This document describes a study that examined how self-monitoring personality types and the presence of friends or strangers affects bystander intervention in emergency situations. The study found: 1) There was a significant interaction between self-monitoring and familiarity that affected bystander intervention. High self-monitors were more likely to intervene with strangers, while low self-monitors were more likely to intervene with friends. 2) Familiarity alone (friends vs strangers) did not significantly impact bystander intervention. 3) Contrary to predictions, high self-monitors did not show higher rates of intervention overall, and low self-monitors did not show lower rates. Medium self-monitors actually had the highest intervention scores

1. Does the Presence of Friends or Stranger
Contribute to Bystander Intervention of
High Versus Low Self-Monitoring
Individuals in Emergency Situations?
Chandler Sullivan
Norwich University

2. Abstract
Bystander intervention has been a popular topic of social psychology
studies since the murder of Kitty Genovese in New York during the
1960s. Past literature has also raised the question of motivation to help
and what internal and external factors influence an individual’s likeliness
to intervene in a situation. However, different self-monitoring
personality types in relation to bystander intervention in the presence of
friends and strangers have not yet been observed together. This
experiment will predict that high self-monitoring bystanders will be
more likely to intervene than low self-monitoring individuals and low
self-monitoring individuals will be more likely to intervene when in the
presence of strangers than with friends. A quasi-experimental analysis
with a correlation variable will be conducted after showing friend and
stranger groups with high and low-self monitoring individuals a scene in
which they must decide whether or not to intervene and why. These
questions will be answered after being given the Self-Monitoring Scale
and answering an experimenter questionnaire.

3. Introduction
 Kitty Genovese and her unfortunate death made headlines
throughout the country in the 1960’s. The circumstances of
the crime gave rise to many questions and eventually research
regarding motivation for helping in certain situations, also
known as bystander intervention.
 Self-monitoring can be thought of in respect to motivation to
help others (Flynn et al., 2006). Flynn, Reagans, Amanatullah,
and Ames (2006) inferred that “high self-monitors” interact
with others differently than people with lesser self-monitoring
abilities.
 The overarching hypothesis is that “perceived generosity
would mediate the relationship between self-monitoring and
social status” (p. 4).

4. Introduction
 They found that people with heightened self-monitoring
abilities desire higher social standing which motivates them to
act accordingly around others
 High self-monitors are increasingly aware of the social
interactions among others
 High self-monitors are more capable of gaining status among
their work peers than low self-monitors by creating the façade
of kindness or willingness to help
 Significance in high self-monitors’ ability to correctly
comprehend the interactions between people in their
environment and surroundings

5. Introduction
 The researchers insinuate that follow-up investigation of the
long-term effects of the generous habits of self-monitors
might be useful for further information on this topic (Flynn et
al., 2006).
 To accompany the results of this study on self-monitoring and
helping and the results of other studies on intervention in an
emergency, other questions can be raised.
Research Question
 Do high self-monitoring individuals more frequently engage in
bystander intervention than low self-monitoring individuals in
emergency situations?

6. Hypothesis
 Self-monitoring will affect bystander intervention
-High self-monitoring individuals will be more likely to
engage in bystander intervention
-Low self-monitoring individuals will be less likely to
engage in bystander intervention
 Familiarity of people present will affect bystander intervention
-Presence of friends or strangers will increase bystander
intervention
 Self-monitoring individuals will interact with people present to
affect bystander intervention in emergency situations
-There will be no interaction between high self-monitoring
individuals and familiarity of people present
-Low self-monitoring individuals will be more likely to
intervene with strangers than with friends

7. Method
Participants
47 students from the Norwich University Corps of Cadets
ranging from freshmen to seniors participated in this experiment
on a voluntary basis.

8. Method
Materials
 Snyder’s (1974) Self-Monitoring Scale was used to measure high
and low self-monitoring behavior. SMS holds a reliability score of
.83
 It consists of 25 self-descriptive statements regarding behavior
in the presence of others with a true/false response
-My behavior is usually an expression of my true inner
feelings, attitudes, and beliefs.
-I may deceive people by being friendly when I really dislike
them.
 Score of 15-22 is considered high self-monitor
 Score of 9-14 is considered intermediate self-monitor
 Score of 0-8 is considered low self-monitor

9. Method
Materials
 An experimenter questionnaire was used to measure bystander
intervention
 Questionnaire consisted of 12 total questions regarding motives
for intervening based on internal and external factors
-I believe that intervening is the right thing to do whenever help
is needed.
-Help seemed necessary but I would not intervene because I
would not want to be the only one to intervene.
 Answered using Likert Scale 1 = strong disagreement, 7 = strong
agreement
 Behavioral rating/observation made by experimenter when
presenting stimulus to participants requiring a decision to
intervene or not

10. Method
Procedure
 Groups of friends and strangers were instructed to meet in a
classroom on different evenings and varying time brackets to
ensure that friends and strangers would not be interacting during
any part of the experiment
-Friend group consisted of 18 total people (2 sessions, 9
participants per session)
-Stranger group consisted of 29 total people (2 sessions,
20 participants in a session 9 participants in other
session)
 First meeting for all groups consisted of introduction, distribution
of ID numbers to be written in place of names, Informed Consent
form completion, counseling information slip distribution, and
explanation and completion of SMS
 Groups instructed to return two nights later during same time at
same location if available

11. Method
Procedure
 Second meeting for all groups began with reiteration of
University counseling service information before presenting a 2
minute long video clip of emergency situation
 Participants broke up into sub-groups of 3-5 people prior to the
viewing
 Informed participants that they could leave if uncomfortable
during viewing of the scene then proceeded to play video
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVTSrECFj6o
 Groups had 5 minutes to discuss what they would do as a
bystander in that exact situation; instructed to talk among
themselves as I prepared to distribute bystander intervention
questionnaire

12. Method
Procedure
 Behavioral rating took place when I presented stimulus to only
the stranger group by dropping intervention questionnaires during
their distribution and recorded the number of people who helped
 Questionnaires were completed individually with participant’s ID
number written at the top before submitting
 When all were submitted, I informed the stranger group of the
deceptive behavioral rating
 After all groups had been tested I thanked them for their
participation and informed them that I would provide the results
to those interested

13. Method
Data Analysis
 The dependent variable being tested was bystander
intervention
 The independent variables being tested were self-monitoring
and familiarity
 A Univariate ANOVA was run to test for an interaction
between self-monitoring and familiarity with bystander
intervention

14. Results
Self-Monitors & Bystander Intervention
 On Bystander Intervention Questionnaire, a score of 48 is average and 84 is
the highest possible score
 For low self-monitoring individuals, the total mean intervention score was
49.00
 For medium self-monitoring individuals, the total mean intervention score
was 49.33
 For high self-monitoring individuals, the total mean intervention score was
47.44
 Medium self-monitoring individuals had highest total mean intervention score
and high self-monitoring individuals had the lowest total mean intervention
score.
 These results do not support the hypotheses that high self-monitoring
individuals are more likely to engage in bystander intervention or that low
self-monitoring individuals will be less likely to engage in bystander
intervention.

15. Results
Familiarity & Bystander Intervention
 For friends and strangers, the total mean intervention score was
48.54
 For friends, the total mean intervention score was 48.33
 For strangers, the total mean intervention score was 48.68
 In a univariate ANOVA, familiarity was not significant, p =.679
 These results did not support the hypothesis that familiarity with
friends and strangers will increase bystander intervention.

16. Results
Self-Monitoring, Familiarity, & Bystander Intervention
 In a univariate ANOVA, there was a significant interaction
between self-monitoring and familiarity that affected bystander
intervention, F =4.221, p =.022
 High self-monitoring individuals were more likely to intervene
when in the presence of strangers while low-self monitoring
individuals were more likely to intervene when in the presence of
friends.
 These results did not support the hypothesis that low self-
monitoring individuals will be more likely to intervene when in the
presence of strangers. The hypothesis that high self-monitoring
individuals and familiarity would have no interaction was not
supported.

17. Results High and Low Self-Monitoring 1
Table 1. Means & Interactions for Bystander Intervention in Self-Monitoring and Familiarity.
Self-Monitoring Familiarity Mean Intervention Score
Low Stranger 43.67
Friend 53.00
Total 49.00
Medium Stranger 50.09
Friend 48.50
Total 49.33
High Stranger 48.64
Friend 43.25
Total 47.44
Total Stranger 48.68
Friend 48.33
Total 48.54
F 1.518 F .174
P .232 p .679
F 4.221
p .022
p<.05

18. Results
Graph 1. Mean Intervention Score for Self-Monitoring and Familiarity.

19. Discussion
Although some of the self-monitoring related results were
not in line with the intended predictions, there were still distinct
patterns found. Interestingly, low self-monitoring individuals had
a higher total mean intervention score than high self-monitoring
individuals which contradicts the hypothesis that high self-
monitoring individuals would have a higher intervention score.
Medium self-monitoring individuals were not included in the
original hypothesis, but it is noteworthy that these people were
found to have the highest total mean intervention score. This
raises the possibility of these medium labelled individuals being
borderline low or high self-monitors and the impact that might
have had on intervention. A second possibility is that medium
self-monitoring individuals possess both the crowd-pleasing
qualities of high self-monitoring people as well as the inherent
helping behavior of low self-monitoring people.

20. Discussion
Additionally, medium self-monitoring individuals accrued
the highest total mean intervention score with strangers, which
was higher than the predicted low self-monitoring individuals’
results. Although familiarity was not found to play a significant
role in determining whether people would intervene or not, the
intervention scores indicated above average results leaving room
for further inquiry as to what other factors contributed to this
higher willingness to intervene. Despite the fact that the final
results did not support the interaction that was predicted, a
significant interaction was found nonetheless between familiarity
and self-monitoring in bystander intervention. In addition, only
one individual intervened in response to the dropping of papers in
the experiment. It is accurate to conclude that the manner of
performing this behavioral observation was flawed. The results
imply that future studies should be conducted to further
investigate the nature of what was found.

21. Discussion
Future Study
 Reasons to why medium self-monitoring individuals in particular
are more likely to intervene
 Alter the behavioral condition so that it is more pertinent to the
situation at hand. Not only would this more realistic situation
provide more realistic and genuine behavioral results, but it would
also be more noticeable and emotion-provoking to the subjects
 Consider ways in which to conduct an observation that would not
cause potential distress to the subjects witnessing the situation
 Conduct this experiment on a larger scale, to ensure that the
participants in the stranger group are truly unknowing strangers,
rather than people who might see each other on campus despite
never having met before

22. Conclusion
The difference in likelihood to intervene overall between
high and low self-monitors is not great. Familiarity alone was not
found to affect bystander intervention significantly. Although my
hypotheses were not supported, a distinct interaction was found
between self-monitoring and familiarity that effected bystander
intervention significantly. The overarching concept that can be
taken away from this experiment is that if there is a significant
interaction between self-monitoring and familiarity that effect
bystander intervention, research on this topic should be improved
and expanded upon to ultimately raise awareness about the
importance of intervention in emergency situations.

23. References
Banyard, B.L. (2011). Who will help prevent sexual violence: Creating an
ecological model of bystander intervention. Psychology of Violence, Vol
1(3), 216-229, doi:10.1037/a0023739
Banyard, V.L., McMahon, S., (2011). When can I help? A conceptual framework for the
prevention of sexual violence through bystander intervention. Trauma,
Violence, & Abuse 13(1), 3-14, doi: 10.1177/1524838011426015
Banyard, V.L., Moynihan, M.M., (2011), Variation in bystander behavior related to
sexual and intimate partner violence prevention: Correlates in a sample
of college students. Psychology of Violence, Vol 1(4), 287-301, doi:
10.1037/a0023544
Cappadocia, M.C., Pepler, D., Cummings, J.G., Craig, W. (2012). Individual
motivations and characteristics associated with bystander intervention
during bullying episodes among children and youth. Canadian Journal of
School Psychology 27(3), 201-216, doi: 10.1177/0829573512450567
Fischer, P., Krueger, J.I., Greitemeyer, T., Vogrincic, C., Kastenmuller, A., Frey, D., . . .
Kainbacher, M. (2011). The bystander-effect: A meta-analytic review on
bystanderintervention in dangerous and non-dangerous emergencies.
Psychological Bulletin, 137(4), 517-537, doi: 10.1037/a0023304
Flynn, F.J., Reagans, R.E., Amanatullah, E.T., Ames, D.R. (2006). Helping one’s way to
the top: Self-monitors achieve status by helping others and knowing who
helps whom. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol 91(6), 1123-
1137. doi: 10.1037/0022 3514.91.6.1123

24. References
Leary, M.R., Allen, A.B. (2011). Self-presentational persona: Simultaneous
management of multiple impressions. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, Vol 101(5), 1033 1049. doi: 10.1037/a0023884
Levine, M., Crowther, S., (2008). The responsive bystander: How social group
membership and group size can encourage as well as inhibit bystander
intervention. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol 95(6),
1429-1439, doi: 10.1037/a0012634
Manning, R., Levine, M., Collins, A. (2007). The Kitty Genovese murder and the
social Psychology of helping: The parable of the 38 witnesses. American
Psychologists Vol 62(6), 555-562, doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.62.6.555
Weinstein, N., Ryan, R.M. (2010). When helping helps: Autonomous motivation for
prosocial behavior and its influence on well-being for the helper and
recipient. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol 98(2), 222-
244. doi: 10.1037/a0016984