Does the Presence of Friends or StrangerContribute to Bystander Intervention of High

Versus Low Self-Monitoring Individuals in Emergency Situations?

Chandler SullivanNorwich University

AbstractBystander intervention has been a popular topic of social psychology studies since the murder of Kitty Genovese in New York during the 1960s. Past literature has also raised the question of motivation to help and what internal and external factors influence an individual’s likeliness to intervene in a situation. However, different self-monitoring personality types in relation to bystander intervention in the presence of friends and strangers have not yet been observed together. This experiment will predict that high self-monitoring bystanders will be more likely to intervene than low self-monitoring individuals and low self-monitoring individuals will be more likely to intervene when in the presence of strangers than with friends. A quasi-experimental analysis with a correlation variable will be conducted after showing friend and stranger groups with high and low-self monitoring individuals a scene in which they must decide whether or not to intervene and why. These questions will be answered after being given the Self-Monitoring Scale and answering an experimenter questionnaire.

Introduction Kitty Genovese and her unfortunate death made headlines

throughout the country in the 1960’s. The circumstances of the crime gave rise to many questions and eventually research regarding motivation for helping in certain situations, also known as bystander intervention.

Self-monitoring can be thought of in respect to motivation to help others (Flynn et al., 2006). Flynn, Reagans, Amanatullah, and Ames (2006) inferred that “high self-monitors” interact with others differently than people with lesser self-monitoring abilities.

The overarching hypothesis is that “perceived generosity would mediate the relationship between self-monitoring and social status” (p. 4).

Introduction They found that people with heightened self-monitoring

abilities desire higher social standing which motivates them to act accordingly around others

High self-monitors are increasingly aware of the social interactions among others

High self-monitors are more capable of gaining status among their work peers than low self-monitors by creating the façade of kindness or willingness to help

Significance in high self-monitors’ ability to correctly comprehend the interactions between people in their environment and surroundings

Introduction The researchers insinuate that follow-up investigation of the

long-term effects of the generous habits of self-monitors might be useful for further information on this topic (Flynn et al., 2006).

To accompany the results of this study on self-monitoring and helping and the results of other studies on intervention in an emergency, other questions can be raised.

Research Question

Do high self-monitoring individuals more frequently engage in bystander intervention than low self-monitoring individuals in emergency situations?

Hypothesis Self-monitoring will affect bystander intervention

-High self-monitoring individuals will be more likely to engage in bystander intervention

-Low self-monitoring individuals will be less likely to engage in bystander intervention

Familiarity of people present will affect bystander intervention-Presence of friends or strangers will increase bystander

intervention

Self-monitoring individuals will interact with people present to affect bystander intervention in emergency situations

-There will be no interaction between high self-monitoring individuals and familiarity of people present

-Low self-monitoring individuals will be more likely to intervene with strangers than with friends

Method

Participants

47 students from the Norwich University Corps of Cadets ranging from freshmen to seniors participated in this experiment on a voluntary basis.

Method

Materials

Snyder’s (1974) Self-Monitoring Scale was used to measure high and low self-monitoring behavior. SMS holds a reliability score of .83

It consists of 25 self-descriptive statements regarding behavior in the presence of others with a true/false response

-My behavior is usually an expression of my true inner feelings, attitudes, and beliefs. -I may deceive people by being friendly when I really dislike them.

Score of 15-22 is considered high self-monitor Score of 9-14 is considered intermediate self-monitor Score of 0-8 is considered low self-monitor

Method

Materials

An experimenter questionnaire was used to measure bystander intervention

Questionnaire consisted of 12 total questions regarding motives for intervening based on internal and external factors

-I believe that intervening is the right thing to do whenever help is needed.

-Help seemed necessary but I would not intervene because I would not want to be the only one to intervene.

Answered using Likert Scale 1 = strong disagreement, 7 = strong agreement

Behavioral rating/observation made by experimenter when presenting stimulus to participants requiring a decision to intervene or not

Method

Procedure

Groups of friends and strangers were instructed to meet in a classroom on different evenings and varying time brackets to ensure that friends and strangers would not be interacting during any part of the experiment

-Friend group consisted of 18 total people (2 sessions, 9 participants per session)

-Stranger group consisted of 29 total people (2 sessions, 20 participants in a session 9 participants in other session) First meeting for all groups consisted of introduction, distribution of ID

numbers to be written in place of names, Informed Consent form completion, counseling information slip distribution, and explanation and completion of SMS

Groups instructed to return two nights later during same time at same location if available

Method

Procedure

Second meeting for all groups began with reiteration of University counseling service information before presenting a 2 minute long video clip of emergency situation

Participants broke up into sub-groups of 3-5 people prior to the viewing

Informed participants that they could leave if uncomfortable during viewing of the scene then proceeded to play video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVTSrECFj6o Groups had 5 minutes to discuss what they would do as a

bystander in that exact situation; instructed to talk among themselves as I prepared to distribute bystander intervention questionnaire

Method

Procedure

Behavioral rating took place when I presented stimulus to only the stranger group by dropping intervention questionnaires during their distribution and recorded the number of people who helped

Questionnaires were completed individually with participant’s ID number written at the top before submitting

When all were submitted, I informed the stranger group of the deceptive behavioral rating

After all groups had been tested I thanked them for their participation and informed them that I would provide the results to those interested

Method

Data Analysis

The dependent variable being tested was bystander intervention

The independent variables being tested were self-monitoring and familiarity

A Univariate ANOVA was run to test for an interaction between self-monitoring and familiarity with bystander intervention

ResultsSelf-Monitors & Bystander Intervention

On Bystander Intervention Questionnaire, a score of 48 is average and 84 is the highest possible score

For low self-monitoring individuals, the total mean intervention score was 49.00

For medium self-monitoring individuals, the total mean intervention score was 49.33

For high self-monitoring individuals, the total mean intervention score was 47.44

Medium self-monitoring individuals had highest total mean intervention score and high self-monitoring individuals had the lowest total mean intervention score.

These results do not support the hypotheses that high self-monitoring individuals are more likely to engage in bystander intervention or that low self-monitoring individuals will be less likely to engage in bystander intervention.

Results

Familiarity & Bystander Intervention

For friends and strangers, the total mean intervention score was 48.54

For friends, the total mean intervention score was 48.33

For strangers, the total mean intervention score was 48.68

In a univariate ANOVA, familiarity was not significant, p =.679

These results did not support the hypothesis that familiarity with friends and strangers will increase bystander intervention.

Results

Self-Monitoring, Familiarity, & Bystander Intervention

In a univariate ANOVA, there was a significant interaction between self-monitoring and familiarity that affected bystander intervention, F =4.221, p =.022

High self-monitoring individuals were more likely to intervene when in the presence of strangers while low-self monitoring individuals were more likely to intervene when in the presence of friends.

These results did not support the hypothesis that low self-monitoring individuals will be more likely to intervene when in the presence of strangers. The hypothesis that high self-monitoring individuals and familiarity would have no interaction was not supported.

Results High and Low Self-Monitoring 1

Table 1. Means & Interactions for Bystander Intervention in Self-Monitoring and Familiarity. Self-Monitoring Familiarity Mean Intervention Score Low Stranger 43.67 Friend 53.00 Total 49.00 Medium Stranger 50.09 Friend 48.50 Total 49.33 High Stranger 48.64 Friend 43.25 Total 47.44 Total Stranger 48.68 Friend 48.33 Total 48.54 F 1.518 F .174 P .232 p .679

F 4.221 p .022

p<.05

ResultsGraph 1. Mean Intervention Score for Self-Monitoring and Familiarity.

Discussion

Although some of the self-monitoring related results were not in line with the intended predictions, there were still distinct patterns found. Interestingly, low self-monitoring individuals had a higher total mean intervention score than high self-monitoring individuals which contradicts the hypothesis that high self-monitoring individuals would have a higher intervention score. Medium self-monitoring individuals were not included in the original hypothesis, but it is noteworthy that these people were found to have the highest total mean intervention score. This raises the possibility of these medium labelled individuals being borderline low or high self-monitors and the impact that might have had on intervention. A second possibility is that medium self-monitoring individuals possess both the crowd-pleasing qualities of high self-monitoring people as well as the inherent helping behavior of low self-monitoring people.

Discussion

Additionally, medium self-monitoring individuals accrued the highest total mean intervention score with strangers, which was higher than the predicted low self-monitoring individuals’ results. Although familiarity was not found to play a significant role in determining whether people would intervene or not, the intervention scores indicated above average results leaving room for further inquiry as to what other factors contributed to this higher willingness to intervene. Despite the fact that the final results did not support the interaction that was predicted, a significant interaction was found nonetheless between familiarity and self-monitoring in bystander intervention. In addition, only one individual intervened in response to the dropping of papers in the experiment. It is accurate to conclude that the manner of performing this behavioral observation was flawed. The results imply that future studies should be conducted to further investigate the nature of what was found.

Discussion

Future Study

Reasons to why medium self-monitoring individuals in particular are more likely to intervene

Alter the behavioral condition so that it is more pertinent to the situation at hand. Not only would this more realistic situation provide more realistic and genuine behavioral results, but it would also be more noticeable and emotion-provoking to the subjects

Consider ways in which to conduct an observation that would not cause potential distress to the subjects witnessing the situation

Conduct this experiment on a larger scale, to ensure that the participants in the stranger group are truly unknowing strangers, rather than people who might see each other on campus despite never having met before

Conclusion

The difference in likelihood to intervene overall between high and low self-monitors is not great. Familiarity alone was not found to affect bystander intervention significantly. Although my hypotheses were not supported, a distinct interaction was found between self-monitoring and familiarity that effected bystander intervention significantly. The overarching concept that can be taken away from this experiment is that if there is a significant interaction between self-monitoring and familiarity that effect bystander intervention, research on this topic should be improved and expanded upon to ultimately raise awareness about the importance of intervention in emergency situations.

ReferencesBanyard, B.L. (2011). Who will help prevent sexual violence: Creating an ecological model of bystander intervention. Psychology of Violence, Vol 1(3), 216-229, doi:10.1037/a0023739Banyard, V.L., McMahon, S., (2011). When can I help? A conceptual framework for the prevention of sexual violence through bystander intervention. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse 13(1), 3-14, doi: 10.1177/1524838011426015Banyard, V.L., Moynihan, M.M., (2011), Variation in bystander behavior related to

sexual and intimate partner violence prevention: Correlates in a sample of college students. Psychology of Violence, Vol 1(4), 287-301, doi:

10.1037/a0023544Cappadocia, M.C., Pepler, D., Cummings, J.G., Craig, W. (2012). Individual motivations and characteristics associated with bystander intervention during bullying episodes among children and youth. Canadian Journal of School Psychology 27(3), 201-216, doi: 10.1177/0829573512450567Fischer, P., Krueger, J.I., Greitemeyer, T., Vogrincic, C., Kastenmuller, A., Frey, D., . . .

Kainbacher, M. (2011). The bystander-effect: A meta-analytic review on bystander intervention in dangerous and non-dangerous

emergencies. Psychological Bulletin, 137(4), 517-537, doi: 10.1037/a0023304Flynn, F.J., Reagans, R.E., Amanatullah, E.T., Ames, D.R. (2006). Helping one’s way to

the top: Self-monitors achieve status by helping others and knowing who helps whom. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol 91(6), 1123-1137. doi: 10.1037/0022 3514.91.6.1123

ReferencesLeary, M.R., Allen, A.B. (2011). Self-presentational persona: Simultaneous management of multiple impressions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol 101(5), 1033 1049. doi: 10.1037/a0023884Levine, M., Crowther, S., (2008). The responsive bystander: How social group

membership and group size can encourage as well as inhibit bystander intervention. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol 95(6), 1429-1439, doi: 10.1037/a0012634

Manning, R., Levine, M., Collins, A. (2007). The Kitty Genovese murder and the social Psychology of helping: The parable of the 38 witnesses. American Psychologists Vol 62(6), 555-562, doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.62.6.555

Weinstein, N., Ryan, R.M. (2010). When helping helps: Autonomous motivation for prosocial behavior and its influence on well-being for the helper and recipient. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol 98(2), 222-244. doi: 10.1037/a0016984