Latané's (1968) classic study on bystander intervention.

A major inspiration for Darley and Latané's (1968) research was the 1964 murder of a New York City woman in which no bystander intervened to help. According to Darley and Latané, many people at the time were trying to find a plausible explanation for the inaction on behalf of all the bystanders (people viewing the violence from their apartment windows). Namely, many people believed that apathy and indifference were the causes of inaction on behalf of the bystanders, reflecting the idea that personal characteristics solely drive behavior. However, Darley and Latané focused on the social conditions, such as the number of bystanders, that may have had an influence on whether the bystanders reacted, which reflected Lewinian theories on the situational determinants of behavior. Moreover, the three reasons (i.e., diffusion of responsibility, diffusion of blame, and thinking that another person is already taking action to help) that Darley and Latané gave for believing that the presence of bystanders may influence an individual's likelihood of helping someone in an emergency consist of thinking strategies that are representative of the cognitive era in the 1960s.

To summarize the historical context briefly, the violent murder of a woman in New York City along with all of the aforementioned historical events prompted the research on the bystander effect: the formation of the SPSSI in 1936 normalized and made it more acceptable to study social issues in psychology; Lewin's research on group dynamics and social determinants of behavior provided the groundwork for future psychologists (i.e., Darley & Latané, 1968); and cognitive psychology emphasized the role of thinking and perception, which was used to explain certain behaviors in group settings.

In their classic study, Darley and Latané (1968) proposed that the number of individuals present in an emergency situation influences how quickly, if at all, any individual responds. They hypothesized that the more people present at an emergency, the smaller the chance that a person will intervene and help or the more time it will take for him or her to do so. In order to test this, they created a simulation of an emergency situation. Participants were deceived so that they would not know they were going to be in a fake emergency; they were told that they would take part in a study that would require them to discuss their problems pertaining to college.

In the experiment, an individual participant was placed into a room with a microphone. Darley and Latané manipulated their independent variable by telling the participant one of three things: there would be one other participant in a different room communicating with the participant; two other participants in separate rooms; or five other participants in separate rooms. However, these other "participants" were only prerecorded voices. At some point in the "discussion," the participant would hear someone speak who started to have what sounded like a seizure-the victim's voice would begin to break and the participant heard cries for help, indicating that the participant was having a seizure. The dependent measure was the time it took for each participant to respond to the emergency. The results supported Darley and Latané's prediction.

Most of the participants who thought they were alone with the victim (in the two-person group) responded to the emergency whereas only 31% of the participants who thought they were with four bystanders (in the six-person group) notified the experimenter of the emergency. Also, participants in the two-person condition responded at a faster speed than the participants in the six-person condition. Darley and Latané concluded that those who thought they were alone with the victim intervened when the victim was having a seizure because they felt the most pressure to help as the consequences of not helping (feeling guilt and shame) were all on their shoulders; therefore, they resolved their conflict quickly. The researchers also argued that people who felt they were not alone in witnessing the situation were not as pressured to help and, because of this, they were less likely or slower to react. Their results strongly suggested that personality factors of apathy and indifference were not causing the participants' decision to not intervene, as was previously believed.

Psychologists often evaluate the quality of an empirical study by assessing the internal, external, and construct validity of the research (e.g., Morling, 2012). In assessing the internal validity of the Darley and Latané (1968) study, or their ability to draw a cause-effect relationship from their results, it is important to recognize that their description of the study's design suggests that they randomly assigned the participants to one of the levels of the independent variable (i.e., number of bystanders believed to be present). This eliminated individual differences such as personality characteristics as a likely explanation for their results. Furthermore, they made an effort to keep other factors constant. For example, they prerecorded the voices they would play for each participant. This would lessen the chance that an extraneous variable, such as change in tone of voice, would have affected the speed at which participants responded.

They also varied the order in which the voices were played. Darley and Latané noted that participants' nervousness, surprise upon finding out the true nature of the experiment, and comments made during the experiment indicated that the seizure was perceived as real. Therefore, their internal validity is very high. However, their cause-effect conclusion might not generalize to other settings (i.e., external validity) because the participants were placed in a situation in which they only heard, but did not see, the other bystanders. The emergency situation itself, which involved someone having a seizure, is quite different from witnessing someone stab a person to death, as occurred in the 1964 murder case. Nonetheless, Darley and Latané were able to create a simulated and controlled laboratory experiment that mimicked an emergency situation. Many future scientists conducted research that replicated Darley and Latané's results and expanded the research on bystander intervention.

After Darley and Latané's (1968) classic study was published, many researchers became interested in the bystander effect and its impact. A search of a popular database of psychological research, PsycINFO, revealed a plethora of studies on bystander intervention published since 1968. A review of all this research is well beyond the scope of this article. Instead, I will summarize a few representative examples of research related to Darley and Latané's classic study. Twelve years after Darley and Latané's research on the bystander effect, two studies appear to be representative of the research on bystander intervention in the year 1980. One of these studies (i.e., Valentine, 1980) attempted to establish the ecological validity of the Darley and Latané findings on bystander intervention and other factors that may affect whether the bystander effect could be diminished. Another study conducted by Schwartz and Gottlieb (1980) also reflected psychologists' attempt to study the factors that could influence the occurrence of the bystander effect; specifically, these researchers examined anonymity as a mediating variable in the bystander effect. Both of these studies represent an effort in the 1980s to further test bystander intervention by manipulating factors, other than the number of bystanders, which may influence prosocial behaviors.

Valentine's (1980) goal was to investigate the factors that could potentially weaken the bystander effect. She argued that if a positive relationship is formed between a bystander and the victim, then the bystander may feel more compelled to help the victim. According to Valentine, the best way to establish a relationship between bystander and victim is by implementing an interpersonal gaze, in which eye contact is established between bystander and victim. Therefore, Valentine hypothesized that the gaze by the victim would increase helping behaviors in participants regardless of whether bystanders would be present. In order to test the influence of gaze on the bystander effect, Valentine conducted an experiment outside of the laboratory.

She instructed either one confederate (no bystander condition) or two confederates (two bystander condition) to approach random women at designated bus stops in New York. One confederate would "accidentally" lose all of her change from her pocket while the other one stood nearby reading a newspaper. Afterward, the victim who dropped the coins would either gaze at the participant or stare at the ground for five seconds before picking up the dropped coins. Helping occurred when the participant would pick up the dropped coins or point to where they were on the ground. Valentine found that gaze did influence helping in participants as expected-participants in the gaze condition were more likely to help and help more quickly (regardless of the number of bystanders) than participants who were not gazed upon.

The study by Valentine (1980) differed from Darley and Latané's (1968) study in that she did not test the bystander effect in an emergency situation. Instead, she used a natural setting (field experiment) and used dropped coins to indicate help needed by the victim. Her goal was to weaken the bystander effect by introducing the intervening factor of an established relationship between victim and bystander, as represented by gaze. Moreover, Valentine did not use more than two bystanders. Although it may be difficult to imagine that a simple stare could result in forming a relationship between a bystander and participant, the goal behind this implementation was to determine whether a gaze could elicit a feeling of obligation toward the victim, which would compel the participant to engage in helping.

Keeping these aspects of Valentine's study in mind, the study can be assessed in regard to its validities. In terms of construct validity, the clearly manipulated independent variables (gaze vs. no gaze and one confederate vs. two confederates) reflect high construct validity in the study-she was accurately manipulating the theoretical constructs. Because this was a field experiment as opposed to one conducted in a laboratory, the researcher could not control all of the extraneous variables, which means her study had low internal validity. For instance, there was no way for her to make sure that no one else would come up to the bus stop as the experiment was taking place, and thus, introduce a confounding variable.

Despite this issue, Valentine trained her confederates to act practically identically in front of the participants, indicating her attempt to keep things constant as much as she could. With regard to the external validity, the study was weakened because of the fact that only white female participants were chosen. It does not generalize to other participant groups, such as males and people of other racial/ethnic backgrounds. Yet, because this was a naturalistic setting, there was high ecological validity as the experiment took place in real life as opposed to being conducted in a laboratory. By and large, this study revealed that the bystander effect is less likely to occur when a victim makes some form of contact that acknowledges the bystander.

During the same year that Valentine (1980) published her results, Schwartz and Gottlieb (1980) published their investigation of other factors that influence the occurrence of the bystander effect. Schwartz and Gottlieb proposed that perceived anonymity of a bystander might affect whether he or she helps a victim. The authors claimed that in addition to the diffusion of responsibility and blame that Darley and Latané (1968) described, another force that could influence helping is evaluation apprehension. This explanation pertains to whether the bystander knows if other bystanders and the victim are aware of his or her presence. Schwartz and Gottlieb reasoned that a bystander who feels that he or she is anonymous is less likely to help the victim due to having less evaluation apprehension (i.e., less fear of being judged by others at the scene).

In order to test the prediction that an individual's perceived anonymity makes it less likely that the individual will provide help in an unambiguous emergency situation, Schwartz and Gottlieb performed two complicated experiments with very elaborate procedures. Their second experiment essentially replicated the results of their first experiment; and for the sake of brevity, I will only describe their first experiment. The actual participant in their first experiment arrived in a room in the social science building and was instructed to monitor another student's extrasensory perception (ESP) transmissions by viewing him on a television screen. The student on the television screen was actually a professional actor. Ostensibly, the actor was "transmitting" ESP to another student who was supposedly in another room receiving the ESP messages and not visible to the participant. About 7.5 minutes into the ESP experiment, the student shown on the screen became a victim when he was physically assaulted by "a roughly dressed stranger" (who was also an actor).

Two independent variables were manipulated: the presence of a bystander and anonymity. Schwartz and Gottlieb manipulated the presence or absence of another bystander witnessing the crime by leading the participants in the alone conditions to believe the student receiving the ESP messages had shown up late and was not watching the victim at the time of the crime. In addition, Schwartz and Gottlieb manipulated whether the participant believed he or she was either anonymous or known. In the anonymous conditions participants were led to believe that the other students (i.e., the victim and the ESP "receiver") were unaware that the study involved multiple participants; in the known conditions participants were told they would meet with all the other students (i.e., the victim and/or the other ESP receiver) after the ESP experiment was over.

Since this study employed a factorial design, each participant was randomly assigned to one of four conditions: (1) in the alone/anonymous condition the participants believed they were alone with the victim and that the victim was not aware they were present; (2) in the alone/known condition participants believed they were alone with the victim and the victim knew they were present; (3) in the bystander present/anonymous condition participants believed another bystander was present and the participant was anonymous to both the victim and the other bystander; (4) in the bystander present/known condition participants believed another bystander was present and the participant was not anonymous. Helping was measured by the time it took for the actual participant to respond by calling the experimenter using a phone in his or her room or leaving the room to help the victim after the stranger entered the victim's room and began the assault.

Schwartz and Gottlieb (1980) replicated Darley and Latané's (1968) results because they found that the presence of a bystander lessened participants' likelihood of providing aid. Schwartz and Gottlieb also found that, contrary to their prediction, participants' perceived anonymity in terms of the victim (i.e., the alone/anonymous condition) did not influence participants' likelihood of helping the victim. However, in support of their prediction, participants helped less frequently and more slowly when they believed they were anonymous to the victim and another bystander (i.e., the bystander present/anonymous condition). Schwartz and Gottlieb argue that these results are consistent with their claim that evaluation apprehension, as well as diffusion of responsibility, contributes to bystander intervention in emergency situations. Schwartz and Gottlieb extended Darley and Latané's research by manipulating perceived anonymity, or an individual's perception that no other bystander knows about his or her existence, and found that anonymity moderates the bystander effect.

Schwartz and Gottlieb (1980) manipulated anonymity well in their study as shown by participants' responses to post-experimental questionnaires that were used as a manipulation check. For example, 96% of their participants correctly answered questions about whether or not they expected to interact with the other students after the ESP experiment. Their study had low external validity, similar to Darley and Latané's (1968) study, because it was not a representative sample as it only included undergraduate students. However, their study had good ecological validity because it was conducted in a setting in which participants both heard and saw the emergency situation unfold on a television screen, unlike only voices heard from a tape recording in the Darley and Latané experiment. Lastly, the study had high internal validity since the researchers meticulously controlled for extraneous variables and used random assignment to the different experimental conditions.

Valentine (1980) and Schwartz and Gottlieb (1980) are two prominent studies from the 1980s that represent psychologists' efforts to investigate the bystander effect under different conditions. They established that other variables such as gazing and perceived bystander anonymity affect bystander intervention. Twenty years from the time these studies were conducted, researchers began to pursue more applied research goals. For example, they began to apply the bystander effect to social issues prevalent in society. As technology advanced, bullying on social media platforms increased accordingly (Brody & Vangelisti, 2016). The year 2000 marked the beginning of research on bystander intervention as it relates to online situations. For instance, Markey (2000) conducted a study on prosocial behaviors in online chat sites. This preceded the work of Brody and Vangelisti (2016) 16 years later, who studied the influence of the bystander effect on cyber bullying.

Markey (2000) observed hundreds of chat groups on the chat site Yahoo! Chat. He posted various requests for help in solving computer questions (e.g., how to look at someone's profile online); some requests were made to all chat group members whereas some were directed at particular members by referencing their name. He then monitored who responded to the questions and provided help. Markey found that members took longer to respond when there were more people logged onto the chat group. However, this was reversed when the question was directed at a specific member of the group. While Markey did not conduct an experiment dealing with an emergency situation like Darley and Latané (1968) did, this study revealed a critical boundary of the bystander effect in the cyber world; aiming a question directly at another member by specifying the member by name makes it more likely that a person will respond. Therefore, it inhibits the bystander effect. This can be tied back to the Valentine (1980) study in which the researcher found that gaze, or acknowledgment of the bystander, made it more likely that the bystander would intervene and provide help. While this was not an emergency situation, future researchers took on the task of studying how the bystander effect may exist in situations involving cyber bullying.

One of the more prominent social issues that psychologists became interested in since Markey (2000) has been cyber bullying. In the 16 years since Markey's research, Brody and Vangelisti (2016) showed that cyber bullying is a social issue relevant in our modern society. These researchers conducted studies on the relationship between the number of bystanders and perceived anonymity by asking participants in a survey to describe a friend's past online bullying experience that they witnessed. Brody and Vangelisti found a negative correlation between the victim's perception of the number of bystanders and the likelihood of intervention (as measured by a Likert-type rating scale). That is, as the number of perceived bystanders increases, the likelihood of intervention decreases. They also found that bystander anonymity was negatively associated with likelihood of helping the victim; when bystanders were anonymous they were less likely to help. These correlations are not experimental findings, however, and should only be interpreted as associations-and not as causal relationships. Nonetheless, these findings can be viewed as a continuation of the research on the bystander effect and anonymity (and reduction of the bystander effect), as was demonstrated by Darley and Latané (1968) and Schwartz and Gottlieb (1980) respectively.

To conclude, in this article I describe the historical context surrounding the well-known phenomenon of the bystander effect. Historically, the formation of the Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues, Kurt Lewin's research on group dynamics and influences on prosocial behavior, and the emergence of the cognitive revolution paved the way for research on why no bystander intervened to help one woman in New York City in 1964 as she was stabbed to death. The bystander effect first demonstrated experimentally by Darley and Latané in 1968 was a classic study that changed future research on prosocial behavior. In particular, the research that came after Darley and Latané investigated the other variables that influence helping behaviors. Such variables as gaze (Valentine, 1980) and anonymity (Schwartz and Gottlieb, 1980) were studied in the 1980s. Furthermore, the beginning of the 21 st century marked a time of increased awareness of the relevance of psychological research to contemporary social issues, as evidenced by research on the bystander effect in situations like online chat rooms and social media cyber bullying. All things considered, it is clear that Darley and Latané's classic study on the bystander effect is still highly relevant to the field of modern psychology.

Baumeister, R. F., & Vohs, K. D. (2007). Encyclopedia of social psychology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Benjamin, L. T. (2014). A brief history of modern psychology. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Brody, N., & Vangelisti, A. L. (2016). Bystander intervention in cyberbullying. Communication Monographs, 83(1), 94-119. doi:10.1080/03637751.2015.1044256.

Darley, J. M., & Latane, B. (1968). Bystander intervention in emergencies: Diffusion of responsibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8(4, Pt.1), 377-383. doi:10.1037/h0025589.

Hogg, M. A., & Cooper, J. (2007). The SAGE handbook of social psychology. London: SAGE.

Markey, P. M. (2000). Bystander intervention in computer-mediated communication. Computers in Human Behavior, 16(2), 183-188.

Mook, D. G. (2004). Classic experiments in psychology. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Morling, B. (2012). Research methods in psychology: Evaluating a world of information. New York, NY: Norton.

Schwartz, S. H., & Gottlieb, A. (1980). Bystander anonymity and reactions to emergencies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(3), 418-430. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.39.3.418.

Valentine, M. E. (1980). The attenuating influence of gaze upon the bystander intervention effect. Journal of Social Psychology, 111(2), 197.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A Summary of the Bystander Effect: Historical Development and Relevance in the Digital Age

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This article provides a historical perspective on the bystander effect, a social phenomenon that Darley and Latané first studied experimentally in 1968. Critical events that took place prior to the study of the bystander effect are discussed...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Background and Aim: Many studies have demonstrated that helping rates differ between communities in a single country, but few have systematically compared any of the explanations for the differences. Most of the studies of community differences in helping have focused on population size, most often testing the popular hypothesis that the tendency to help strangers declines as the size of a city increases. However, population size is only one of many factors that define a city. This study investigates other factors that might influence helping behaviour.

The aims of the study were:

1. To determine if a city's tendency to offer non-emergency help to strangers is stable across situations over a wide range of cultures.

2. To research whether substantial variation exists across the cultures studied.

3. To identify country-level variables that might relate to differences in helping.

Method: Three measures of helping were sampled in a large city in each of 23 countries. The measures were:

1) Accidentally dropping a pen. 214 men and 210 women were passed in the street. Participants were scored as having helped if they called back to the experimenter that he had dropped the pen and/or picked up the pen and brought it to the experimenter.

2) Experimenter walking with a limp and wearing a leg brace dropping magazines and struggling to pick them up. He came within 20 ft of passing pedestrians. A total of 253 men and 240 women were approached. Helping was defined as offering to help and/or beginning to help without offering.

3) Experimenter dressed as a blind person in dark glasses and with a white cane, waiting to cross the street.Experimenters stepped up to the corner just before the light turned green, held out their cane, and waited until someone offered help. A trial was terminated after 60 seconds or when the light turned red, whichever occurred first, after which the experimenter walked away from the corner. A total of 281 trials were conducted. Helping was scored if participants, at a minimum, informed the experimenter that the light was green.

All experimenters were male, of college age and dressed neatly and casually.

The variables by which the culture of each city was measured were:

Population size - over 230,000.

Economic indicator - how much the average income earned in each country is capable of purchasing.

Individualism-collectivism rating

Downtown walking speed - as an informal measure of the "pace of life."

Results: Cross-cultural differences in helping strangers:

1) The only cultural variable that showed a significant correlation to helping behaviour was economic productivity. Countries where residents had higher per capita purchasing power tended to be less helpful overall. None of the other relationships was statistically significant.

2) Cities from Latin America (Brazil, Costa Rica, Mexico, El Salvador) and Spain were all above the mean in overall helping, and on average were more helpful than the other international cities.

Conclusion: The helping of strangers is characteristic of a place, there are large cross-cultural variations in helping rates.Countries with less economic productivity may sometimes be accompanied by a traditional value system. These traditional value systems often include ethical guidelines that mandate assisting strangers.

The cultural behaviour of being simpatia (Spanish) and simpatico (Portuguese) emphasise prioritising amiable social behaviours and being friendly. This could explain the helpfulness of the cities from Latin America and Spain.Slower cities are more helpful, but the link between economic health and helping is not a by-product of a fast pacein more affluent societies. The collectivism or individualism of a culture is not related to helping behaviours.

Evaluation

Validity: This research included a large series of field studies where variables were highly controlled. Using pace of walking as a measure of pace of life is innovative and probably as accurate a measure as any. Extraneous variables, such as gender, were controlled by having all-male experimenters, therefore increasing the internal validity of the study. Furthermore, the ecological validity was high, as the tasks were true to life in their natural environment.

Reliability: The study was low in internal reliability - with such a large series of studies, it is impossible to control for standardisation of procedure or experimenter effect. The large overlap found by the researchers between speed of walking, individualism and economic productivity means that these variables may not have been the best to use as separate factors affecting helping behaviour. However, Levine et al. did try and increase the reliability by training the experimenters to try and make the experiences as similar as possible.

Sampling Bias and Ethnocentrism: A strength of this study is that there was a large random sample of participants. The samples were also reasonably well matched between the different cities, including the districts. Because of the wide range of different cultural contexts the participants were taken from results are generalisable. The study is therefore not biased or ethnocentric.

For More Study Notes...

To keep up-to-date with the tutor2u Psychology team, follow us on Twitter @tutor2uPsych, Facebook AQA / OCR / Edexcel / Student or subscribe to the Psychology Daily Digest and get new content delivered to your inbox!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Levine et al. (2001) | tutor2u Psychology

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Background and Aim: Many studies have demonstrated that helping rates differ between communities in a single country, but few have systematically compared any of the explanations for the differences. Most of the studies of community differences in helping have focused on population size, most often testing the popular hypothesis that the tendency to help strangers declines as the size of a city increases.

# data[].attributes.body
1. What are some examples of the bystander effect?
2. How does the bystander effect influence behavior in social contexts, such as emergency situations, bullying, or discrimination?
3. How does technology and social media influence the bystander effect?

# data[].attributes.body
The bystander effect is a well-established social phenomenon that has been extensively studied by psychologists and social scientists. Several studies have demonstrated the influence of the bystander effect on individuals' behavior in emergency situations. These are some examples of studies that have examined the bystander effect:

Darley and Latane (1968): In one of the most famous studies on the bystander effect, Darley and Latane conducted experiments where participants were asked to report a smoke-filled room. The researchers found that when participants were alone, they reported the smoke quickly. However, when there were other people in the room who did not react, participants took longer to report the smoke, or did not report it at all. The researchers concluded that the presence of others reduces the likelihood of intervention in an emergency situation.

Levine et al. (2002): In a field study, researchers examined the likelihood of intervention in real-life emergency situations. They found that the presence of other people reduced the likelihood of intervention in a staged emergency, such as a person lying on the sidewalk or a bike accident. The researchers concluded that the bystander effect is a robust phenomenon that occurs in real-life situations.

Fischer et al. (2011): In a study on bullying, researchers found that bystanders were less likely to intervene when they perceived that others were not intervening. The researchers concluded that the bystander effect is not limited to emergency situations, but also occurs in other social contexts.

As far as technology goes, Social media platforms can create a sense of diffusion of responsibility among users, where everyone assumes that someone else will take action. For example, if a post on social media contains a harmful or discriminatory message, people may be less likely to intervene or report the post because they assume someone else will do so. Also, Technology and social media can create a sense of anonymity that can lead to reduced empathy and a decreased sense of responsibility for others. For example, people may feel less accountable for their actions when they are communicating through a screen rather than face-to-face, leading to a reduced likelihood of intervention.

Overall, these studies demonstrate the influence of the bystander effect on individuals' behavior in emergency situations. The presence of others can lead to diffusion of responsibility and reduce the likelihood of intervention. However, research also suggests that the bystander effect can be reduced by increasing personal responsibility and promoting empathy for the victim.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Bystander Effect in "A Child Called It" and "The Lost Boy" 

# data[].attributes.subject
The Bystander Effect in "A Child Called It" and "The Lost Boy" 

# data[].attributes.body
The bystander effect can be seen in both "A Child Called It" and "The Lost Boy" as a contributing factor to the abuse and neglect experienced by the main characters.

In "A Child Called It," Dave Pelzer was subjected to severe abuse and neglect by his mother. However, his father and siblings were present during much of the abuse, yet they did not intervene or report the abuse to authorities. This can be seen as an example of the bystander effect, where the presence of others may have led to a diffusion of responsibility and a lack of intervention to protect Dave.

Similarly, in "The Lost Boy," David experienced neglect and abuse in the foster care system. At times, the social workers and caregivers were aware of the abuse but failed to intervene. This can be seen as an example of the bystander effect, where the responsibility to intervene was diffused among the individuals who were aware of the abuse, leading to a lack of action to protect the child.

Both books highlight the importance of recognizing the bystander effect and the need for individuals to take responsibility and intervene to protect children from abuse and neglect. They also emphasize the importance of reporting abuse to authorities and seeking help when necessary. Ultimately, both books show that the bystander effect can contribute to the perpetuation of abuse and neglect, and it is crucial to break this cycle by taking action to protect vulnerable children.

# data[].attributes.body
Dave Pelzer's first book, chronicling his childhood and the brutal physical and verbal abuse he was put through on a daily basis

# data[].attributes.body
Dave Pelzer's second book, continuing where the last book left off, with him finally being freed from his abusive home, and his journey through the foster care system

# data[].attributes.body
"A Child Called It"  is the story of Dave Pelzer's early childhood, from the ages of 0-12. "The Lost Boy" is the continuation of Pelzer's childhood, from ages 12-18, chronicling his time in the foster care system and learning to move on and leave his horrid past behind him. "A Child Called It" is a heart-wrenching memoir that tells the story of Dave Pelzer's horrific childhood experiences. Pelzer grew up in a middle-class family in California with his parents and four siblings. His mother, Catherine Roerva Pelzer, was an alcoholic and had a history of mental illness. She singled out Pelzer as the target of her abuse and neglect, and he became known as "the boy" or "it" in the family. Pelzer's mother subjected him to physical, emotional, and psychological abuse that escalated over time. She would often withhold food, water, and basic needs from him, making him live in horrible conditions, and forcing him to do housework that was well beyond his capacity. She would often humiliate him in front of his siblings and inflict severe physical pain on him. Pelzer was repeatedly beaten, burned, and stabbed by his mother, and he was not given any medical attention. Pelzer's father, who was a fireman, was a passive bystander to his son's abuse. He would often turn a blind eye to his wife's actions and refused to intervene. Pelzer's siblings were also afraid to speak up or help him, fearing they would become victims of their mother's wrath. Pelzer endured unimaginable suffering for years until he was finally rescued by a teacher who noticed the signs of abuse. He was taken away from his family and placed in foster care. Pelzer's mother was eventually charged with child abuse, but she denied the allegations, and the case was dismissed. The second book I read, "The Lost Boy", is the sequel to "A Child Called It" and describes Pelzer's experiences in the foster care system after he was removed from his abusive home.  The book starts with Pelzer being removed from his abusive mother's home and placed in a series of foster homes. Pelzer's experiences in foster care were often traumatic, as he was moved from home to home and struggled to form meaningful connections with his foster families. Pelzer longed for a loving and stable home, but many of his foster parents were distant or abusive, making him feel like an unwanted burden. Pelzer eventually found a foster family that provided him with the love and stability he had been seeking. The family, the Turnboughs, took Pelzer in and treated him like one of their own children. They encouraged him to pursue his dreams and helped him overcome the trauma of his childhood. Pelzer describes how the Turnboughs provided him with the love and support he needed to heal and grow as a person. Throughout the book, Pelzer reflects on his experiences in foster care and the impact they had on his life. He discusses the challenges he faced in forming relationships, dealing with his past trauma, and navigating the foster care system. Pelzer's story is a powerful reminder of the importance of love, support, and stability in the lives of children who have experienced trauma.

# data[].attributes.body
Important Events in "A Child Called It"
1. The "good times" before the abuse begins. David reminisces about the time before he was abused when he would have fun with his family, and when he would go on vacations to the "Russian River" with his family.
2. The abuse begins. David's mother begins to drink much more and starts to become violent, with her abuse being almost exclusively targeted at David. During this time, he is forced to hold his arm on a stove fire, his arm is popped out of socket, and more. He misses school, as it is his only safe space. The biggest struggle that will be persistent for the rest of the book is starvation, as he will be forbidden from eating almost any food, ever.
3. The worst action of abuse happens- whilst very drunk, David's mother inadvertently stabs him in the stomach. David barely survives, and is forced to tend to his infection and keep himself alive by sheer will. After this, his mother begins to play more "games" with him, those being more cruel ways to torture him, including actions such as forcing him to drink Clorox and creating gas chambers in the bathroom for him to choke in.
4. His mother and father finally put an end to their fighting, when they get a divorce, and David's father leaves the home, leaving David with no one to protect him. The abuse persists
5. Finally, his school finds out what is going on and calls the police. David is escorted from school, and is told that he'll never have to go back to that house. He has finally been taken by CPS, and he won't need to put up with anymore abuse. He's free
Important Events in "The Lost Boy"
1. Removal from abusive home: The book begins with Dave Pelzer being removed from his abusive mother's home and placed in foster care. This event is crucial because it marks the beginning of Pelzer's journey to find a loving and stable home.

2. Struggle to form relationships: Throughout the book, Pelzer struggles to form meaningful relationships with his foster families. He is often moved from home to home and feels like an outsider. This event is significant because it highlights the challenges that children in foster care face in forming attachments and finding a sense of belonging.
3. Abuse by foster parents: Pelzer's experiences in foster care are often traumatic, and he is subjected to abuse by some of his foster parents. This event is important because it illustrates the challenges and risks that children in foster care face, even in supposedly safe and supportive environments.
4. Finding a loving foster family: Pelzer eventually finds a loving and supportive foster family in the Turnboughs. This event is significant because it represents a turning point in Pelzer's life, where he is able to find the love and stability he had been seeking for so long.
5. Overcoming past trauma: Throughout the book, Pelzer struggles to come to terms with the trauma of his childhood. However, with the help of the Turnboughs, he is able to confront his past and overcome his emotional scars. This event is important because it shows that it is possible for children who have experienced abuse and neglect to heal and build fulfilling lives.

# data[].attributes.body
The idea of resilience resonates throughout both books, being the overarching idea of both books, pushing forward no matter what, refusing to quit and give up, and always keeping some hope, knowing that better days are coming and everything will work out in the end. Pezer has to face many challenges in his life and is always wondering if he's going to be beaten, or if he's going to be whisked off to another foster home. But, he has hope and uses all of his strength and resilience not to break, and is able to make it through it all, despite everything saying he couldn't

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
What Children and Young People Need to Thrive

Our work focuses on strengthening families, building stronger communities and ensuring access to opportunity, because children and young people need all three to succeed. We advance research and solutions to overcome the barriers to success, help communities demonstrate what works and influence decision makers to invest in strategies based on solid evidence.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Annie E. Casey Foundation is developing a brighter future for children and youth at risk of poor educational, economic, social and health outcomes.

# data[].attributes.body
1. What are the common issues and challenges faced by children in the foster care system?
2. How does the foster care system impact the mental health of children and young adults in care?
3. What are the long-term outcomes for children who age out of the foster care system?

# data[].attributes.headline
Issues With The System And Outcomes Of The System As A Whole

# data[].attributes.subject
Issues With The System And Outcomes Of The System As A Whole

# data[].attributes.body
According to the Child Welfare Information Gateway, some common issues and challenges faced by children in the foster care system include:

Trauma and abuse histories

Loss of family and/or community connections

Placement instability and frequent moves

Educational difficulties and lack of continuity in schooling

Health and mental health issues

The foster care system can have a significant impact on the mental health of children and young adults in care. A study published in the Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry found that youth in foster care had higher rates of mental health problems than their peers in the general population. Additionally, children who experience placement instability and multiple moves may be at higher risk for mental health problems, including anxiety and depression.

Children who age out of the foster care system face significant challenges and often experience poor outcomes in adulthood. A study by the Jim Casey Youth Opportunities Initiative found that young adults who aged out of foster care experienced higher rates of homelessness, unemployment, and incarceration than their peers in the general population. Additionally, many of these young adults struggle to access higher education and maintain stable relationships.

# data[].attributes.headline
Issues with the Foster Care System and "The Lost Boy"

# data[].attributes.subject
Issues with the Foster Care System and "The Lost Boy"

# data[].attributes.body
The book highlights several problems with the foster care system, including:

1. Placement instability: In the book, Pelzer is moved from one foster home to another, often without warning or explanation. This kind of instability can be traumatic for children and can negatively impact their development.

2. Lack of oversight: Pelzer's foster parents are portrayed as neglectful and abusive, yet they are able to continue fostering children. The book raises questions about the lack of oversight and accountability in the foster care system.

3. Inadequate support: Pelzer's foster parents are not provided with adequate support or training to care for children with complex emotional and behavioral needs. This lack of support can contribute to placement breakdowns and the perpetuation of cycles of abuse and neglect.

"The Lost Boy" highlights the need for significant reform and improvement in the foster care system to ensure that children are placed in safe, stable, and supportive environments.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Create a new document and edit with others at the same time -- from your computer, phone or tablet. Get stuff done with or without an internet connection. Use Docs to edit Word files. Free from Google.