The bystander effect and social control behavior: the effect of the presence of others on people's reactions to norm violations

Chekroun, Peggy; Bräuer, Markus

doi:10.1002/ejsp.126

Cited by 226 publications

(160 citation statements)

References 35 publications

(16 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

139

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…First, the predicted behavior assessed in our study is completely consistent with the findings of Chekroun and Brauer (2002) who showed that approximatively 68% of their participants predicted that they would react toward an individual who litters in a neighborhood park. More importantly, Brauer, 2002) reported a very strong correlation between the self-reports and actual social control reaction in the same situations, including a littering situation (.84). We are thus comfortable with the assumption that self-reports of social control intentions are reasonable indicators of social control behavior.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

“…After reading the situation, participants were asked to indicate how they would react. They responded on a seven-point scale adapted from Chekroun and Brauer (2002): 0 ¼ no reaction, 1 ¼ indifferent, you look away, 2 ¼ loud audible sigh, 3 ¼ make a polite comment to the person about the incorrectness of her behavior, 4 ¼ ask the person if she would pick up her bottle, 5 ¼ command in authoritarian tone the person to pick up her bottle, and 6 ¼ make a personal insult in aggressive tone to the person. The two first responses are considered to be the expression of ignorance or absence of awareness of the deviant behavior and thus express the absence of intention to react toward the deviant behavior.…”

Section: Materials and Proceduresmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There was no difference within the social controllers with respect to kind of social control depending on group-membership, x 2 (N ¼ 69, 4) ¼ 3.02, p > .50. Thus, as in previous work (e.g., Brauer & Chekroun, 2005;Chekroun & Brauer, 2002), we collapsed the scale such that participants received a 0 if they did not anticipate an act of social control, and a 1 if they did.…”

Section: Perpetrator's Group Membership and Informal Social Controlmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Group membership influences social control of perpetrators of uncivil behaviors

Nugier

Chekroun

Pierre

et al. 2009

Euro J Social Psych

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present research examined bystanders' reactions to uncivil behaviors. We tested a proposed mediator of the effect by which bystanders are more likely to exert social control over in-group compared to out-group members. Participants were asked to report their likely reaction if they were to witness a woman throwing a plastic bottle into a flowerbed. Participants reported that they were more likely to express their disapproval to the woman if she was an in-group rather than an outgroup member. This effect was mediated by the moral emotions that participants expected the woman to feel if they were to intervene: Participants expected the woman to feel more embarrassment and shame when she was an in-group member, and this explained why they were more likely to exert social control toward an in-group member than an out-group member.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Section: Materials and Proceduresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Perpetrator's Group Membership and Informal Social Controlmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Group membership influences social control of perpetrators of uncivil behaviors

Nugier

Chekroun

Pierre

et al. 2009

Euro J Social Psych

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The bystander effect and a desire for anonymity by citizens may also contribute to the victimization of suitable targets in public spaces (Chekroun & Brauer, 2002). Fear of crime in these settings can influence the routine activities of people as well (Ceccato, 2016;Ceccato, 2014;Loukaitou-Sideris, 2014;Madan & Nalla, 2016;Wiebe, et al, 2014).…”

Section: Research On Transit Environments and Other Public Spacesmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Routine Activity Approach: Assessing Victimization by Gender in Transit Environments and Other Public Locations

Savard¹

2018

AASoci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this research is to examine how transit environments and other public spaces shape women's and men's victimization for simple assault, aggravated assault, sexual assault, robbery, and kidnapping crimes. This research applies routine activities theory to examine how everyday activities shape victimization within these environments. Using data from the Federal Bureau of Investigations' 2014 National Incident-Based Reporting System, this research finds that women were more likely to be victimized in certain spaces such as shopping centers and transit terminals. Regarding certain violent crimes, it was also discovered that women were more likely to be robbed at shopping centers, grocery stores, parking lots/garages, and transit terminals. It is argued that understanding the vulnerability of simple assault, aggravated assault, sexual assault, robbery, and kidnapping victimization women have in transit environments and other public spaces may provide useful insight regarding preventing crime in these locations.

show abstract

“…[12,82] Just visualizing a crowd makes you less likely to help/intervene. It is therefore difficult to explain the result here except as a response to experienced pressures to regulate social life at large scale.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Moral action as cheater suppression in human super organisms: Testing the human superorganism approach to morality

Aunger

Greenland

2014

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

'For it is peculiar to man as compared to the other animals that he alone has a perception of good and bad and just and unjust and other things [of this sort]; and partnership in these things is what makes a household and a city.' (Aristotle, The Politics 37)Aristotle. The Politics. Trans. Carnes Lord. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984. AbstractLarge-scale human groups cannot rely on shared genetic interests or dyadic reciprocity to ensure social cohesion as genetic similarity is low and indirect reciprocity is rife; nevertheless, such societies continue to cohere, due to the evolution of novel regulatory mechanisms that inhibit defaulting on social obligations: moral sentiments and actions. The present paper argues that the extent of moral concern can be most usefully identified by defining the set of functions required to sustain a human 'superorganism'. These functions are determined to be boundary, production, distribution, storage, control, structure, enforcement, signaling, memory, excretion, perception and reproductive functions. Moral obligations to act arise when individuals default on contributing to these functions. To test this approach, roughly 80,000 respondents from over 200 countries completed a web-based experiment hosted by the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC). This experiment elicited a suite of responses to a set of 33 short scenarios derived from the 13 domains of superorganism function. Results indicate that all functions are moralized, while violations falling outside this domain (social conventions and individual decisions) are not. People living in larger communities exhibited stronger moral sentiments and action propensities, consistent with the greater interdependence of living in groups with more social roles. Such people were also more likely to see the function of the justice system as supporting group-level protection rather than personal recrimination or restitution, were more willing to engage in punishment of those who failed to punish cheaters, and more offended by those who choose not to contribute to social welfare. These results support the contention of Human Superorganism Theory that large-scale human groups strongly rely on moral propensities to regulate those who fail to perform superorganismal functions. Given this supporting evidence, we believe this new approach to defining the moral domain has implications for fields ranging from psychology to legal theory. Defining the moral domainUntil recently, morality was largely the domain of philosophers. A typical debate might involve defining why killing another human being is wrong (taken as one of the foundations for a good society). Answers might include: because it will destabilize society and lead to general unhappiness (the consequentialist position of Berkeley), or because it violates the Golden Rule of doing to others what we would want them to do to us (subscribed to by deontologists like Kant), or because people of good upbringing and hence virtuous character would not be inclined to do so (the posi...

show abstract

The bystander effect and social control behavior: the effect of the presence of others on people's reactions to norm violations

Cited by 226 publications

References 35 publications

Group membership influences social control of perpetrators of uncivil behaviors

Group membership influences social control of perpetrators of uncivil behaviors

A Routine Activity Approach: Assessing Victimization by Gender in Transit Environments and Other Public Locations

Moral action as cheater suppression in human super organisms: Testing the human superorganism approach to morality

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About