Pluralistic ignorance in the bystander effect: informational dynamics of unresponsive witnesses in situations calling for intervention

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Given S1 with H1 ∪ H2 ∪ H3 as rules over E1, the system dictates the Type IV program with σ0 = OOO as the next APM choice.

“Given the above, the system based on S 1 with H 1 ∪ H 2 ∪ H 3 as rules over E 1 dictates the type IV program with σ 0 = OOO as next APM choice.”

May combine two claims.

The First Responder model is 10% correct in the confederates condition and 38% in the naive group condition, falling below the 50% mark.

“The First Responder model is 10% correct in the confederates condition 31 and 38% in the naive group condition, hereby falling below the 50% mark.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

No single study has been found that provides suitable data for all group sizes on the effect of social proof on the perception of the accident.

“Alas, no one such has been found that provides suitable data for all group sizes.”

May combine two claims.

The Influenced Hesitators model is 90% correct in the confederates condition and 62% correct in the naive group condition, and fairs better than 50% overall.

“The Influence Hesitators model does better: it is 90% correct of the confederates condition 32 and 62% correct in the naive group condition.Hence, it fairs better than 50% overall.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Applying social belief to A in S3, S3 |= for all i SB_i|A ¬A.

“Applying the notion of social belief to A in S 3 , it is easily seen that S 3 |= i∈A SB i|A ¬A.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

In S1, for all i ∈ {0, ..., 7}, (s0, σi) ∈ A^{S1}, and (s, τi) ∈ (¬A).

“In S 1 , for all i ∈ {0, ..., 7}, (s 0 , σ i ) ∈ A S 1 , and (s, τ i ) ∈ (¬A)”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

First Responders will again intervene.

“First Responders will again intervene”

May combine two claims.

For non-mixed groups, both City Dwellers and (Influenced) Hesitators will produce the observable bystander effect.

“The first change is of agent types, where it is seen that for non-mixed groups, both City Dwellers and (Influenced) Hesitators will produce the observable bystander effect.”

May combine two claims.

The actual world in the ensuing EPM S4, the final step of the model, satisfies A ∧ for all i Bi A ∧ for all i SB_i|G ¬A ∧ for all i Ei.

“The actual world in the ensuing EPM S 4 , the final step of the model, will then satisfy A ∧ i∈A B i A ∧ i∈A SB i|G ¬A ∧ i∈A E i .”

May combine two claims.

In the lady in distress experiment, in the first condition, 70% of the alone subjects intervened, with a strong drop to 7% when an inactive confederate was introduced.

“In the first condition, 70% of the alone subjects intervened, with a strong drop to 7% when an inactive confederate was introduced.”

• cites Latané and Rodin, 1969 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

If a, b and c are Influenced, the unique next APM choice will be the Type IV program with σ0 = EEE.

“More precisely, if a, b and c are Influenced, the unique next APM choice will be the Type IV program with σ 0 = EEE.”

May combine two claims.

Updating S0 with E0 produces S1 in which every agent believes that an accident (A) has occurred, though no one knows A.

“In summary, every agent believes that A: an accident has occurred (though no-one knows)”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

Hesitators will again, irrespective of social proof, choose to observe.

“Hesitators will again, irrespective of social proof, choose to observe.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

City Dwellers will again choose to evade.

“City Dwellers will again choose to evade”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

Every agent chooses to observe.

“That is, every agent chooses to observe.”

May combine two claims.

By application of interpretation rules, agents establish beliefs about each others' previous beliefs, but even though the applied interpretation rules were correct, the obtained beliefs are wrong: S1 |= Bb A, but S3 |= Ba [S1]Bb ¬A.

“By application of interpretation rules, agents establish beliefs about each others previous beliefs, but even though the applied interpretation rules were correct, the obtained beliefs are wrong: S 1 |= B b A, but S 3 |= B a [S 1 ]B b ¬A.”

• AssumptionThe authors state this as an assumption: Agents are given only one hypothesis about types, and this hypothesis is correct in the sense that the interpretation rules are (close to) the converse of the transition rules that are in fact applied.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

None of the three agent types introduced so far will change their action if presented again prompted to intervene, observe or evade.

“Notice that none of the three agent types introduced so far will change their action if presented again prompted to intervene, observe or evade.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

In S1, all agents know that their peers either believe or disbelieve A; none are indifferent between A and ¬A states.

“all know that their peers either believe or disbelieve A (none are indifferent between A and ¬A states)”

May combine two claims.

With two naive subjects, 91% of groups would be expected to intervene if subjects acted independently, whereas only 40% of such groups in fact did so.

“With two naive subjects, 91% of groups would be expected to intervene if subjects acted independently, whereas only 40% of such groups in fact did so.”

• cites Latané and Rodin, 1969 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

May combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.

Both the First Responder and Influenced Hesitator models score better than 50% on the smoky room data.

“Both the First Responder and Influenced Hesitator models score better than 50%.”

May combine two claims.

The IH model is incorrect in 60% of cases for group size 2, making it worse than a random bet.

“This makes the model incorrect in 60% of cases, making it worse than a random bet.”

May combine two claims.

The model with others-biased social beliefs does not fair very well on the data from the smoky room and lady in distress studies, but it does at least do better than a random bet.

“Though this model does not fair very well on the data from the smoky room and lady in distress studies, it does at least do better than a random bet.”

May combine two claims.

Summarizing 33 studies with face-to-face interaction, the effective individual probability of helping was 50%, with an effective individual response rate in groups only 22%.

“Summarizing 33 studies with face-to-face interaction, the effective individual probability of helping was 50%, with an effective individual response rate in groups only 22%.”

• cites Latané and Nida, 1981 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

May combine two claims.

Changing the social beliefs definition to one favoring the perceived beliefs of the other would yield a better model for the 2 subject case, while it would not alter the results for the group size 3 case.

“Changing this to one favoring the perceived beliefs of the other would yield a better model for the 2 subject case, while it would not alter the results for the group size 3 case.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

If other bystanders are not showing signs of distress, the event will be perceived as less critical and ultimately bypassed.

“if other bystanders are not showing signs of distress, the event will be perceived as less critical and therefore ultimately bypassed.”

• cites Latané and Darley, 1970Not checked — no full text of the source

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based).

The presented sequence of models, transition rules and updates conjoined captures important informational aspects of the observable bystander effect, given that the model is accepted.

“The presented sequence of models, transition rules and updates conjoined captures important informational aspects of the observable bystander effect, given that the model is accepted.”

May combine two claims.

In a group, the responsibility to intervene is distributed among all, diminishing the chances that anyone will act.

“When alone, the responsibility to intervene rests on one individual, but when in a group, the same pressure is apparently distributed among all, thereby diminishing the chances that anyone will act.”

• cites Latané and Darley, 1970Not checked — no full text of the source

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Pluralistic ignorance has been put forth as a decisive factor in various social situations.

“Pluralistic ignorance has been put forth as a decisive factor in a plethora of social situations”

• cites Prentice and Miller, 1993 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites Bicchieri and Fukui, 1999 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites Westphal and Bednar, 2005 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

If the group size is 3 or above, Influenced Hesitators will conclude, by the mis-perception of others' choice to observe as an act of evasion and the resulting state of pluralistic ignorance, that enough agents believe that no accident occurred for themselves to be 'socially convinced' that this is the case.

“If the group size is 3 or above, Influenced Hesitators will conclude, by the mis-perception of others' choice to observe as an act of evasion and the resulting state of pluralistic ignorance, that enough agents believe that no accident occurred for themselves to be 'socially convinced' that this is the case.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

The Type IV program with actual state OOO reflects an implicit norm-based pluralistic ignorance: though every agent is observing, each perceives the situation as one where they are the only ones doing it.

“Interestingly, the Type IV program with actual state OOO reflects an implicit norm-based pluralistic ignorance: though every agent is observing, each perceive the situation as one where they are the only ones doing it.”

• AssumptionThe authors state this as an assumption: Agents find it more plausible that others evade than that they observe.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

Pluralistic ignorance occurs on corporate boards, often resulting in poor strategic decisions.

“Though a fictitious example, pluralistic ignorance does occur on corporate boards, often resulting in poor strategic decisions (see (Westphal and Bednar, 2005)).”

• cites Westphal and Bednar, 2005 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

May combine two claims.

The City Dweller model is rejected because it would have it that all evade, contradicting the 75% reporting rate among alone subjects.

“Of the subjects that were alone, 75% reported the smoke, a number high enough to warrant the rejection of the City Dweller model, which would have it that all evade.”

May combine two claims.

The actions of First Responders, City Dwellers, and 'Simple' Hesitators are invariant over group size, due to their inherently non-social decision rules.

“That all these three agent types' actions are invariant over group size is due to their inherently non-social decision rules.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

The latter captures the post-factual effects of the mentioned norm-based pluralistic ignorance of ΓIV: all agents have the belief that they individually were the only ones to observe, while all others evaded.

“The latter captures the post-factual effects of the mentioned norm-based pluralistic ignorance of Γ IV : all have the belief that they individually were the only ones to observe, while all others evaded.”

• AssumptionThe authors state this as an assumption: Agents find it more plausible that others evade than that they observe.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Had EPM E1i been such that agents perceived actions according to their own decision rules, i.e. found observation more plausible than evasion in others, all would have correct beliefs about the actions of others.

“Importantly, had EPM E 1i on page 15 been such that agents perceived actions according to their own decision rules, i.e. found observation more plausible than evasion in others, all would have correct beliefs about the actions of others.”

May combine two claims.

The classic 'smoky room' experiment of Latané and Darley (1968) provides data which allows the rejection of three of the four models (First Responder, City Dweller, and Hesitator).

“The classic 'smoky room' experiment of (Latané and Darley, 1968), specifically designed to test the hypothesis of the second step of the explanation of the bystander effect (see p. 2), has served as a strong guide for the construction of the models, and provides data which allows the rejection of three of them.”

• cites Latané and Darley, 1968 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

The presented models are deterministic, while experimental data provides information about the percentage of individuals who intervene, so data will not be correctly matched.

“Inherently, the presented models are deterministic, while experimental data provides information about the percentage of individuals who intervene.Given this, data will not be correctly matched.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing).

The obvious parameter to tweak for a better fit is the self-biased majority voting definition of social beliefs, which does not put enough weight on the other in the 2 person case.

“The obvious parameter to tweak for a better fit is the self-biased majority voting definition of social beliefs, which does not put enough weight on the other in the 2 person case.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

In the smoky room study, the experimenters assumed that no diffusion of responsibility arose because the possible accident would have dire consequences for the subjects themselves.

“As the possible accident will have dire consequences for the subjects themselves, the experimenters assumed that no diffusion of responsibility arose.”

• cites Latané and Darley, 1968 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

May combine two claims.

That not all subjects chose to intervene in the single agent case seems to indicate that at least some behave as City Dwellers; that some chose to intervene in the three agent case indicates that some act as First Responders.

“That not all subjects chose to intervene in the single agent case seems to indicate that at least some behave as City Dwellers; that some chose to intervene in the three agent case indicates that some act as First Responders.”

May combine two claims.

The sub-optimal choice for all to evade is a direct result of considering social proof in a state of proposition-based pluralistic ignorance: Influenced Hesitators with correct beliefs about their peers beliefs would choose to intervene.

“-The sub-optimal choice for all to evade is a direct result of considering social proof in a state of proposition-based pluralistic ignorance: Influenced Hesitators with correct beliefs about their peers beliefs would choose to intervene.”

May combine two claims.

The IH model may misfire because the lady in distress experiment does not conform to the pluralistic ignorance explanation of the bystander effect; specifically, it does not preclude a mix of social proof and diffusion of responsibility effects, given that the accident did not put the subjects in faked danger.

“Partly, the model may misfire as the experiment does not conform to the pluralistic ignorance explanation of the bystander effect.Specifically, the experiment does not preclude the possibility of a mix of social proof and diffusion of responsibility effects, given that the accident in question did not put the subjects in faked danger.”

May combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.

The sub-optimal choice for all to evade is not a consequence of 'apathetic' agents: City Dweller evasion is not influenced by group size.

“-The sub-optimal choice for all to evade is not a consequence of”