Skip to main content
Book cover

International Conference on Internet Science

INSCI 2019: Internet Science pp 153–167Cite as

The Online Bystander Effect: Evidence from a Study on Synchronous Facebook Communications

Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNISA,volume 11938)

Abstract

According to the Bystander Effect, the tendency to help a victim in a problematic situation decreases with the number of spectators to whom the request for help is made The main aim of this study is to investigate this phenomenon in an online environment characterised by synchronous communication. This paper evaluates how some subjective variables and the participants’ familiarity with online interactions can affect the tendency to help others. The results of the study show that the Bystander Effect is present even in online environments. In particular, the results indicate that the tendency to help decreases not linearly with the increasing of the group size which received the help request. Moreover, the familiarity that a person has with online interactions has a significant association with his tendency to help. Finally, the general self-efficacy and social desirability appear as predictors of Bystander behaviour during online interactions with a victim.

Keywords

  • Bystander effect
  • Online social dynamics
  • Online prosocial behaviour

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-34770-3_12
  • Chapter length: 15 pages
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
eBook
USD   59.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • ISBN: 978-3-030-34770-3
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
Softcover Book
USD   79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Learn about institutional subscriptions
Fig. 1.

References

  1. Digital in 2019: Global Overview (16 April 2019). https://datareportal.com/reports/digital-2019-global-digital-overview

  2. Leider, S., Möbius, M.M., Rosenblat, T., Do, Q.-A.: Directed altruism and enforced reciprocity in social networks. Q. J. Econ. 124(4), 1815–1851 (2009)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  3. Fowler, J.H., Christakis, N.A.: Cooperative behavior cascades in human social networks. Proc. National Acad. Sci. 107(12), 5334–5338 (2010)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  4. Dholakia, U.M., Bagozzi, R.P., Pearo, L.K.: A social influence model of consumer participation in network-and small-group-based virtual communities. Int. J. Res. Market. 21(3), 241–263 (2004)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  5. Postmes, T., Spears, R., Sakhel, K., De Groot, D.: Social influence in computer-mediated communication: the effects of anonymity on group behavior. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 27(10), 1243–1254 (2001)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  6. Nowak, M.A., Sigmund, K.: Evolution of indirect reciprocity. Nature 393(6685), 573 (2005)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  7. Warneken, F., Tomasello, M.: The roots of human altruism. Br. J. Psychol. 100(3), 455–471 (2009)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  8. Trivers, R.L.: The evolution of reciprocal altruism. Q. Rev. Biol. 46(1), 35–57 (1971)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  9. Gintis, H.: Strong reciprocity and human sociality. J. Theoret. Biol. 206(2), 169–179 (2000)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  10. Fehr, E., Henrich, J.: Is strong reciprocity a maladaptation? On the evolutionary foundations of human altruism. CESifo Working Paper, No. 859, Center for Economic Studies and Ifo Institute (CESifo) (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Nowak, M.A.: Five rules for the evolution of cooperation. Science 314(5805), 1560–1563 (2006)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  12. Latané, B., Darley, J.M.: The Unresponsive Bystander: Why Doesn’t He Help?. Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York (1970)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Latané, B., Rodin, J.: A lady in distress: inhibiting effects of friends and strangers on bystander intervention. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 5(2), 189–202 (1969)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  14. Howard, W., Crano, W.D.: Effects of sex, conversation, location, and size of observer group on bystander intervention in a high risk situation. Sociometry 37(4), 491–507 (1974)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  15. Harari, H., Harari, O., White, R.V.: The reaction to rape by American male bystanders. J. Soc. Psychol. 125(5), 653–658 (1985)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  16. Bierhoff, H.W., Klein, R., Kramp, P.: Evidence for the altruistic personality from data on accident research. J. Pers. 59(2), 263–280 (1991)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  17. Levine, M., Prosser, A., Evans, D., Reicher, S.: Identity and emergency intervention: how social group membership and inclusiveness of group boundaries shape helping behavior. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 31(4), 443–453 (2005)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  18. Fischer, P., Greitemeyer, T., Pollozek, F., Frey, D.: The unresponsive bystander: are bystanders more responsive in dangerous emergencies? Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 36(2), 267–278 (2006)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  19. Karakashian, L.M., Walter, M.I., Christopher, A.N., Lucas, T.: Fear of negative evaluation affects helping behavior: the bystander effect revisited. North Am. J. Psychol. 8(1), 13–32 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Martin, K.K., North, A.C.: Diffusion of responsibility on social networking sites. Comput. Hum. Behav. 44, 124–131 (2015)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  21. Bommel, M.V., Prooijen, J.-W.V., Elffers, H., Lange, P.A.M.V.: Be aware to care: public self-awareness leads to a reversal of the bystander effect. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 48(4), 926–930 (2012)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  22. Voelpel, S.C., Eckhoff, R.A., Förster, J.: David against Goliath? group size and bystander effects in virtual knowledge sharing. Hum. Relat. 61(2), 271–295 (2008)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  23. Lewis, C.E., Thompson, L.F., Wuensch, K.L., Grossnickle, W.F., Cope, J.G.: The impact of recipient list size and priority signs on electronic helping behavior. Comput. Hum. Behav. 20(5), 633–644 (2004)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  24. Barron, G., Yechiam, E.: Private e-mail requests and the diffusion of responsibility. Comput. Hum. Behav. 18(5), 507–520 (2002)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  25. Markey, P.M.: Bystander intervention in computer-mediated communication. Comput. Hum. Behav. 16(2), 183–188 (2000)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  26. Postmes, T., Spears, R.: Deindividuation and antinormative behavior: a meta-analysis. Psychol. Bull. 123(3), 238–259 (1998)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  27. Clark, R.D., Word, L.E.: Why don’t bystanders help? because of ambiguity? J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 24(3), 392–400 (1972)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  28. Latané, B., Dabbs, J.M.: Sex, group size and helping in three cities. Sociometry 38(2), 180–194 (1975)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  29. Latané, B., Williams, K., Harkins, S.: Many hands make light the work: the causes and consequences of social loafing. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 37(6), 822–832 (1979)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  30. Greitemeyer, T., Osswald, S., Fischer, P., Frey, D.: Civil courage: implicit theories, related concepts, and measurement. J. Positive Psychol. 2(2), 115–119 (2007)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  31. Asch, S.E., Guetzkow, H.: Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of judgments. Groups, Leadership, and Men, 222–236 (1951)

    Google Scholar 

  32. Darley, J.M., Latane, B.: Bystander intervention in emergencies: diffusion of responsibility. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 8(4), 377–383 (1968)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  33. Banyard, V.L.: Measurement and correlates of prosocial bystander behavior: the case of interpersonal violence. Violence Vict. 23(1), 83–97 (2008). Please supply the page range for Reference [44] and also volume for ref. [31]

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  34. Harris, V.A., Robinson, C.E.: Bystander intervention: group size and victim status. Bull. Psychon. Soc. 2(1), 8–10 (1973)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  35. Dicke-Bohmann, A.K., Cox, C.B.: Predicting successful responses to emergencies: the emergency responsiveness scale. Current Psychol. 36(2), 209–216 (2017)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  36. Cramer, R.E., Mcmaster, M.R., Bartell, P.A., Dragna, M.: Subject competence and minimization of the bystander effect. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 18(13), 1133–1148 (1988)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  37. Fischer, P., Krueger, J.I., Greitemeyer, T., Vogrincic, C., Kastenmüller, A., Frey, D., Heene, M., Wicher, M., Kainbacher, M.: The bystander-effect: a meta-analytic review on bystander intervention in dangerous and non-dangerous emergencies. Psychol. Bull. 137(4), 517–537 (2011)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  38. Blair, C.A., Foster, T.L., Wuensch, K.L.: Electronic helping behavior: the virtual presence of others makes a difference. Basic Appl. Soc. Psychol. 27(2), 171–178 (2005)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  39. Spears, R., Lea, M., Lee, S.: De-individuation and group polarization in computer-mediated communication. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 29(2), 121–134 (1990)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  40. Vakhitova, Z.I., Reynald, D.M.: Australian internet users and guardianship against cyber abuse: an empirical analysis. Int. J. Cyber Criminol. 8(2), 165–171 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  41. Mehrabian, A.: Relations among personality scales of aggression, violence, and empathy: validational evidence bearing on the risk of eruptive violence scale. Aggressive Behav. 23(6), 433–445 (1997)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  42. Leary, M.R.: A brief version of the fear of negative evaluation scale. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 9(3), 371–375 (1983)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  43. De, C.D., Lange, P.A.M.V.: Why prosocials exhibit greater cooperation than proselfs: the roles of social responsibility and reciprocity. Eur. J. Pers. 15, S5–S18 (2001)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  44. Haghighat, R.: The development of the brief social desirability scale (BSDS). Eur. J. Psychol. 3(4) (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  45. Chiorri, C., Bracco, F., Piccinno, T., Modafferi, C., Battini, V.: Psychometric properties of a revised version of the ten item personality inventory. Eur. J. Psychol. Assess. 31, 109–119 (2015)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  46. Spielberger, C.D., Gorsuch, R.L., Lushene, R.E.: STAI Manual for the Stait-Trait Anxiety Inventory (“self-evaluation Questionnaire”) (1970)

    Google Scholar 

  47. Luszczynska, A., Scholz, U., Schwarzer, R.: The general self-efficacy scale: multicultural validation studies. J. Psychol. 139(5), 439–457 (2005)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  48. Prezza, M., Pacilli, M.G., Barbaranelli, C., Zampatti, E.: The MTSOCS: a multidimensional sense of community scale for local communities. J. Commun. Psychol. 37(3), 305–326 (2009)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  49. Mattick, R.P., Clarke, J.C.: Development and validation of measures of social phobia scrutiny fear and social interaction anxiety. Behav. Res. Therap. 36(4), 455–470 (1998)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  50. Bolker, B.M., Brooks, M.E., Clark, C.J., Geange, S.W., Poulsen, J.R., Stevens, M., Henry, H., White, J.-S.S.: Generalized linear mixed models: a practical guide for ecology and evolution. Trends Ecol. Evol. 24(3), 127–135 (2009)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  51. Chow, S.-C., Wang, H., Shao, J.: Sample Size Calculations in Clinical Research. Chapman and Hall/CRC, Boca Raton (2007)

    CrossRef  MATH  Google Scholar 

  52. Postmes, T., Spears, R., Lea, M.: Breaching or building social boundaries? SIDE-effects of computer-mediated communication. Commun. Res. 25(6), 689–715 (1998)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  53. Mestre, M.V., Samper, P., Frías, M.D., Tur, A.M.: Are women more empathetic than men? a longitudinal study in adolescence. Spanish J. Psychol. 12(1), 76–83 (2009)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Education, Languages, Intercultures, Literatures and Psychology, University of Florence, Via di San Salvi, 12, Building 26, Florence, Italy

    Andrea Guazzini, Enrico Imbimbo, Federica Stefanelli & Giulia Bravi

Authors
  1. Andrea Guazzini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Enrico Imbimbo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Federica Stefanelli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Giulia Bravi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

A.G. supervised the whole work. G.B. executed the experiments. A.G. executed the statistical analysis. E.I, F.S. and G.B wrote the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Enrico Imbimbo .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Perpignan Via Domitia, Perpignan Cedex 9, France

    Samira El Yacoubi

  2. University of Florence, Sesto Fiorentino, Italy

    Prof. Franco Bagnoli

  3. University of Florence, Sesto Fiorentino, Italy

    Giovanna Pacini

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Guazzini, A., Imbimbo, E., Stefanelli, F., Bravi, G. (2019). The Online Bystander Effect: Evidence from a Study on Synchronous Facebook Communications. In: El Yacoubi, S., Bagnoli, F., Pacini, G. (eds) Internet Science. INSCI 2019. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 11938. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-34770-3_12

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-34770-3_12

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-34769-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-34770-3

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)