Maqhfirah DR and Nurhalizah, “Bystander Effect and Prosocial Behavior on Psychology Faculty Students in Medan City,” International
Research Journal of Advanced Engineering and Science, Volume 6, Issue 4, pp. 25-29, 2021.
International Research Journal of Advanced Engineering and Science
ISSN (Online): 2455-9024


25

Bystander Effect and Prosocial Behavior on
Psychology Faculty Students in Medan City

Maqhfirah DR
1
, Nurhalizah
2

1, 2
Department of Psychology, University of Medan Area, Medan, Indonesia-20223


Abstract— Students of the Faculty of Psychology are one of the
communities in society that are highlighted for their prosocial
behavior. One of the factors that influence prosocial behavior is the
bystander effect. Using a correlational quantitative type, this study
aims to determine the relationship between the bystander effect and
prosocial behavior in students of the Faculty of Psychology in the
city of Medan. This study involved 218 students of the Faculty of
Psychology at one of the universities in the city of Medan who were
in the same batch and were taken using a total sampling technique.
The data collection used two psychological scales, namely the
bystander effect scale and the prosocial behavior scale. The results of
the Pearson product moment correlation technique analysis test
showed rxy = 0.786 with P = 0.000 <0.05. Prosocial behavior in
psychology faculty students is classified as moderate with a
hypothetical mean of 72.5 > empirical mean 59.49 where the
difference between the two means exceeds the number SD 13.029, the
bystander effect is also classified as moderate with a hypothetical
mean of 75 > empirical mean 63.49 where the difference between the
two means exceeds the number SD 13,590. The coefficient of
determination is r2 = 0.610, the bystander effect provides an effective
contribution to prosocial behavior of 61%. 49 where the difference
between the two means exceeds the number SD 13,590. The
coefficient of determination is r2 = 0.610, the bystander effect
provides an effective contribution to prosocial behavior of 61%. 49
where the difference between the two means exceeds the number SD
13,590. The coefficient of determination is r2 = 0.610, the bystander
effect provides an effective contribution to prosocial behavior of
61%.

Keywords— Bystander effect, students, prosocial behavior.
I. INTRODUCTION
Humans are social creatures who live in society. Therefore,
humans always live side by side, helping each other and
giving each other help. The emergence of modernization and
globalization today has a major impact on human life,
resulting in a shift in the pattern of interaction between
individuals and other individuals, and changes in values in
social life. The interaction between individuals is reduced and
the social contacts that occur are of lower quality and quantity.
One form of shift in the pattern of relationships between
individuals and other individuals in the surrounding
environment is the depletion of prosocial behaviour in society.
According to Baron & Byrne (in Muryadi & Matulessy,
2012) prosocial behaviour is voluntary behaviour to help
others without wanting to get rewarded and those who provide
help feel satisfied after helping. Prosocial behaviour has a
special characteristic that puts the interests of others above
personal interests. Welfare and benefit of people or groups is
the goal of prosocial behaviour. Eisenberg (in Muryadi &
Matulessy, 2012) says that prosocial behaviour includes three
aspects, namely actions that are carried out voluntarily, actions
taken are shown for the benefit of other people or a group of
other people, and the action is a goal not as a tool to satisfy
personal motives. .
Prosocial behavior should also be carried out by students
as part of the community. Not only that, students must also
play an active role in the community or in their environment.
From this identity, students have a role in society, be it social
responsibility, intellectual responsibility and moral
responsibility in their environment. Students as young
intellectual candidates who are undergoing a learning process
are required by the community to have a responsibility in
behaving according to what is prevailing in society such as
helping each other, sharing, and working together. However,
there are still students who are not aware of the importance of
prosocial behavior in society.
Students of the Faculty of Psychology are one of the
communities in society that are highlighted for their prosocial
behaviour. This is because most of the people's views of those
whose education is required to be sympathetic, empathetic,
more understanding and sensitive to other people and the
environment around them. In the words of some students, it
was found that when they saw other people who needed help,
they did not immediately help. They will see situations such as
whether there are many people there, and when they are in a
hurry, they do not immediately help because they think there
must be someone else to help. Likewise when in front of them
there was an accident.
Common reasons for not coming to the aid of a victim
include fearing that the risk of personal harm is too great and
feeling that he or she does not have the strength or other
qualities needed to be able to help assuming that others are
more qualified than him and that the situation is not as serious
as previously thought because he is The surroundings or
people present in the accident did not appear worried for fear
of being the target of aggression or intimidation. Staub (in
Muryadi & Matulessy, 2012) says that what underlies a person
to act prosaically, one of which is the existence of values and
norms that are internalized by individuals during socialization.
The lack of prosocial behaviour can occur due to several
factors, one of which is the bystander effect, where the
bystander effect or the presence of other people has the
perception that someone else has acted to help, so that he
himself does nothing to help. If in an emergency the individual
responds more quickly when he is alone, than if they have the
assumption that other people also know the situation
(Widiyastuti, 2014). When the situation at the scene is filled
with many people, individual helping behaviour tends to be

Maqhfirah DR and Nurhalizah, “Bystander Effect and Prosocial Behavior on Psychology Faculty Students in Medan City,” International
Research Journal of Advanced Engineering and Science, Volume 6, Issue 4, pp. 25-29, 2021.
International Research Journal of Advanced Engineering and Science
ISSN (Online): 2455-9024


26

less. This is supported by the bystander effect theory which
states that the possibility of someone to help will be smaller
when that person is with other people.
II. LITERATURE REVIEW
A. Student
According to Siswoyo (in Papilaya & Huliselan, 2016)
students are individuals who are studying at the tertiary level,
both public and private or other institutions at the level of
universities. A student is someone who is in the process of
gaining knowledge or studying and is registered to be
undergoing education at one of the universities such as
academics, polytechnics, high schools, institutes, and
universities (Hataji, 2012). A student is categorized as a
developmental stage whose age is 18-25 years. This stage can
be classified from late adolescence to early adulthood and in
terms of development, the task of development at this student
age is to strengthen the establishment of life (Yusuf, 2012) and
also to contribute to the social environment.
B. Prosocial Behaviour
Prosocial behavior is an act of helping others without
seeing the benefits, both from those who are helped and those
who provide help and may result in a risk for those who help
(Baron & Byrne, 2005). Eisenberg and Musen (in Matondang,
2016) define that prosocial behavior is a voluntary action
intended to help or benefit a group of other people or a group
of individuals. This prosocial behavior can be seen in various
forms, from emotional to physical help.
Sarwono (2009) states that there are two factors that
influence prosocial behavior, namely situational factors;
bystander, attractiveness, victim attribution, there is a model,
time pressure, the nature of the victim's needs, and factors in
mood, nature, gender, place of residence, and upbringing.
Specific factors that influence prosocial behavior include the
characteristics of the situation, the characteristics of the
helper, and the characteristics of the person who needs help
(Sears, et al., 1985). There are three indicators that become
prosocial actions, namely the action ends on him and does not
demand profit on the part of the perpetrator, the action is born
voluntarily, and the action produces goodness (Staub, in
Dayaksini & Hudaniah, 2009).
Mussen & et al. (in Nashori, 2008) reveal that aspects of
prosocial behavior include:
1. Helping, namely helping others by lightening the physical
or psychological burden of the person.
2. Sharing feelings or empathy, namely the willingness to
share what other people feel.
3. Cooperation, namely doing work or activities together
based on an agreement to achieve common goals
4. To donate is to be kind to others.
5. Paying attention to the welfare of others, namely caring
about other people's problems
Research conducted by McGuire (in Rahman, 2013)
succeeded in identifying 72 types of helping behavior in
students. After analyzing, McGuire distinguishes prosocial
behavior into 4 types, namely:
1. Causal help
Give small assistance with casual introductions, such as
sharing a meal, giving directions to new people.
2. Substantial personal help
Providing assistance with tangible benefits provided by
friends, providing personalized service, and giving or
lending valuables, such as lending a cell phone.
3. Emotional help
Offering help or support for personal problems, such as
providing a sense of security by being around friends,
providing moral support when friends are in trouble, and
listening to friends' problems.
4. Emergency help
Assistance given in dangerous situations or uncontrolled
situations, such as helping victims of accidents and fires.
C. Bystander Effect
Literally, bystander is a psychological term which means
an audience in a condition. Cherry (2007) states that the
bystander effect is a decrease in the intensity of helping
behavior in situations that require help because there are many
other individuals in the situation. Furthermore, the bystander
effect is defined as a person in a situation who only chooses to
be an observer, witnessing the danger that occurs, but does
nothing to help or stop the incident (Latane and Darley in
Sears, Freedman & et al., 1985).
Latane & Darly (in Hortensius & Gelder, 2018) describe
five processes for the occurrence of the bystander effect,
namely emergencies, capturing individual attention, evaluating
emergencies, deciding responsibility and trust in competence,
and finally making a decision to help or not. However, this
calculation in the decision-making process does not have to
occur at the reflective, cognitive level and can also reflect the
results of the reflexive.
There are several factors that influence a person in
determining the decision to do the bystander effect, namely
the spread of responsibility, the effect of ambiguity, fear of
being judged, environmental conditions, and time pressure
(Sears, Freedman & et al., 1985). According to Latané & Nida
(in Urschler, Fischer et al, 2015) the factors that influence the
bystander effect are the number of observers, the level of
danger in an emergency, membership in social categories.
According to Davidson (2012) aspects of the bystander effect
are:
1. Potential to intervene
2. Prevent violence
3. Opportunity to provide assistance
According to Sarwono (in Asiah, 2017) indicators in the
bystander effect include:
1. Social influence, namely the influence of other people who
are used as a benchmark in interpreting the situation and
making decisions to interfere, someone will interfere if
other people also interfere
2. Bystander barriers, namely feeling themselves judged by
others and the risk of embarrassing themselves because
their actions to interfere inappropriately will prevent others
from interfering.
3. The spread of responsibility makes the responsibility for
interfering divided due to the presence of other people

Maqhfirah DR and Nurhalizah, “Bystander Effect and Prosocial Behavior on Psychology Faculty Students in Medan City,” International
Research Journal of Advanced Engineering and Science, Volume 6, Issue 4, pp. 25-29, 2021.
International Research Journal of Advanced Engineering and Science
ISSN (Online): 2455-9024


27

Latane & Darley (in Fahmi, 2017) say the process that
hinders giving help is
1. Evaluation apprehension, namely the fear of being judged
by others when acting in public. A person is worried about
making a mistake or acting inappropriately when he is
being watched by others and is therefore reluctant to give
help.
2. Pluralistic ignorance, namely a person's tendency to rely
on obvious reactions when faced with ambiguous
situations. People don't give help because everyone
believes that no one perceives that the situation is serious.
3. Knowing how to help in helping, once the previous
sequences are met, other conditions must also be met so
they have to decide what kind of help is to be done.
4. Deciding on the implementation to help even though the
individual knows what help is appropriate to give, there are
still reasons why the individual decides to help. For one
thing, the individual may not be competent enough to
provide proper assistance. Even when the individual knows
what help is needed, the individual must consider the risks
if the individual provides help
D. The Relationship Between Bystander Effect And Prosocial
Behavior
It has been described previously that there are various
factors that influence a person's decision to help or not. One of
the factors is the presence of a bystander when an emergency
event that makes someone need help occurs. Prosocial
behavior includes all forms of action to help others, whether
planned or not, regardless of the motives that provide help
(Nashori, 2008). Prosocial behavior can be caused by the
presence of other people or the bystander effect.
Darley and Latane (in Mercer & Clayton 2012) also
conducted an experiment on the presence of a bystander that
affects a person's prosocial behavior, which involved male
students who were faced with a situation where there were
students (as experimental assistants) who experienced
convulsions and shortness of breath. The results of the
experiment conducted by Darley and Latane show that the
number of sanctions affects the provision of help, because
students who hear about an emergency are more likely to react
when they are alone than in a crowded situation. The more
bystanders on the scene, the longer it will take to respond and
the less likely the individual will act.
This is also shown by research by Halimah, et al. (2015)
that the role of the bystander on the intensity of bullying in
junior high school students shows that there is a positive
influence on the perception of the bystander on the intensity of
bullying. In this study, researchers used the bystander effect as
the basic concept. The results of this study indicate that the
coefficient of the influence of bystander attendance is low in
this study, but this plays a role in strengthening or triggering
the recurrence of bullying behavior in schools. The bystander
who is silent or does not care about the bullying by his friend
makes the perpetrator feel supported and considers it normal,
but when the bystander's reaction moves to help the victim,
the perpetrator will feel like a failure because no one accepts
his behavior. Bullying against the presence of a bystander can
explain the cause of the recurrence of bullying behavior in
schools. The recurrence of bullying behavior in schools is due
to the lack of moral concern from the bystander to help
victims.
III. METHODOLOGY
This study uses a correlational quantitative research type
involving 218 students of the Faculty of Psychology who
study in Medan. Data was collected using two psychological
scales, namely the prosocial behavior scale and the bystander
effect scale. The social behavior scale is based on aspects
according to Mussen et al. (in Nashori, 2008) including
aspects of helping, sharing feelings or empathy, cooperation,
contributing, and paying attention to the welfare of others.
Meanwhile, the bystander effect scale is based on aspects
according to Davidson (2012), including aspects of potential
interference, preventing violence and providing assistance.
The two scales were arranged using the Likert scale method
consisting of favorable and unfavorable items with each item
score moving from numbers 1 to 4.
IV. RESULT
1. Assumption Test
The distribution normality test was analyzed using the
normality test for the distribution of research data using the
Kolmogorov-Smirnov Goodness of Fit Test technique. Based
on this analysis, it is known that prosocial behavior and
bystander effect follow a normal distribution which is
distributed according to the normal curve principle with p >
0.05. The results of the normality test of the scale of the
relationship between the bystander effect and prosocial
behavior can be seen in the following table.

TABLE 1. Calculation Results of Distribution Normality Test
Variable Average SD KS P Information
Bystander effect 63.49 13,590 0.956 0.320 Normal
Prosocial behavior 59.55 13.029 0.803 0.540 Normal

Information:
Average : Average score
KS : Coefficient Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Elementary school : Standard Deviation
P : Chance of error
Furthermore, based on the linearity test, it can be seen that
the bystander effect has a linear relationship with prosocial
behavior with p> 0.05. The relationship can be seen in the
following table.

TABLE 2. Calculation Results of Relationship Linearity Test
Correlation F P Information
X -Y 7,841 0.736 Linear

Information:
X : Bystander effect
Y : Prosocial behavior
F

: Coefficient of linearity
P : Probability of error
2. Calculation Results of Pearson Product Moment Data
Analysis

Maqhfirah DR and Nurhalizah, “Bystander Effect and Prosocial Behavior on Psychology Faculty Students in Medan City,” International
Research Journal of Advanced Engineering and Science, Volume 6, Issue 4, pp. 25-29, 2021.
International Research Journal of Advanced Engineering and Science
ISSN (Online): 2455-9024


28

Based on the results of the analysis using the r Product
Moment correlation analysis method, it is known that rxy =
0.781 with a significant p = 0.000 < 0.050. The determinant
coefficient (r2) of the relationship between the independent
variable X and the dependent variable Y is r2 = 0.610. This
indicates that the bystander effect contributes to prosocial
behavior by 61%, and there are 39% of other factors not
examined in this study.

TABLE 3. Calculation of r Product Moment Analysis
Statistics
Coefficient
(rxy)
Determinant
Coefficient
(r2)
p BE% Information
XY 0.781 0.610 0.000 61.0% Significant

Information:
X : Bystander effect
Y : Prosocial behavior
r
xy
: Coefficient of relationship X and Y
r
2
: The coefficient of determinant X and Y
p : Probability of error
BE% : Weight of X's effective contribution against Y in
percent
Note : Significance
4. Hypothetical and Empirical Mean Calculation Results
a. Hypothetical Mean
For the bystander effect variable, the number of valid items
is 31 items formatted with a Likert scale in 4 answer
choices, then the hypothetical mean is {(31 X 1) + (31 X
4)} : 2 = 75. Then for the prosocial behavior variable, the
number of valid items is 31 items formatted with a Likert
scale in 4 answer choices, then the hypothetical mean is
{(31 X 1) + (31 X 4} : 2 = 72.5.
b. Empirical Mean
Based on data analysis, the empirical mean of the
bystander effect variable the empirical mean is 63.49 while
for the prosocial behavior variable it is 59.55.
c. Criteria
Hypothetical mean < empirical mean, where the
hypothetical mean is added or subtracted by SD and the
empirical mean is in between, the bystander effect is
classified as moderate and tends to be negative. The result
of the empirical mean is higher than the result of the
difference between the hypothetical mean and the standard
deviation. The result of the hypothetical mean (90) > the
empirical mean (63.49) where the result of the hypothetical
mean (90) - SD (13.590) is 88.59 so that the empirical
mean is moderate. Hypothetical mean < empirical mean,
where the hypothetical mean is added or subtracted by SD
and the empirical mean is in between, prosocial behavior is
classified as moderate and tends to be negative. From the
picture above, it has information that the empirical mean is
higher than the result of the difference between the
hypothetical mean and the standard deviation.
Hypothetical mean (90) > empirical mean (59, 55) where
the result of the hypothetical mean (90) - SD (13.590) is
59,471 so that the empirical mean is moderate.


TABLE 4. Calculation of Hypothetical Mean and Empirical Mean
Variable SD
Mean
Information
Hypothetical Empirical
Bystander effect 13,590 75 63.49 Currently
Prosocial behavior 13.029 72.5 59.55 Currently

Curve 1. Bystander Effect Normal Curve

Curve II. Normal Curve of Prosocial Behavior

V. DISCUSSION
From the results of the calculation of the Pearson product
moment correlation analysis, it shows that the research
hypothesis is rejected, namely there is a negative relationship
between the bystander effect and prosocial behavior in the
students of the Faculty of Psychology, where rxy = 0.781 with
a significant p = 0.000 < 0.050. The reason is due to several
things, namely the theory used cannot be applied in real life in
prosocial behavior in Indonesia, especially the city of Medan.
Indonesian culture is very different from foreign cultures, so
the theory put forward by researchers cannot be implemented
in Indonesia. Not only that, the characteristics and culture of
the Indonesian people are very different from those of foreign
cultures, because Indonesian people in general have friendly
and helpful characteristics.
The Indonesian government has also made a law on
helping accident victims, namely Article 531 of the Criminal
Code (KUHP) which states the obligation to help people who
need help. This article indicates that if someone wants to
provide help, it is better for the individual to realize that the
action does not endanger himself, for example the individual
cannot help with his own strength, he can ask for help from
other people who are considered able to help, such as calling
the medical officer or the police.
Based on the results of this study, it also shows that the
bystander effect does not always lead to negative things but
can also lead to positive things. The results of this study are

Maqhfirah DR and Nurhalizah, “Bystander Effect and Prosocial Behavior on Psychology Faculty Students in Medan City,” International
Research Journal of Advanced Engineering and Science, Volume 6, Issue 4, pp. 25-29, 2021.
International Research Journal of Advanced Engineering and Science
ISSN (Online): 2455-9024


29

supported by the results of research by Fischer et al. (in
Fahmi, 2017). He corrected the results of classic research on
the bystander effect which views that the presence of other
people is considered as something negative. It turns out that
the bystander effect is not always negative as described in the
theory used by researchers. From the research results of
Fischer et al (in Fahmi, 2017) can support the results of this
study that there is no bystander effect when someone with
other people is in a dangerous condition. In a state of danger, a
person perceives others as a positive source for himself in
providing assistance.
According to Fischer et al (in Fahmi, 2017) there are three
reasons why the bystander effect weakens in a state of danger,
namely (1) There is increased arousal in a person when facing
a dangerous situation. This arousal situation can be reduced by
providing assistance to the victim. This explanation is in line
with the arousal view: the cost-reward model assumes that
unambiguous and highly dangerous circumstances can
increase the experience of arousal, whereas this increased
arousal can be reduced by helping the victim; (2) The presence
of others can provide physical support especially in situations
of danger where a person is concerned about the social and
physical consequences of providing assistance, for example
being attacked by a criminal; (3) The existence of a rational
inference process that a dangerous situation can be overcome
by cooperating and coordinating between himself and others.
The state of danger raises the expectation that others will help
too (because the situation is very dangerous), which in turn
increases the likelihood that someone will help.
The reason individuals do not help at the time of an
incident is due to the lack of helping behavior that is cultured
by the environment so that it can be a stimulus to others.
Prosocial behavior in psychology students at this time is
moderate, because the culture of psychology students is
different from what it used to be, in fact today's students will
help if someone helps, ideally prosocial behavior is done
voluntarily without looking at the motives of giving help. This
bystander effect affects the behavior of some students
resulting in students lacking initiative.
The theory used by researchers has changed, this is
supported by Fahmi's research (2017) which shows that there
are several things in the bystander effect, namely the implicit
bystander effect, public self-awareness and the similarity of
social identity. The implicit bystander effect is that simply
imagining the presence of a group in one situation can
influence helping behavior in another situation. According to
Garcia, et al. (in Fahmi, 2017), the implicit bystander effect
has a limit (bounday condition), namely that the situation that
occurs is a situation that provokes the attention of the general
public, for example tripping or falling. In this case, when
people are asked to be in a situation that attracts the attention
of the general public, people will tend to help in that situation.
Therefore,
The second is that public self-awareness is that people
have a desire to be seen as good by others. Helping behavior is
a means for a person to build his reputation in front of others.
In this case, helping behavior can be used as a means for
someone to build an impression when dealing with other
people.
The third is the similarity of social identity, namely in
everyday life, individuals cannot be separated from social
identity. As in general, women tend to help women and vice
versa due to binding religious laws, as well as the norms that
apply in society regarding the ethics of politeness of the
opposite sex. When individuals interact with other people, of
course, it can affect their behavior where in an environment of
course there are individuals who join a community they tend
to influence the behavior of fellow people who are the same as
their community.
Based on this research, it can be concluded that the more
bystanders, the higher the prosocial behavior of the students of
the Faculty of Psychology. The contribution given by the
bystander effect variable on prosocial behavior is 61%,
meaning that there are still 39% more from other factors,
namely the attractiveness factor, attribution to the victim, there
is a model, time pressure, the nature of the victim's needs,
mood, nature, gender, place of residence. and parenting.
REFERENCES
[1] Asiah, N. 2017. Pengaruh Bystander Effect dan Whistleblowing
terhadap terjadinya Kecurangan Laporan Keuangan. Jurnal Ekonomi.
Vol 6. No. 1. pp 110
[2] Baron, A. R.& Byrne D. 2005. Psikologi Sosial (jilid 1 & 2, edisi
kesepuluh). Jakarta: Erlangga
[3] Cherry, K. 2007. The Bystander Effect .
(http://psychology.about.com//od/socialpsychology/a/bystandereffect.ht
m)
[4]. Davidson, M.C. 2012. Predictors Of College Women’s Prosocial
Bystander Intervention: Personal Characteristics, Sexual Assault
History And Situational Barriers. Thesis. No 58
[5] Dayaksini, T & Hudaniah. 2009. Psikologi Sosial. Malang: UMM Press
[6] Fahmi, A.B. 2017. Non-Empiris Dari Mengabaikan ke Menolong:
Tinjauan Studi Bystander-Effect. Jurnal. Vol. 3. No. 1. pp 44
[7] Hartaji, D.A. 2012. Motivasi Berprestasi Pada Mahasiswa
yangBerkuliah Dengan Jurusan Pilihan Orangtua. Skripsi strata satu,
Fakultas Psikologi Universitas Gunadarma
[8] Hogg, G.M. & Vaughan. 2008. Introduction to Social Psychology. 4
th

Edition. New South Wales: Pearson Education Australia
[9] Hortensius, R & Gelder, B.D. 2018. From Empathy to Apathy: the
Bystander Effect Revisited. Journal. Vol.27. No. 4. pp 250
[10] Halimah, A. Khumas, A. & Zainuddin, K. 2015. Persepsi Bystander
Terhadap Intensitas Bullying Pada Siswa SMP. Jurnal. Vol. 42. No. 2.
pp 134
[11] Latané, B & Darley, J.M. 1968. Bystander Interventionin
Emergencies: Diffusion of Responsibility. Journal. Vol.8. No. 4
[12] Matondang, E.S. 2016. Perilaku Prososial (Prosocial Behavior)
Anak Usia dini dan Pengelolaan Kelas Melalui Pengelompokan
usia Rangkap (Multiage Grouping). Journal, Vol .8. No.1. pp 35
[13] Mercer, J & Clayton, D. 2012. Psikologi Sosial. Jakarta: Penerbit
Erlangga
[14] Muryadi & Matulessy, A. 2012. Religiusitas, Kecerdasan Emosi
dan Perilaku Prososial Guru. Jurnal Psikologi. Vol 7. No 2. pp 2
[15] Nashori, F.H. 2008. Psikologi Social Islam. Bandung: PT Refika
Aditama
[16] Papilaya, O.J & Huliselan, N. 2016. Indentifikasi Gaya Belajar
Mahasiswa. Jurnal Psikologi. Vol 15. No 1. pp 57
[17] Rahman, A.R. 2013. Psikologi Sosial integrasi pengetahuan wahyu dan
pengetahuan empirik. Jakarta: PT Raja Grafindo Persada
[18] Sarwono, W.S & Meinarno, A. E. 2009. Psikologi Sosial. Jakarta:
Salemba Humanika
[19] Sears, O.D, Freedman, J.L & dkk. 1985. Psikologi Sosial (edisi kelima).
Jakarta: Erlangga
[20] Urschler, D.F & Fischer, J. dkk. 2015. Bystander Effect. Jurnal
psikologi. Vol 1 no. 10. pp 10
[21] Yusuf, S. 2012. Psikologi Perkembangan Anak dan Remaja. Bandung:
Remaja Rosdakarya