Thanks for looking up the abstracts, Paul. It makes for fascinating reading. My
conclusion from reading these abstract is that it can be nearly meaningless to
study "culture" as an independent variable if you do not carefully test
theoretically based hypotheses and measure the supposed underlying variable
thought to result in the cross-cultural differences. If the underlying variables
is independence vs. interdependence then you need to make sure the participants
actually vary on that dimension (not so clear when you look to western
europeans). It would also be fruitful to examine individual difference on that
variable within a given culture (thus holding at least some other factors a
little more constant). As we've already talked about there are many theoretical
reasons why the bystander effect might not show cultural differences. The
underlying personality construct (e.g., independence) is simply overwhelmed by
the immediate context of the situation (what kind of emergency, who is present,
what is the kind of help that is needed, how much of a hurry are people in, how
dangerous is it to help, what will happen if I don't help, etc.).
Paul Smith wrote:
> I looked up "Bystander Effect" as a keyword in PsycInfo, and found the
> following:
>
> ====================
> Lam, Sanpui; Jone, Kuenyung.
>
> Title: Effects of knowledge of bystander effect, presence of bystanders, and
> witness's gender on crime reporting behavior. [Chinese].
>
> Chinese Journal of Psychology. Vol 36(1), Jun 1994, 33-45.
>
> Abstract
> Studied the effects of the knowledge of bystander effect (KBE), the presence
> of bystanders (PB), and the witness' gender on crime reporting behavior
> (CRB). Human Ss: 98 normal male and female Chinese adults (college students)
> (Exp 1). 84 normal male and female Chinese adults (college students) (Exp
> 2). Exp 1 was designed to test the hypothesis that the PB but not the KBE
> would reduce CRB. Ss were divided into 4 groups: those with KBE or without
> KBE and those with PB or without PB (Ss with KBE obtained KBE through the
> telling of an example, and Ss with PB were given a suggestion of PB in an
> introduction). Ss witnessed a theft "unintentionally" in a short film
> presentation. Ss were observed during introduction of the experiment, film
> presentation, and a postpresentation interview processed individually. Ss'
> active and inactive CRBs were compared among groups. Exp 2 was in a 2 (with
> or without KBE) x 2 (with or without PB) x 2 (gender) design to test the
> effect of KBE and gender difference in CRB using a similar process from Exp
> 1. (English abstract) ((c) 1997 APA/PsycINFO, all rights reserved)
> ======================
> ======================
> A search on "Fundamental Attribution Error" as keyword produced the
> following:
> ======================
> Norenzayan, Ara; Nisbett, Richard E., Ctr de Recherche en Epistemologie
> Appliquee, Ecole Polytechnique, Paris, France.
>
> Title: Culture and causal cognition.
> Current Directions in Psychological Science. Vol 9(4), Aug 2000, 132-135.
>
> Abstract
> East Asian and American causal reasoning differs significantly. East Asians
> understand behavior in terms of complex interactions between dispositions of
> the person or other object and contextual factors, whereas Americans often
> view social behavior primarily as the direct unfolding of dispositions.
> These culturally differing causal theories seem to be rooted in more
> pervasive, culture-specific mentalities in East Asia and the West. The
> Western mentality is analytic, focusing attention on the object,
> categorizing it by reference to its attributes, and ascribing causality
> based on rules about it. The East Asian mentality is holistic, focusing
> attention on the field in which the object is located and ascribing
> causality by reference to the relationship between the object and the field.
> ((c) 2000 APA/PsycINFO, all rights reserved)
> =====================
> Tacke, Gero.
>
> Title: The fundamental attribution error: A differentiation. [German].
>
> Original Title: Der fundamentale Attributionsfehler: Eine Differenzierung.
>
> Psychologische Beitraege. Vol 28(3-4), 1986, 551-559.
>
> Abstract
> Conducted 2 experimented to study hypotheses related to the fundamental
> attribution error. Human subjects: 270 male and female German adolescents
> (grades 9-12). The Ss were presented with 1 of 2 interpersonal scenarios,
> and were asked to rate the relative importance of personality
> characteristics and situational factors in determining a character"s
> behaviors. The 2 scenarios differed with regard to the causal relationship
> between behavior and personality and situational factors. (English, French &
> Japanese abstracts) ((c) 2000 APA/PsycINFO, all rights reserved)
> ========================
> Takano, Yohtaro; Osaka, Eiko., U Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.
>
> Title: An unsupported common view: Comparing Japan and the U.S. on
> individualism/collectivism.
>
> Asian Journal of Social Psychology. Vol 2(3), Dec 1999 , 311-341.
>
> Abstract
> Reviewed 15 empirical studies that compared Japan and America on
> individualism/ collectivism, to assess the validity of the common view that
> has long been believed that the Japanese are more collectivistic than the
> Americans. Surprisingly, 14 studies did not support the common view; the
> only study that supported it turned out to bear little relevance to the
> ordinary definition of individualism/collectivism. An examination of the
> supportive evidence of the common view disclosed that this view had been
> formed on an unexpectedly flimsy ground. It further turned out that the wide
> acceptance of the common view may have been the result of the fundamental
> attribution error, which may have led to an underestimation of situational
> factors in interpreting the past obviously collectivistic behavior of the
> Japanese. ((c) 2000 APA/PsycINFO, all rights reserved)
> ===========================
> Krull, Douglas S; Loy, Michelle Hui-Min; Lin, Jennifer; Wang, Ching-Fu;
> Chen, Suhong; Zhao, Xudong.,
> Northern Kentucky U, Dept of Psychology, Highland Heights, KY, US.
>
> Title: The fundamental fundamental attribution error: Correspondence bias in
> individualist and collectivist cultures.
>
> Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin. Vol 25(10), Oct 1999, 1208-1219.
>
> Abstract
> A growing body of research suggests that cultures differ in the tendency to
> prefer dispositional or situational explanations for behavior. However,
> little work has examined whether cultural differences exist in the tendency
> to infer that people's dispositions correspond to their behavior (the
> correspondence bias). Two experiments, one using the attitude attribution
> paradigm and one using the quizmaster paradigm, investigated the
> correspondence bias in individualist and collectivist cultures. 74
> Americans, primarily college students, and 98 Chinese individuals, also
> primarily college students, participated in the study. As predicted,
> significant correspondence bias effects were found in both cultures.
> Moreover, no cultural difference emerged. Explanations and implications are
> discussed. ((c) 1999 APA/PsycINFO, all rights reserved)
> ============================
> Norenzayan, Ara; Choi, Incheol; Nisbett, Richard E., U Michigan, Dept of
> Psychology, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
>
> Title: (Chapter) Eastern and Western perceptions of causality for social
> behavior: Lay theories about personalities and situations.
>
> Prentice, Deborah A. (Ed); Miller, Dale T. (Ed); et al. (1999). Cultural
> divides: Understanding and overcoming group conflict. (pp. 239-272). New
> York, NY, USA: Russell Sage Foundation. xvi, 507 pp.
>
> Abstract
> (from the book) Seeks to uncover the true nature of cultural differences in
> social inference. Previous studies (e.g., J. G. Miller, 1984) have shown
> that members of East Asian cultures are much less likely than are members of
> Western cultures to commit the "fundamental attribution error," i.e., to
> overestimate the extent to which an individual's behavior reflects his or
> her dispositions, beliefs, or preferences rather than something about the
> situation or context in which the behavior occurred. The present authors
> probe more specifically the locus of this difference. They find that both
> Easterners and Westerners think dispositionally; the two cultures converge
> on the extent to which dispositional information is used to explain and
> predict the behavior of others. Where they diverge is in the extent to which
> they consider situational information as well. Westerners simply do not,
> regardless of how salient or predictive the situational information might
> be. Easterners, on the other hand, take situational factors into account
> when information about those factors is available, especially when it is
> salient. ((c) 1999 APA/PsycINFO, all rights reserved)
> ==========================
> Dunand, Muriel A., U Catholique de Louvain Faculte de Psychologie, Unite de
> Psychologie Experimental et Sociale, Brussels, Belgium.
>
> Title: Violence and panic at the Brussels Football Stadium in 1985:
> Social-psychological approach to the events. [French].
>
> Original Title: Violence et panique dans le stade de football de Bruxelles
> en 1985: Approche psychosociale des evenements.
>
> Cahiers de Psychologie Cognitive. Vol 6(3), Jun 1986, 235-266.
>
> Abstract
> Presents a social-psychological analysis of the aggressive behavior and
> panic occurring in the crowd attending a soccer match in Brussels in 1985.
> The fundamental attribution error that modulated initial public reactions in
> favor of dispositional causality judgments is discussed. A series of
> situational determinants is considered: the deindividuation and panic
> phenomena occurring in the crowd, the relationship between competitive
> sports and aggression, the direct or anticipated effects of viewing a
> potentially violent display, and environmental factors (e.g., stimuli
> associated with aggression, alcohol accessibility, the sensory context, and
> the physical organization of space). (English abstract) ((c) 1997
> APA/PsycINFO, all rights reserved)
> ============================
> Koppelaar, Leendert; Van der Steen, Jaap., Vrije U, Vakgroep Sociale
> Psychologie, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
>
> Title: Cooperation among police officers: The influence of task division on
> attribution of guilt. [Dutch].
>
> Original Title: Samenwerking tussen politie-agenten: de invloed van
> taakverdeling op attributie van schuld.
>
> Nederlands Tijdschrift voor de Psychologie en Haar Grensgebieden. Vol 40(4),
> Jun 1985, 222-230.
>
> Abstract
> Asserts that in the process of conflict intervention by the police, 2
> officers have a tacit division of tasks: One officer takes the lead and has
> an active role (actor-officer), while the 2nd officer leaves the initiative
> to his/her colleague and has the passive role. This division of tasks is
> translated in terms of the attribution-theoretical distinction between
> active and passive observers. The authors hypothesized that the
> actor-officer perceives a greater difference in responsibility and guilt
> between 2 citizens in conflict than does the observer-officer. The
> actor-officer makes the fundamental attribution error in that he/she takes
> sides against the more emotional and expressive citizen, irrespective of the
> way the conflict happened. In an experiment, actors played the role of
> quarreling citizens. The conflict intervention took place with 47 pairs of
> Ss; in each instance, one S was assigned to the role of actor-officer and
> the other to the role of observer-officer. Ss were recruited from a
> municipal police force, a police school, and a university. Results confirm
> the hypothesis. (8 ref) ((c) 1997 APA/PsycINFO, all rights reserved)
> ==============================
> ==============================
> All-in-all, it looks as though there IS a pretty reasonable
> literature (including one really nice disagreement) to start with if the
> cross-cultural applicability of "Bystander Effect" and F.A.E. is your
> interest.
>
> Paul Smith
> Alverno College
> Milwaukee
