Anticipation of future interaction and the bystander effect
Anticipation of future interaction and the bystander effect
复制标题
对未来互动的预期和旁观者效应
DOI：
10.1016/0022-1031(80)90068-2
复制
发表时间：
1980
影响因子：
3.5
通讯作者：
C. Carver
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
J. Gottlieb;C. Carver
先前的研究表明，在紧急情况下，当有其他目击者时，人们提供帮助的速度会比没有目击者时慢。这一发现被称为旁观者效应。然而，在证明这种效应的研究中，其他证人无一例外都是匿名的，他们与被试者没有任何关系，而且被试者可能也不希望再与他们互动。本研究检验了参与后续与其他旁观者面对面互动的期望会导致旁观者效应最小化的假设。女大学生被引导相信，在一个表面上的小组讨论中，她们不会与其他参与者有任何个人接触，或者参与者随后会参与面对面的讨论。然后，每个受试者都通过对讲机参与了一个她认为是匿名的讨论，除了她自己之外，还有一个人或五个人。在此期间，一个表面上的共同实验对象经历了一次窒息发作。期待未来互动的受试者比不期待未来互动的受试者提供帮助的速度更快。在没有未来互动的条件下，六人组比二人组的帮助延迟更长，但是，虽然在相同的方向上，可比较的差异在期望互动的受试者中并不可靠。在探索性条件下，男性“共同受试者”的存在并没有抑制帮助。讨论集中在研究结果的更广泛含义上。
Previous research suggests that people are slower to offer help in an emergency when there are other witnesses than when there are not. This finding has come to be known as the bystander effect. In research that has demonstrated this effect, however, the other witnesses were invariably anonymous others who had no relationship with the subject and with whom the subject probably did not expect to interact again. The present research examined the hypothesis that the expectation of participating in subsequent face-to-face interaction with other bystanders would cause the bystander effect to be minimized. Female college students were led to believe either that they would have no personal contact with the other participants in an ostensible group discussion, or that the participants would be involved in a later face-to-face discussion session. Each subject then participated in what she believed to be an anonymous discussion via intercoms, involving either one person or five persons beside herself. During this period, an ostensible co-subject experienced a choking fit. Help was offered more quickly among subjects who expected future interaction than among those who did not. In the no future interaction condition, latencies to help were longer in six-member than in two-member groups, but the comparable difference, although in the same direction, was not reliable among subjects who expected interaction. Presence of male “co-subjects” in an exploratory condition failed to inhibit helping. Discussion centers on the broader implications of the findings.