Skip to main content icon/video/no-internet

Definition

The decision model of helping, introduced in The Unresponsive Bystander by Bibb Latané and John Darley, outlines a process of five steps that will determine whether a bystander will act or not in a helping situation. This model is also intended to offer a counterargument to the proposition that people do not help in emergencies simply because they become apathetic. As Latané and Darley suggest, an individual's interpretation of the emergency may be more influential than the individual's general motivation when it comes to his or her actions in an emergency. The decision model of helping outlines the five steps to helping behavior. First, the bystander must recognize a problem. If perceived as a problem, the second step requires the interpretation of the problem as an emergency. If perceived as an emergency, the third step requires the bystander to feel a personal obligation to act. If the bystander feels responsible to help, the fourth step requires that bystander to decide how to act (form of assistance). And finally, the bystander must decide how to implement the form of assistance. Thus, the decision model of helping explains the helping behavior process from the perception of a problem to the actual act of helping.

Fives Steps to Helping Behavior

There are five distinct and consecutive steps in this model. First, one must recognize a problem. Second, there must be an interpretation of the problem as an emergency. Third, the bystander must feel a personal obligation to act. Fourth, the bystander must decide how to act (form of assistance). And finally, the bystander must decide how to implement the assistance.

Step 1: Recognizing the Problem

Bystanders must first recognize that whatever is occurring is not normal, usual, or common; it is a problem. A famous experiment conducted by Darley and Latané exemplifies this first step. Experimental participants were completing a questionnaire in a waiting room before an interview when smoke suddenly appears out of an air vent. These participants were either in the waiting room alone or with two other participants who were actually confederates pretending to be waiting for their interview. Results showed that the 75% of the participants who were in the waiting room alone reported the smoke to the experimenter, whereas only 10% of the participants did so when in the waiting room with two other confederates. Darley and Latané used this experiment to illustrate how people must first recognize a problem. Participants who are alone think something is wrong when they see smoke emanate from a vent. Because this does not usually happen, participants recognize that this could be a problem and hence report it to the experimenter. However, in the other condition, the participants see that smoke is escaping an air vent but then look to the calm expressions of the confederates, who continue filling out the questionnaire, and make the inference that the smoke may not be a problem. After all, if it were a problem, the confederates would have appeared to be alarmed. Hence, the implication is that the same event, a smoky vent, can be interpreted as a problem when the participant is alone but not when the participant is in the presence of calm peers.

...

  • Loading...
locked icon

Sign in to access this content

Get a 30 day FREE TRIAL

  • Watch videos from a variety of sources bringing classroom topics to life
  • Read modern, diverse business cases
  • Explore hundreds of books and reference titles

Sage Recommends

We found other relevant content for you on other Sage platforms.

Loading