Cognitive Dissonance Theory

(1)

Social Psychology

(2)

Consider the following situation: You bring students into the laConsider the following situation: You bring students into the lab and b and ask them to work on a boring and repetitive task for an hour

ask them to work on a boring and repetitive task for an hour

As theyAs they’’re leaving, Ss are asked to tell the next subject coming in re leaving, Ss are asked to tell the next subject coming in that the task was very interesting

that the task was very interesting

Some Ss were paid $1 to do this, others were paid $20 to do thisSome Ss were paid $1 to do this, others were paid $20 to do this

Afterwards Ss were asked to rate how much they actually enjoyed Afterwards Ss were asked to rate how much they actually enjoyed the task on a

the task on a --5 to +5 scale5 to +5 scale

Also rated how interested they were in participating againAlso rated how interested they were in participating again

Three conditions: $1 group, $20 group, & a control group who werThree conditions: $1 group, $20 group, & a control group who were e not asked to lie to the next subject, but were simply asked how

not asked to lie to the next subject, but were simply asked how

much they liked the task and how interested they were in

participating again

Which group do you think said they enjoyed the task more? Would Which group do you think said they enjoyed the task more? Would be more interested in participating again?

be more interested in participating again?

$1$1 $20$20 ControlControl

Mean rating of task enjoyment

+1.35 +1.35 --0.050.05 --0.450.45

Same pattern for willingness to

participate again

(3)

Insufficient Justification Effect

(Festinger & Carlsmith, 1959)

-0.45 -0.62 1.35 1.2 -0.05 -0.25 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5

Enjoy? Participate again?

R a ti n g Control $1 $20

(4)

Festinger

’

s Cognitive

Dissonance Theory

This was a classic experiment carried out by

Festinger & Carlsmith

It generated a huge amount of interest and

research because Festinger & Carlsmith

correctly predicted the counterintuitive pattern

found on the basis of Festinger

’

s new theory

called cognitive dissonance theory

Furthermore, it dealt with a very important

aspect of human social interaction:

attitude

change

(5)

Cognitive Dissonance Theory

Basic idea is that people are always comparing their Basic idea is that people are always comparing their cognitions (attitudes, knowledge, beliefs) to one another

cognitions (attitudes, knowledge, beliefs) to one another

Cognitions can be related to one another in one of three Cognitions can be related to one another in one of three ways

ways

ConsonantConsonant: When you have two cognitions that fit together or : When you have two cognitions that fit together or are harmonious, you feel satisfied (consonance), e.g.,

are harmonious, you feel satisfied (consonance), e.g., ‘‘Smoking Smoking causes lung cancer

causes lung cancer’’ & & ‘‘I donI don’’t smoket smoke’’

DissonantDissonant: When you have two cognitions that don: When you have two cognitions that don’’t fit together t fit together seem contradictory, you feel uncomfortable (dissonance), e.g.,

seem contradictory, you feel uncomfortable (dissonance), e.g.,

‘

‘Smoking causes lung cancerSmoking causes lung cancer’’ & & ‘‘I smoke 2 packs a dayI smoke 2 packs a day’’

IrrelevantIrrelevant: Two cognitions may be irrelevant, e.g., : Two cognitions may be irrelevant, e.g., ‘‘ItIt’’s raining s raining outside

(6)

Cognitive Dissonance

Cognitive dissonance Cognitive dissonance –– An unpleasant internal state of tension that An unpleasant internal state of tension that results when people notice inconsistencies in their cognitions (

results when people notice inconsistencies in their cognitions (about about attitudes, beliefs and behaviors)

attitudes, beliefs and behaviors)

The most common source: AttitudeThe most common source: Attitude--behavior discrepanciesbehavior discrepancies

People are motivated to reduce dissonancePeople are motivated to reduce dissonance

Three ways to reduce dissonanceThree ways to reduce dissonance

Change one of the cognitions (either the attitude or behavior)Change one of the cognitions (either the attitude or behavior)

Stop smokingStop smoking

Change my belief that smoking causes lung cancerChange my belief that smoking causes lung cancer

Add more consonant cognitionsAdd more consonant cognitions

II’’m addicted so I canm addicted so I can’’t quitt quit

I enjoy smokingI enjoy smoking

I use filters that trap all the bad stuffI use filters that trap all the bad stuff

Reduce the importance of relevant cognitionsReduce the importance of relevant cognitions

(7)

How Does Dissonance Theory Explain the

Festinger & Carlsmith Results?

-0.45 -0.62 1.35 1.2 -0.05 -0.25 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5

Enjoy? Participate again?

R a ti n g Control $1 $20

(8)

Dissonance Theory Explanation of

the Festinger & Carlsmith Results

What produced the dissonance?

AttitudeAttitude--discrepant behavior: The task was boring; I discrepant behavior: The task was boring; I told someone the task was interesting

told someone the task was interesting

Which of the 3 conditions had the most

dissonance to be reduced?

The $1 conditionThe $1 condition

$20 is a cognition that$20 is a cognition that’’s highly consonant with telling s highly consonant with telling the person the task was interesting

the person the task was interesting

Ss in the control condition never engaged in attitudeSs in the control condition never engaged in attitude- -discrepant behavior

discrepant behavior

Consequently, the most attitude change would

be expected in the $1 condition

(9)

Insufficient Justification Effect

Replication

In CohenIn Cohen’’s study he went into dorms at Yale after a s study he went into dorms at Yale after a student

student--police altercation and had Ss write propolice altercation and had Ss write pro--police police essays for varying amounts of money

essays for varying amounts of money

After writing the essay Ss were asked to rate their true After writing the essay Ss were asked to rate their true attitude toward the police (high numbers = more positive

attitude toward the police (high numbers = more positive

attitude) attitude) $.50 $.50 $1 $1 $5 $5 $10 $10 Control Control

Attitude toward police

4.54 4.54 3.47 3.47 3.08 3.08 2.32 2.32 2.70 2.70

(10)

When Prophecy Fails

Leon Festinger, Henry

Riecken

, & Stanley

Schachter

September 1954,

Lake City Herald

headline...

PROPHECY FROM PLANET. CLARION CALL TO

CITY: FLEE THAT FLOOD, IT

CITY: FLEE THAT FLOOD, IT’’LL SWAMP US ON DEC. LL SWAMP US ON DEC. 21, OUTER SPACE TELLS SUBURBANITE.

21, OUTER SPACE TELLS SUBURBANITE.

The Story of Mrs.

The Story of Mrs. KeechKeech

Good example of the technique of

participant

observation

(11)

Dissonance Theory Predictions

Festinger,

Riecken

, &

Schacter

predicted

that when the catastrophe failed to

materialize, group members would

experience high dissonance

They predicted dissonance reduction by

adding consonant cognitions would be the

easiest way to reduce dissonance

Hence, they expected an increase in

efforts to recruit new members

(12)

Forbidden Toy Paradigm

(Aronson & Carlsmith, 1963)

Child shown 5 toys varying in attractiveness

Child asked to rank toys in order of liking

2

ndnd

ranked toy placed on table

3 experimental conditions; in all 3 experimenter

says she has to leave for awhile

No threat (control)No threat (control): :

Places toy in sight but out of reachPlaces toy in sight but out of reach

Mild threatMild threat: :

““I donI don’’t want you to play with the ___. If you play with it, I t want you to play with the ___. If you play with it, I would be annoyed.

would be annoyed.””

Severe threatSevere threat: :

““I donI don’’t want you to play with the ___. If you play with it, I t want you to play with the ___. If you play with it, I would be very angry.

would be very angry.””

When experimenter returns, the child is asked to

rank the toys again

(13)

Results and Analysis

Interest was in changes in attitude toward (i.e., Interest was in changes in attitude toward (i.e., attractiveness of) the forbidden toy

attractiveness of) the forbidden toy

What would dissonance theory predict? What produces What would dissonance theory predict? What produces the dissonance here? What

the dissonance here? What’’s the attitude and the attitudes the attitude and the attitude- -discrepant behavior?

discrepant behavior?

In which condition would the dissonance to be reduced be In which condition would the dissonance to be reduced be greatest? How could that dissonance be reduced?

greatest? How could that dissonance be reduced?

Mild threat: Mild threat:

attitudeattitude--behavior inconsistency behavior inconsistency dissonance dissonance effort to reduce effort to reduce alter attitude

alter attitude

Experimenters returned 40 days later and had kids Experimenters returned 40 days later and had kids rerankrerank the toys: Changes in attractiveness of the forbidden toy

the toys: Changes in attractiveness of the forbidden toy

persisted

persisted——thus, it was not a temporary attitude changethus, it was not a temporary attitude change

Condition Condition Mild Threat Mild Threat Severe Threat Severe Threat No Threat No Threat

Ranking of Forbidden Toy

Increased Same Decreased

4 10 8 4 10 8 14 8 0 14 8 0 7 4 0 7 4 0

(14)

Implications of Dissonance Theory

Interpretation of Forbidden Toy Paradigm

To achieve maximum attitude change, the

person needs to engage in attitude

-

discrepant

behavior

This should be accomplished with as mild a

threat as possible so that dissonance is not

reduced by the threat and must be reduced by

attitude change instead

(15)

Insufficient Justification Effect Experiments

and Alternative Explanations

Many studies were carried out looking at the insufficient Many studies were carried out looking at the insufficient justification effect and the conditions under which it

justification effect and the conditions under which it

occurred

The effect turned out to be easy to replicateThe effect turned out to be easy to replicate

The conditions under which it occurred were generally consistentThe conditions under which it occurred were generally consistent with a dissonance theory explanation

with a dissonance theory explanation

Dissonance theory, however, wasnDissonance theory, however, wasn’’t the only explanation t the only explanation developed to account for the results from insufficient

developed to account for the results from insufficient

justification experiments

Dissonance theory premise: Attitude change is driven by Dissonance theory premise: Attitude change is driven by an aversive arousal state (dissonance, an unpleasant

an aversive arousal state (dissonance, an unpleasant

state of tension)

Darryl Darryl BemBem, an attribution theorist, suggested an , an attribution theorist, suggested an alternative interpretation

alternative interpretation

Attribution theorists study how people think about the Attribution theorists study how people think about the causes their own and others

(16)

Bem

’

s Self Perception Theory

People observe their OWN behavior and the context in which it People observe their OWN behavior and the context in which it occurs

occurs

People use their observations of their own behavior to draw People use their observations of their own behavior to draw inferences about what their attitudes must be

inferences about what their attitudes must be

Example: Do you like whole wheat bread? Well, I guess I must sinExample: Do you like whole wheat bread? Well, I guess I must since I ce I buy it every time I go to the store

buy it every time I go to the store

Assuming that people do this provides an alternative explanationAssuming that people do this provides an alternative explanation for for the insufficient justification effect

the insufficient justification effect——one that doesnone that doesn’’t require t require dissonance (unpleasant state of tension) to drive the attitude c

dissonance (unpleasant state of tension) to drive the attitude changehange

BemBem’’s explanation of the Festinger & Carlsmith result postulated s explanation of the Festinger & Carlsmith result postulated that when Ss were asked how much they enjoyed the task they

that when Ss were asked how much they enjoyed the task they

simply looked at their own behavior (coldly, rationally

simply looked at their own behavior (coldly, rationally——no tension)no tension)

$20: infer behavior due to money$20: infer behavior due to money

$1: infer behavior due to attitude$1: infer behavior due to attitude

Critical features of self perception:Critical features of self perception:

Made same predictions as dissonance theoryMade same predictions as dissonance theory

But more parsimonious; therefore, in the absence of better evideBut more parsimonious; therefore, in the absence of better evidence, it nce, it would be preferred

would be preferred

(17)

Bem

’

s Replication of Cohen

’

s Study

To support his argument, To support his argument, BemBem replicated Cohenreplicated Cohen’’s pros pro--police essay police essay study, but without having his subjects engage in attitude

study, but without having his subjects engage in attitude--discrepant discrepant behavior

behavior

He asked his subjects simply to read a proHe asked his subjects simply to read a pro--police essay and told police essay and told them how much the writer had been paid to write the essay (using

them how much the writer had been paid to write the essay (using

the same monetary conditions Cohen had used)

Then he asked them to make a judgment about the essay writerThen he asked them to make a judgment about the essay writer’’s s true attitude toward the police

true attitude toward the police

He found the same pattern that Cohen did and argued that He found the same pattern that Cohen did and argued that dissonance reduction could not be the explanation in his later s

dissonance reduction could not be the explanation in his later study tudy because subjects never engaged in any attitude

because subjects never engaged in any attitude--discrepant discrepant behavior, so no dissonance was ever aroused

behavior, so no dissonance was ever aroused

Thus, he argued postulating the need to reduce an unpleasant staThus, he argued postulating the need to reduce an unpleasant state te of psychological tension is unnecessary to account for the

of psychological tension is unnecessary to account for the

insufficient justification effect

This controversy between self perception theory and dissonance This controversy between self perception theory and dissonance theory generated a huge amount of research

theory generated a huge amount of research

It turned out that each theory accounted for some results but noIt turned out that each theory accounted for some results but not all, t all, so both effects appear to be operative in the insufficient justi

so both effects appear to be operative in the insufficient justification fication effect

(18)

Additional Implications of Self

Perception Theory

Self perception theory is a form of attribution theory Self perception theory is a form of attribution theory which commonly makes a distinction between internal

which commonly makes a distinction between internal

(dispositional) and external (situational) causes of

behavior

Self perception theorists argue that when people see Self perception theorists argue that when people see their own behavior in a task as internally caused they

their own behavior in a task as internally caused they

attribute their behavior to their own intrinsic interest in

the task (intrinsic motivation)

When people see their behavior in a task as resulting When people see their behavior in a task as resulting from external inducements they attribute their behavior

from external inducements they attribute their behavior

to those extrinsic inducements (extrinsic motivation)

By varying levels of intrinsic and extrinsic rewards By varying levels of intrinsic and extrinsic rewards

associated with a task one arrives at differing predicted

self perceptions of motivation

(19)

Insufficient and Oversufficient

Justification Effects

Oversufficient Oversufficient Justification Justification (Unstable perception) (Unstable perception) Stable perception of Stable perception of intrinsic motivation intrinsic motivation High High Stable perception of Stable perception of extrinsic motivation extrinsic motivation Insufficient Justification Insufficient Justification (Unstable perception) (Unstable perception) Low Low Level of Level of Intrinsic Intrinsic Reward Reward High High Low Low

Level of Extrinsic Reward

(20)

Oversufficient Justification Effect

Both dissonance theory and self perception

theory predict the insufficient justification effect,

namely, that individuals in an insufficient

justification situation will be motivated to change

their attitude toward the task and see it as more

intrinsically interesting

Only self perception theory predicts an

oversufficient justification effect, namely, that if

high extrinsic reward is added to an already

intrinsically interesting task, interest in the task

will be undermined

(21)

Evidence for an Oversufficient

Justification Effect

‘‘Magic MarkerMagic Marker’’ study (study (LepperLepper, Greene, & , Greene, & NisbettNisbett, 1973), 1973)

Observed that 3Observed that 3--5 year old kids love playing with magic markers5 year old kids love playing with magic markers

All kids were told they could play with magic markers for awhileAll kids were told they could play with magic markers for awhile, but , but kids were randomly assigned to one of 3 groups

kids were randomly assigned to one of 3 groups

Expected Reward (received the Expected Reward (received the ‘‘Good Player AwardGood Player Award’’))

Unexpected Reward (unexpectedly received Unexpected Reward (unexpectedly received ‘‘Good Player AwardGood Player Award’’ at at end of time)

end of time)

No RewardNo Reward

Several weeks later, kidsSeveral weeks later, kids’’ regular teacher brought out magic regular teacher brought out magic markers along with other play materials

markers along with other play materials

Experimenters observed how much time kids spent playing with Experimenters observed how much time kids spent playing with magic markers when they could play with any of the materials

magic markers when they could play with any of the materials

Also had judges (blind to condition) rate the quality of drawingAlso had judges (blind to condition) rate the quality of drawings s made

made

Intrinsic interest in drawing with magic markers AFTER award Intrinsic interest in drawing with magic markers AFTER award received (or not received) was operationally defined as the perc

received (or not received) was operationally defined as the percent ent of free

(22)

Magic Marker Study Magic Marker Study

Lepper, Greene, & Nisbett (1975)

8.6 16.7 18.1 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Expected Expected Reward Reward Unexpected Unexpected Reward Reward No No Reward Reward % T im e P la y e d w it h M a g ic M a rk e rs % T im e P la y e d w it h M a g ic M a rk e rs Note

Note. Judges also rated the drawings to be of poorer quality in the . Judges also rated the drawings to be of poorer quality in the Expected RewardExpected Reward condition than in the other conditions

(23)

Should we never reward children?

Extrinsic rewards probably don

’

t undermine

interest for behaviors that

aren

’

t intrinsically

rewarding

Tangible awards should be

just large enough

to encourage activity

to encourage activity –

–

decrease in intrinsic

motivation is inversely related to extrinsic

reward

Intangible rewards (verbal praise) probably

helpful all the time

Implications

(24)

Attribution Theory

Attribution theory has been a major area of study

in social psychology

Attribution theorists study how people think about

the causes their own and others

’

behavior and

commonly make a distinction between internal

(dispositional) and external (situational) causes

of behavior

Attribution theory tries to delineate the conditions

that distinguish when people will attribute

behavior to internal causes vs external causes

One bias that people seem to exhibit in their

attributions is so consistent that it has been

called the

(25)

Fundamental Attribution Error

The tendency to overestimate the importance of

personal dispositions (internal attributions) in

determining behavior and underestimate the

importance of situations (external attributions)

We have a preference for internal attributions

Actor

-

Observer Effect

The Fundamental Attribution Error is stronger when The Fundamental Attribution Error is stronger when perceiving others than when perceiving the self

perceiving others than when perceiving the self

We make more internal/dispositional attributions of We make more internal/dispositional attributions of others and more situational attributions of self

others and more situational attributions of self

The Fundamental Attribution Error probably

accounts for the

‘

surprisingness

’

of many of the

classic findings in social psychology

(26)

Stanley Milgram

’

s (1963) Obedience Studies

Purpose of studies: Find out the conditions under which Purpose of studies: Find out the conditions under which people would be willing to harm others simply in

people would be willing to harm others simply in

obedience to an authority figure

Impetus was the observation that in WWII many in Impetus was the observation that in WWII many in

Germany used obedience to authority as a justification for

inhumane behavior

Milgram brought 2 subjects into lab, however, only 1 was Milgram brought 2 subjects into lab, however, only 1 was a real subject; the other was a confederate

a real subject; the other was a confederate

A rigged coin flip always assigned the real subject to be A rigged coin flip always assigned the real subject to be the

the ‘‘Teacher,Teacher,’’ the confederate the the confederate the ‘‘LearnerLearner’’

Subject (teacher) was instructed to administer electric Subject (teacher) was instructed to administer electric shocks for wrong answers

shocks for wrong answers

Shocks would intensify with successive wrong answers Shocks would intensify with successive wrong answers (15

(27)

Milgram

’

s Obedience Experiments

Both teacher and learner Both teacher and learner were initially hooked up

were initially hooked up

to shock generator to feel

the shock

In the main study, In the main study,

teachers then went to

another room with the

experimenter and

communicated with the

learner via intercom

Some studies varied the Some studies varied the proximity between

proximity between

teacher and learner

(28)

One condition was

the Touch

-

Proximity

condition seen here

(29)

Milgram

(30)

Learner

’

s Schedule of Protests 1

120: 120: ““ugh! Hey, ugh! Hey, thisthis really hurts.really hurts.””

150: 150: ““ugh!!! Experimenter! Thatugh!!! Experimenter! That’’s all. Get me out of here. s all. Get me out of here. I told you I had heart trouble. My heart

I told you I had heart trouble. My heart’’s starting to s starting to bother me now. Get me out of here, please. My heart

bother me now. Get me out of here, please. My heart’’s s starting to bother me. I refuse to go on. Let me out.

starting to bother me. I refuse to go on. Let me out.””

195: similar to 150195: similar to 150

210: 210: ““Ugh!! Experimenter! Ugh!! Experimenter! GetGet me out of here. Ime out of here. I’’ve had ve had enough. I

enough. I wonwon’’tt be in the experiment any more.be in the experiment any more.””

270: (agonized scream) 270: (agonized scream) ““Let me out of here (x6)Let me out of here (x6)””

(31)

Learner

’

s Schedule of Protests 2

300: (agonized scream) 300: (agonized scream) ““I absolutely refuse to answer I absolutely refuse to answer any more. Get me out of here. You can

any more. Get me out of here. You can’’t hold me heret hold me here…”…”

315: (intensely agonized scream) 315: (intensely agonized scream) ““I told you I refuse to I told you I refuse to answer

answer. I. I’’m no longer part of this experiment.m no longer part of this experiment.””

330: (intense and prolonged agonized scream) 330: (intense and prolonged agonized scream) ““Let me Let me out of here (x2). My heart

out of here (x2). My heart’’s bothering me s bothering me ……. .

(hysterically) Let me out of here (x2). You have no right

to hold me here. Let me out! (x6).

to hold me here. Let me out! (x6).””

(32)

Experimenter

’

s

Schedule of Prods

Prod 1:

“

Please continue

”

or

“

Please go

on

”

Prod 2:

“

The experiment requires that

you continue

”

Prod 3:

“

It is absolutely essential that

you continue

”

Prod 4:

“

You have no other choice, you

must

(33)

Results of Milgram

Results of Milgram’’s Studies of Obediences Studies of Obedience

(34)

Surprising Results

Why do Milgram

’

s results seem so

surprising?

Probably in part because we tend to make

the Fundamental Attribution Error

The situation was extremely powerful in

Milgram

(35)

The Milgram Controversy

MilgramMilgram’’s study was widely criticized and led to a s study was widely criticized and led to a great deal of concern for the naive subject. Soon

great deal of concern for the naive subject. Soon

after,

after, human subjects committeeshuman subjects committees were were

developed to review all social science research

proposals.

The human subject committee requiresThe human subject committee requires::

1) Informed consent

2) Careful (and infrequent) use of deception

3) Thorough debriefing

(36)

Asch

’

s Conformity Studies

Line

Line--Judgment TaskJudgment Task

Participants were asked to indicate which of three

lines best matched a standard line after a unanimous

group gives wrong answer

(37)

Asch

’

s Conformity Results

Subjects conformed to false majority on 37% of critical Subjects conformed to false majority on 37% of critical

trials

76% of subjects conformed at least once (much 76% of subjects conformed at least once (much

variability)

As group size increased (up to about 5 or 6) conformity As group size increased (up to about 5 or 6) conformity

increased, after that group size had little effect

When given an ally (even if they disagreed with subject), When given an ally (even if they disagreed with subject),

conformity decreased to 8%

When responses made privately, almost no one When responses made privately, almost no one

conformed

Again, Again, surprisingnesssurprisingness of results probably due in part to of results probably due in part to

Fundamental Attribution Error

(38)

Altruism or Helping Behavior

In 1964 Kitty Genovese (New York City ) was sexually assaulted In 1964 Kitty Genovese (New York City ) was sexually assaulted and stabbed eight times.

and stabbed eight times.

Overall the attack lasted for over 35 minutes Overall the attack lasted for over 35 minutes

The killer was scared off twice by Kitty's screams and strugglesThe killer was scared off twice by Kitty's screams and struggles ("Oh my God, he stabbed me! Please help me! Please help me!"),

("Oh my God, he stabbed me! Please help me! Please help me!"),

and by the voices and lights of the 38 people who watched from

their windows.

As no one intervened, however, he returned each time to attack As no one intervened, however, he returned each time to attack again. No one even called the police during the attack. Only 1

again. No one even called the police during the attack. Only 1

person belatedly called the police after the attack was over

When apartment tenants were interviewed later they said they When apartment tenants were interviewed later they said they saw the attack but were afraid to

saw the attack but were afraid to ‘‘get involvedget involved’’

Work on altruism is purported to have started with the breakingWork on altruism is purported to have started with the breaking of of this story. Two social psychologists (Latane and Darley) read th

this story. Two social psychologists (Latane and Darley) read the e

reports of this horrific attack and started to consider why, des

reports of this horrific attack and started to consider why, despite pite

the length and severity of the attack, no one even called the po

the length and severity of the attack, no one even called the policelice

Darley & Darley & LataneLatane’’ss work suggested that problem here was work suggested that problem here was probably one they called

(39)

6 [subject, victim, 4 others]

3 [subject, victim, 1 other]

2 [subject, victim] 2 [subject, victim] % in 6 % in 6 minutes minutes % by end of % by end of seizure seizure Group size Group size

Bystander Intervention Research:

Diffusion of Responsibility

Darley

&

Latane

(1968)

–

epileptic seizure study

85 62 31 100 85 62

(40)

Darley

& Batson (1973)

“

Good Samaritan

”

study

Princeton Theology Seminary students were on

their way to give a sermon about

“

The Good

Samaritan

”

Subjects were deliberately made to be early, on

-

-time, or late

time, or late

On their way through an alley, the seminary

students found a man slumped in a doorway,

coughing and groaning

What do you think they did?

Noticing the Situation

(41)

2. On Time 2. On Time 1. Late 1. Late % helping % helping Darley

Darley & Batson (1973) & Batson (1973) –– Good SamaritanGood Samaritan 10

65

Noticing the Situation

Question

: Did being late simply make the

students less caring about the well

students less caring about the well-

-being of

being of

the person needing help?

(42)

Probably not the entire explanation

students in a rush were preoccupiedstudents in a rush were preoccupied

didndidn’’t pick up on all the relevant social cuest pick up on all the relevant social cues

didndidn’’t interpret the man on the ground as t interpret the man on the ground as someone potentially in need of help

(43)

2. Two others 2. Two others 1. Alone 1. Alone % help (6 min). % help (6 min). % help (2 min.) % help (2 min.) Latane

Latane & & DarleyDarley (1968) (1968) –– smoke filled roomsmoke filled room 50

12

Bystander Intervention Research:

Situational Ambiguity

73 38

(44)

Question:

Why does having other people

around make such a difference

?

(45)

Answer:

Pluralistic Ignorance

If there is any ambiguity, people look to others to If there is any ambiguity, people look to others to see if they are reacting

see if they are reacting

Unfortunately, everyone else does the same thing, Unfortunately, everyone else does the same thing, so no one reacts

(46)

Steps Leading to Intervention

Awareness

Definition of emergency

Personal responsibility

Decide how to intervene