Chapter 1

THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUND

This chapter presents the background and purpose of the study, theoretical
framework, conceptual framework, statement of the problem, hypothesis, scope and
limitation of the research, and definition of terms.
Purpose and Background of the Study
There are people that risk their own health and well-being to help other people.
Some give their time, energy, and money to aid in the betterment of others even when
they receive nothing in return. However, there are situational determinants that affects
helping and one of its cases is the bystander effect in which an individual will less likely
to help when there are bystanders present.
Prosocial behaviors are actions that are generally valued by other people in a
particular society. There are many types of behavior that can be classified as prosocial,
for example, friendship, charity, sacrifice, sharing and cooperation. Altruism is a more
specific form of helping behavior referring to an act of prosocial behavior which benefits
others but is not expected to have any personal benefits 1
Altruism is selfishness in reverse. An altruistic person is concerned and helpful
even when no benefits are offered or expected in return.
According to the famous philosopher Thomas Nagel (1970), "By altruism I mean
not abject self-sacrifice, but merely a willingness to act in consideration of the interests
of other persons, without the need of ulterior motives. 2 His definition of altruism clearly

says that a person that shows an altruistic behavior must be willing to help without
anything in return and without the need of ulterior or hidden motives within that person.
However, many psychologists and philosophers have argued that there is, in fact,
no such thing as true altruism. In The Dawn, the 19th century philosopher Friedrich
Nietzsche maintains that which is erroneously called pity is not selfless but variously
self-motivated.3 There can be no such thing as an altruistic act that does not involve
some element of self-interest, no such thing, for example, as an altruistic act that does
not lead to some degree, no matter how small, of pride or satisfaction. Therefore, an act
should not be disregarded as selfish or self-motivated simply because it includes some
inevitable element of self-interest. The act can still be counted as altruistic if the selfish
element is unintentional; or, if not unintentional, then secondary; or, if neither
unintentional nor secondary, then undetermining. 4
Contemporary discussions about altruism emerged quickly when there was an
argument if pure altruism exists. Pure altruism requires a person to sacrifice for another
without consideration of personal gain. When we ask whether human beings are
altruistic, we want to know about their motives or intentions. One reason people deny
that altruism exists is that, looking inward, they doubt the purity of their own motives. As
Kant and Freud observed, peoples true motives may be hidden, even from themselves.
Even if we think were acting solely to further another persons good, that might not be
the real reason. There might be no single real reason actions can have multiple
motives .5

Subsequently, there are situations that call for the sense of responsibility of a
person and it is to someone in anywhere which is in a society. In the society, never did it
happen that there is an absence of crime, accidents and other situations that call for
other's help. Of course, involved in these situations are the victims and the witnesses or
also called as bystanders.
However, people choose who, why and when to help for the reason that it
depends upon the situation. It has been observed that a person tends to act differently
in a large group than the person alone. If a person is alone in the street and he/she saw
a woman collapsed, he/she would feel more responsible in calling for help. On the other
hand, when many other people are present, he/she will feel less personally obligated to
help. Though some may deny this tendency, when actually put in a public situation, it is
the reaction of the majority of people. This phenomenon that refers to cases in which
individuals are less likely to offer any means of help to a victim when other people are
present is labeled bystander effect.
According to the experiment of Latan and Darley, people are less likely to help
in an emergency when they are with others present than they are alone, a phenomenon
known as the bystander apathy effect.

One reason was explained why it happened

and this is the diffusion of responsibility which is a phenomenon related to the

bystanders sense of responsibility to aid and decreases when there are more witnesses
present. It simply implies that bystanders do not react because they feel that other
bystanders will respond to the emergency situation and render appropriate assistance.
Therefore, the presence of other people in a situation has a major impact in altruistic
behavior.

According to the decision model of bystander intervention, there are five steps
that are required for helping to occur: noticing the emergency, interpreting the situation
as an emergency, feeling a personal responsibility to help, deciding how to help, and
then providing the help.7
Likewise, the situation itself is also one of the factors and it is its ambiguity.
According to one of sociologys core theoretical perspectives, symbolic interaction
theory, the daily situations make sense through interactions with others. 8 To figure out
how others should understand the situation and what should be done about it. In
situations in which the bystander(s) are not sure if a person requires assistance (a high
ambiguity situation), reaction time is slow (hearing a person fall but not sure if they are
hurt). In low ambiguity situations (a person yelling out for help) reaction for bystanders
are quicker than high ambiguity situations. 9 Another is the type of the helping situation
whether it is alarming or non-emergency, still may affect the altruistic behavior of
people.
Darley and Latan contended that the situation itself would override values,
norms, and dispositions.10 Specifically, these are cognitive reasons, social norms, and
neurological reasons.
Cognitive reasons include empathy of the bystander towards the victim.
Researchers including Batson et al. suggest that people are more likely to engage in
altruistic behavior when they feel empathy for the person who is in distress, a
suggestion known as the empathy-altruism hypothesis. 11

Based on empathy-altruism hypothesis from Batson, helping behaviors will be

initiated when the empathy levels of a person is high. People with high level of empathy
can easily identify other's feelings and understands the situations of others. The
decision to help or not depends mainly on whether a person feels empathy for others,
and then only on the costs and rewards (social exchange concerns). This hypothesis
was supported by previous studies. For example, the participants in a research which
divided into high empathy level and low empathy level, the high empathy level groups of
people will spent more time with the people in need, even though their help is
anonymous with lower social appreciation. This showed that the people with high
empathy will assist without thinking costs and rewards, and this is in accordance with
empathy-altruism hypothesis 12
Next are social norms. Society's rules, norms, and expectations can also
influence whether or not people engage in altruistic behavior. The norm of reciprocity is
a social expectation in which helping others is felt if they have already done something
for us.13 It also suggest that people will be most likely to cooperate only if others are
likely to reciprocate. Individuals, for example, may help someone with the expectation
this person will reciprocate in the future.14
Another explanation under social norms is the profession of the bystanders. It is
possible for the bystander to help the victim depending on his profession because he is
capable of doing so. Huston et al. found that interveners in several kinds of dangerous
events had more exposure to crime, both in personal experience and in witnessing
others victimization. They were also taller, heavier, better trained to cope with

emergencies (e.g., significantly more life-saving, medical and/or police training) and
were more likely to see themselves as physically strong, aggressive, emotional, and
principled. Thus, they were not motivated to intervene by strong humanitarian purposes
but rather acted out of a sense of capability.15
Furthermore, there are individuals who may be more altruistic towards those they
are related to because it increases the odds that our blood relations will survive and
transmit their genes to future generations. Another would be the relation of the
bystander to the victim.16 An individuals interaction to another individual cannot act both
as altruist and a competitor at the same time especially in situations in which relatives
do not recognize each other, competition may be more profitable and may reduce
altruism.
Lastly, are the neurological reasons. Altruism activates reward centers in the
brain. Neurobiologists have found that when engaged in an altruistic act, the pleasure
centers of the brain become active.17 Darwins claim is supported by recent
neuroscience studies, which have shown that when people behave altruistically, their
brains activate in regions that signal pleasure and reward, similar to when they eat
chocolate (or have sex).18
Therefore, altruistic behavior is strongly influenced by factors such as the
bystander effect in which people are less likely to help in an emergency when they are
with others present than they are alone; and the situation itself which overrides other
reasons too which are cognitive reasons, neurological reasons, and social norms.

Despite numerous researches on bystander effect happening in society it may

not adequately generalize that all Filipinos are bystander because it varies crossculturally. Theres a characteristic of a Filipino called pakikiramdam (feeling through or
sensing) that appears whenever they saw some people who needs help.
Part of the socialization is being sensitive to non-verbal cues, having concern for
the feelings of others, being truthful but not at the expense of hurting others feelings.
This has made the sharpening of pakikiramdam (shared inner perception) a particularly
desirable skill in many situations involving Filipino social interaction. Pakikiramdam is a
request to feel or to be sensitive to. It is a shared feeling, a kind of emotional a priori.
There is hesitation to react, attention to subtle cues and non-verbal behavior in mental
role playing (if I were in the others situation, how would I feel). In other words, it is
feeling for another, exercising great care and deliberation (Mataragnon, 1987). 19
Its innate to the Filipinos being soft-hearted or emotionally responsive that they
will respond immediately not because they need to, but they want to.
The researchers have explored if bystander effect was true in the altruistic
behavior of Filipinos concerning the known value a Filipino has which is pakikiramdam.
By conducting a social experiment, the researchers utilized a questionnaire checklist to
measure the level of their altruism.

Theoretical Framework
The study is anchored at empathy-altruism hypothesis by Daniel C. Batson which
states that if people feel empathic towards other people, they will help them regardless
of what they will gain from it. People are more motivated to help when they feel empathy
for a victim rather than seeing the distress. Batson claims that empathy is an innate trait
like altruism.
This hypothesis was supported by previous studies. For example, the
participants in a research which divided into high empathy level and low empathy level,
the high empathy level groups of people will spent more time with the people in need,
even though their help is anonymous with lower social appreciation. This showed that
the people with high empathy will assist without thinking costs and rewards, and this is
in accordance with empathy-altruism hypothesis. 20
However, psychologists have been concerned on trying to explain when people
do not help, even if it is obvious that the situation is an emergency. There are two (2)
distinct types of factor that determines helping which are personal and situational
factors. Although researches have been made on prosocial behavior on considering
different situations where help is needed, much of the research focused on when people
help in an emergency, behavior commonly referred by social psychologists as bystander
effect.
The bystander effect by John Darley and Bibb Latan (1968) is inspired by the
case of Kitty Genovese who had been murdered in 1964. This phenomenon refers to
cases in which individuals are less likely to offer any means of help to a victim when
other people are present. Since there was this called as diffusion of responsibility in

which the sense of responsibility to aid decreases when there are more witnesses
present; this will affect the altruistic behavior of a person.
Empathy-altruism hypothesis clearly stated the likelihood of an individual to help
but what if being put in a situation where there are bystanders present.
The study used the bystander effect as the basis of the social experiment in
measuring the level of altruism of people. The researchers have explored if bystander
effect was true in the altruistic behavior of Filipinos.
Conceptual Framework
The conceptual model on the next page shows the relationship of bystander
effect and altruistic behavior. The first box represents the independent variable which is
the bystander condition where number of bystanders and the type of situation whether
alarming and non-emergency will be used. The second box includes the dependent
variable which is the altruistic behavior of Filipinos which determine the level of their
altruism. Lastly, the arrow signifies if the independent variable affects the dependent
variable.

10

IV

DV

Bystander condition

Altruistic
Behavior

- Number of
bystanders
-

Determined

Type of helping
situation

Figure 1
Conceptual Model Showing the Relationship of
Bystander Condition to Altruistic Behavior

Statement of the Problem

This study determined the relationship between bystander condition and altruistic
behavior.
Specifically, it answered the following questions:

11

1. What is the frequency of those people who responded in case of alarming and
non-emergency helping situations?
2. What is the level of altruism of the participants in terms of:
2.1 Social norms;
2.2 Cognitive reasons; and
2.3 Neurological reasons?
3. Does the presence of other people affect their altruistic behavior?
4. Do helping situations vary to bystanders altruistic behavior?
Hypothesis
The study tested the null hypothesis that there is no significant effect between
numbers of bystanders and the type of helping situation to altruistic behavior.
Scope and Limitation of the Study
This study was designed to determine if there is a significant difference between
the types of helping situation to participants altruistic behavior and to know if
bystander effect is true to Filipinos. The study was conducted by month of August at
selected barangays of Tanay, Rizal which are Plaza Aldea, Brgy. Magampon, Brgy.
Wawa, Brgy. San Isidro, Brgy. Pinagkamaligan, and Brgy. Tabing Ilog because the
researchers considered the place where they are not resided to control any
extraneous variable that might affect the social experiment.
There were no criteria of selecting participants because anyone can behave such
actions altruistically. The experiment was conducted by making use of a questionnaire
checklist to measure the level of altruism that was distributed after the social
experiment.
Definition of Terms

12

The following terms are defined conceptually and/or operationally for further
understanding of the study.
Altruistic behavior. In this study, this refers to a behavior in which an individual
will respond and help out a victim in a situation which can be affected by factors such
as number of bystanders and the situation itself.
Ambiguity. It refers to the vagueness of a situation which may have a low and
high ambiguity. Reaction time will be slow if the situation has high ambiguity,
otherwise, not.
Bystander Effect. As used in the study, this pertains to the phenomenon in which
the greater the numbers of people present, the less likely people are to help a person
in distress.
Cognitive reasons. This refers to the decision to help or show an altruistic
behavior because of having empathy towards the victim.
Diffusion of Responsibility. This pertains to the observation of the phenomena
that one feels less responsible to act in a large group.
Helping situation.It refers to a situation in which help is needed may be alarming
and non-emergency.
Neurological reasons. This refers to the help which shows that altruistic behavior
is a pleasure for that person.

13

Prosocial Behavior. As used in the study, this refers to those individual who
intended to help other people, and are concerned about the rights and feelings of
other people.
Reciprocity norm. This refers to the idea that if one can help others, they should
also be given help.
Social Approval. It pertains to the positive evaluation of an individual or group in a
social context.
Social norms. It pertains to the society's rules, norms, and expectations that can
also influence whether or not people engage in altruistic behavior.

Notes
1

Richard J. Crisp, Rhiannon N. Turner. Essential Social Psychology, p.231

James Andreoni, William T. Harbaugh ,Lise Vesterlund. Altruism in Experiments

Prepared for the New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, 2nd Edition, 2007
3

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/hide-and-seek/201203/does-true- altruismexist
4

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/hide-and-seek/201203/does-true- altruism-exist

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/19/is-pure-altruism-possible/?_r=0

14
6

Richard J. Crisp, Rhiannon N. Turner. Essential Social Psychology, p. 240

http://thethinkspot.com/socialpsychology_1/chapters/13

www.everydaysociologyblog.com/2007/07/altruism-and-th.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bystander-effect

10

Nicole A. Ventrone, Mary R. Laner, Mary H. Benin. Bystander attitudes toward

victims of violence: whos worth helping?
11

http://psychology.about.com/od/aindex/g/what-is-altruism.htm

12

http://www.ukessays.com/essays/psychology/the-development-of-altruismpsychologyessay.php#ixzz3yQmJacbW
13

http://psychology.about.com/od/aindex/g/what-is-altruism.htm

14

http://www.psych-it.com.au/Psychlopedia/article.asp?id=261

15

Nicole A. Ventrone, Mary R. Laner, Mary H. Benin. Bystander attitudes toward

victims of violence: whos worth helping?
16

http://psychology.about.com/od/aindex/g/what-is-altruism.htm

17

Nicole A. Ventrone, Mary R. Laner, Mary H. Benin. Bystander attitudes toward

victims of violence: whos worth helping?
18

http://greatergood.berkeley.edu/topic/altruism/definition

19

Richard J. Crisp, Rhiannon N. Turner. Essential Social Psychology, p.232

20

http://www.ukessays.com/essays/psychology/the-development-of-altruismpsychology-essay.php#ixzz3yQmJacbW
21

Richard J. Crisp, Rhiannon N. Turner. Essential Social Psychology, p.235

15
22

Rogelio Pe-Pua, Elizabeth Protacio-Marcelino. Sikolohiyang Pilipino (Filipino

psychology): A Legacy of Virgilio G. Enriquez, Asian Journal of Social
Psychology
2000, p. 56
23

http://study.com/academy/lesson/albert-bandura-social-cognitive-theory-andvicarious-learning.html