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 University June 6, 2013
Dec 27, 2015
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)