This study examines how media coverage of bystander intervention affects helping behavior in similar situations, taking into account the role of motivations for and against helping. In a 2 × 4 factorial online experiment, a newspaper report on a case of bystander intervention was varied in terms of a (a) good versus bad outcome for the helper and (b) four types of framing targeting motivations for and against helping. Results show that risk perception, rejection of responsibility, motivation by social approval, and moral motivation are highly associated with the intention to intervene and with projected behavior. However, hardly any media effects on these factors could be found. Nevertheless, our findings hint at other paths of media influence on helping behavior.
AgnoliF. (1991). Development of judgmental heuristics and logical reasoning: Training counteracts the representativeness heuristic. Cognitive Development, 6, 195-217.
2.
AgnoliF.KrantzD. H. (1989). Suppressing natural heuristics by formal instruction: The case of the conjunction fallacy. Cognitive Psychology, 21, 515-550.
3.
AnkerA. E.FeeleyT. H.McCrackenB.LagoeC. A. (2016). Measuring the effectiveness of mass-mediated health campaigns through meta-analysis. Journal of Health Communication, 21, 439-456.
4.
Bar-HillelM. (1980). The base-rate fallacy in probability judgments. Acta Psychologica, 44, 211-233.
5.
BatsonC. D.AhmadN.StocksE. (2011). Four forms of prosocial motivation: Egoism, altruism, collectivism, and principlism. In DunningD. (Ed.), Social motivation (pp. 103-126). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
6.
BatsonC. D.DyckJ. L.BrandtJ. R.BatsonJ. G.PowellA. L.McMasterM. R.GriffittC. (1988). Five studies testing two new egoistic alternatives to the empathy-altruism hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 52-77.
7.
BeamanA. L.BarnesP. J.KlentzB.McQuirkB. (1978). Increasing helping rates through information dissemination: Teaching pays. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 4, 406-411.
8.
BickmanL. (1975). Bystander intervention in a crime: The effect of a mass-media campaign. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 5, 296-302.
9.
BigmanC. A.BigsbyE.Martinez GonzalezA. (2018, May). A meta-analysis of the effects of exemplars on emotional, attitudinal, and behavioral intention responses to messages. Poster presented at the Annual Conference of the International Communication Association, Prague, Czech Republic.
10.
BosterF. J.CameronK. A.CampoS.LiuW. Y.LillieJ. K.BakerE. M.YunK. A. (2000). The persuasive effects of statistical evidence in the presence of exemplars. Communication Studies, 51, 296-306.
11.
BrosiusH.-B.BatheltA. (1994). The utility of exemplars in persuasive communications. Communication Research, 21, 48-78.
12.
CismaruM.JensenG.LavackA. M. (2010). If the noise coming from next door were loud music, you’d do something about it. Journal of Advertising, 39, 69-82.
13.
ClarkR. D.WordL. E. (1972). Why don’t bystanders help? Because of ambiguity?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24, 392-400.
14.
DarleyJ. M.LatanéB. (1968). Bystander intervention in emergencies: Diffusion of responsibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8, 377-383.
15.
DaschmannG. (2001). Der Einfluß von Fallbeispielen auf Leserurteile: experimentelle Untersuchungen zur Medienwirkung [The influence of exemplars on readers’ judgments: Experimental studies on media effects]. Konstanz, Germany: UVK.
16.
EinhornH. J.HogarthR. M. (1985). Ambiguity and uncertainty in probabilistic inference. Psychological Review, 92, 433-461.
17.
FischerP.GreitemeyerT.PollozekF.FreyD. (2006). The unresponsive bystander: Are bystanders more responsive in dangerous emergencies?European Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 267-278.
18.
FischerP.KruegerJ. I.GreitemeyerT.VogrincicC.KastenmüllerA.FreyD.. . . KainbacherM. (2011). The bystander-effect: A meta-analytic review on bystander intervention in dangerous and non-dangerous emergencies. Psychological Bulletin, 137, 517-537.
19.
FishbeinM.CappellaJ. N. (2006). The role of theory in developing effective health communications. Journal of Communication, 56(Suppl. 1), S1-S17.
20.
GallagherK. M.UpdegraffJ. A. (2011). Health message framing effects on attitudes, intentions, and behavior: A meta-analytic review. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 43, 101-116.
21.
GerbnerG.GrossL. (1976). Living with television: The violence profile. Journal of Communication, 26, 173-199.
22.
GilliganC. (1982). In a different voice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
23.
GottliebA.SchwartzS. H. (1976, May). They know I saw it: Evaluation apprehension and diffusion of responsibility in bystander reactions to a violent crime. Paper presented at the Midwestern Psychology Association, Chicago, IL.
24.
GueretteR. T.FlexonJ. L.MarquezC. (2013). Instigating bystander intervention in the prevention of alcohol-impaired driving: Analysis of data regarding mass media campaigns. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 74, 205-211.
25.
HarariH.HarariO.WhiteR. V. (1985). The reaction to rape by American male bystanders. The Journal of Social Psychology, 125, 653-658.
26.
HornikxJ. (2005). A review of the experimental research on the relative persuasiveness of anecdotal, statistic, causal, and expert evidence. Studies in Communication Sciences, 5, 205-216.
27.
HornikxJ. (2007). Is anecdotal evidence more persuasive than statistical evidence? A comment on classic cognitive psychological studies. Studies in Communication Sciences, 7, 151-164.
28.
HustS. J.MarettE. G.LeiM.ChangH.RenC.McNabA. L.AdamsP. M. (2013). Health promotion messages in entertainment media: Crime drama viewership and intentions to intervene in a sexual assault situation. Journal of Health Communication, 18, 105-123.
29.
ImaiK.KeeleL.TingleyD.YamamotoT. (2011). Unpacking the black box of causality: Learning about causal mechanisms from experimental and observational studies. American Political Science Review, 105, 765-789.
30.
KahnemanD.TverskyA. (1973). On the psychology of prediction. Psychological Review, 80, 237-251.
31.
KohlbergL.LevineC.HewerA. (1983). Moral stages: A current formulation and a response to critics. Basel, NY: Karger Publishers.
LatanéB.DarleyJ. M. (1968). Group inhibition of bystander intervention in emergencies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 10, 215-221.
34.
LatanéB.DarleyJ. M. (1970). The unresponsive bystander: Why doesn’t he help?New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Croft.
35.
LatanéB.NidaS. (1981). Ten years of research on group size and helping. Psychological Bulletin, 89, 308-324.
36.
LatanéB.RodinJ. (1969). A lady in distress: Inhibiting effects of friends and strangers on bystander intervention. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 5, 189-202.
37.
LuckenbillD. F. (1977). Criminal homicide as a situated transaction. Social Problems, 25, 176-186.
MorganM.ShanahanJ. (1997). Two decades of cultivation research: An appraisal and meta-analysis. Annals of the International Communication Association, 20(1), 1-45.
40.
NarvaezD. (2005). The neo-Kohlbergian tradition and beyond: Schemas, expertise, and character. In CarloG.Pope-EdwardsC. (Eds.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation: Vol. 51. Moral motivation through the life span (pp. 119-164). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
41.
NarvaezD.BockT. (2002). Moral schemas and tacit judgments or how the Defining Issues Test is supported by cognitive science. Journal of Moral Education, 31, 297-314.
42.
PeterC.BrosiusH.-B. (2010). Grenzen der Wirksamkeit von Fallbeispielen? [Limits of the effects of exemplars?] Publizistik, 55, 275-288.
43.
PotterS. J.StapletonJ. G.MoynihanM. M. (2008). Designing, implementing, and evaluating a media campaign illustrating the bystander role. Journal of Prevention & Intervention in the Community, 36, 39-55.
44.
RestJ. R. (1989). Development in judging moral issues. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
45.
Roskos-EwoldsenD. R.Roskos-EwoldsenB.Dillman CarpentierF. (2009). Media priming: An updated synthesis. In BryantJ.OliverM. B. (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (pp. 74-93). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
46.
RossA. S.BrabandJ. (1973). Effect of increased responsibility on bystander intervention: II. The cue value of a blind person. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 25, 254-258.
47.
ShafferD. R.RogleM.HendrickC. (1975). Intervention in the library: The effect of increased responsibility on bystanders’ willingness to prevent a theft. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 5, 303-319.
48.
SheeranP.WebbT. L. (2016). The intention-behavior gap. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 10, 503-518.
49.
ShenF.SheerV. C.LiR. (2015). Impact of narratives on persuasion in health communication: A meta-analysis. Journal of Advertising, 44, 105-113.
50.
SnyderL. B.HamiltonM. A.MitchellE. W.Kiwanuka-TondoJ.Fleming-MiliciF.ProctorD. (2004). A meta-analysis of the effect of mediated health communication campaigns on behavior change in the United States. Journal of Health Communication, 9, 71-96.
51.
ThornbergR.JungertT. (2013). Bystander behavior in bullying situations: Basic moral sensitivity, moral disengagement and defender self-efficacy. Journal of Adolescence, 36, 475-483.
52.
TopalliV. (2005). Criminal expertise and offender decision-making: An experimental analysis of how offenders and non-offenders differentially perceive social stimuli. The British Journal of Criminology, 45, 269-295.
53.
TverskyA.KahnemanD. (1971). Belief in the law of small numbers. Psychological Bulletin, 76, 105-110.
54.
TverskyA.KahnemanD. (1973). Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology, 5, 207-232.
55.
WebbT. L.SheeranP. (2006). Does changing behavioral intentions engender behavior change? A meta-analysis of the experimental evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 249-268.
56.
ZillmannD.BrosiusH.-B. (2000). Exemplification in communication: The influence of case reports on the perception of issues. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
57.
ZillmannD.PerkinsJ. W.SundarS. S. (1992). Impression-formation effects of printed news varying in descriptive precision and exemplifications. Zeitschrift Für Medienpsychologie, 4, 168-185.
