This essay will explain the likely responses of individuals in relation to the tunnel scenario by providing a critical overview of potential moderators of bystander interventions. Latané & Darley (1970) stated as the number of bystanders increase this reduces individuals to help victims. The main variables proposed to explain intervention comprise of audience inhibition, social influence and diffusion of responsibility. In addition, emotionality is mentioned to highlight the change in literature. This serves to provide potential responses of bystanders in relation to the tunnel scenario. The bystander effect is defined as “the reluctance of bystanders to intervene in an emergency, especially when a person appears to be in distress or when …show more content…
This is linked to audience inhibition that explains why individuals may be reluctant to intervene in an emergency. Cacioppo, Petty & Losch, (1986) found as the number of bystanders increased the individual became concerned about receiving negative appraisals in relation to their helping behaviour. Therefore, the cognitive interpretation is an important aspect of bystander intervention. One method to determine how bystanders will react in a tunnel explosion is to investigate the bystander effect in critical situations. Fischer et al., (2011) conducted a meta-analytic review of bystander intervention in dangerous and non-dangerous emergencies. Overall, results showed the importance of emotionality that affects intervention. It was found that dangerous emergencies produced smaller bystander effects compared to non-dangerous emergencies (Fischer et al., 2011). Three processes were presented to explain the results a) dangerous situations are construed as clear-cut emergencies which increased arousal and helping responses, b) observers are seen as physical support that reduces fear of intervention and c) dangerous emergences can only be resolved by coordination with others (Fischer et al., 2011). These results are consistent with the arousal-cost-reward (ACR) model as dangerous emergencies were
The bystander effect refers to the tendency for an observer of an emergency to withhold aid if the:
In this story, Allende paints a picture of a little girl who is having what should be a near death experience, but will instead lead to her demise. This change is a result of the fact that even though a passel of reporters and cameramen on the scene, all are insensitive to the suffering of Azucena. The situation is a strong example of the bystander effect. Studies have indicated that in situations such as this one, the members of the group are likely to pass responsibility for saving Azucena to another member of the group. As more news crews report to the scene, each individual feels less compelled to provide aid to this poor girl.
The bystander effect is a the phenomenon in which the more people are are around the less likely someone will step-in or help in a given situation. THe most prominent example of this is the tragic death of Kitty Genovese. In march of 1964 Kitty genovese was murdered in the alley outside of her apartment. That night numerous people reported hearing the desperate cries for help made by Kitty Genovese who was stabbed to death. Her screams ripped through the night and yet people walked idly by her murder. No one intervened and not even a measly phone call to the police was made.
Kitty Genovese case led to the development of the 911 emergency call system and inspired a long line of research led by psychologists Bibb Latané and John Darley around the time of 1970 into what circumstances lead bystanders to help someone in need. They discovered that, the more people available to help, the less likely any individual person would help—a phenomenon they called the “bystander effect.” If you are the only one around when an elderly person stumbles and falls, the responsibility to help is yours alone, but, with more people present, your obligation is less clear. Latané and Darley called this the “diffusion of responsibility” (CSI). A more recent case of the bystander effect was when assault victim Marques Gains laid motionless in the street due to by a hit-and-run; traffic whizzed past along with a few people stopped and seemed to stand over Gaines, who was crumpled near the curb on North State Street. No one tried to lift him from the pavement or block traffic. The lack of action by passers-by cost the hotel cocktail server his life after a cab turned the corner and drove over him. Experts says that a traumatic or odd event occurring in a public setting triggers an array of social and cultural cues and, combined with human nature, often leads to the lack of action by witnesses
Martin Luther King, Jr. once said, “The ultimate tragedy is not the oppression and cruelty by the bad people but the silence over that by the good people.” We are All Bystanders by Jason Marsh and Dacher Keltner is an article that reflects on the psychological and social phenomenon that refers to cases in which people do not offer any assistance or help to a victim. Studies say that a person's personality can determine how they react to a bystander situation. In a book called, The Heart of Altruism, author Kristen Monroe writes the altruistic perspective. Altruistic people are strongly connected to other humans and have a concern for the well-being of others. Markus Zusak’s The Book Thief exemplifies the bystander theory through Liesel and
Latane and Darley (1968) investigated the phenomenon known as the bystander effect and staged an emergency situation where smoke was pumped into the room participants was in. Results showed that 75% of participants who were alone reported the smoke, whereas only 38% of participants working in groups of three reported (Latane & Darley, 1968). Their findings provide evidence for the negative consequence of the diffusion of responsibility. In line with the social influence principle, bystanders depend on reactions of others to perceive a situation as an emergency and are subsequently less likely to help. Latane and Darley’s findings were also supported in recent research: Garcia and colleagues (2002) found that even priming a social context by asking participants to imagine themselves in a group could decrease helping behaviour. It can be contended that these findings are examples of social proof where individuals believe actions of the group is correct for the situation, or examples of pluralistic ignorance where individuals outwardly conform because they incorrectly assumed that a group had accepted the norm (Baumeister & Bushman,
Bystander effect and obedience to authority are theories that can be compared and contrasted. Bystander effect is, for example, when someone is publicly in need and even though there are many people passing by or in the area, no one stops to help because they’ve seen no one else stop to help. In a video called The Bystander Effect they did an experiment to test the theory by having an actor lay by the steps of a busy area in Liverpool and moan “Help me”. The actor, Peter, was passed by many people who glanced his way, but didn’t stop to help even after 20 minutes of him yelling for help. Next they had a lady lay on the steps and after 4 minutes and 30 seconds a man finally comes over to help and forms what a narrator refers to as a new group with new rules to actually help. After the man comes to her assistance so does another lady and then more people follow. In the next part of the experiment they have Peter come back dressed as business man and it only takes 6 seconds before someone comes to help him. A real life example of bystander effect is the police brutality incident that happened at Spring Valley High School where a 15 year old girl was tackled and assaulted by a police officer for no reason that justified that treatment. In the video her peers and teacher just stood by and watched it happen without stepping in or speaking up. I think even
Hazards pose risk to everyone. Our acceptance of the risks associated with hazards dictates where and how we live. As humans, we accept a certain amount of risk when choosing to live our daily lives. From time to time, a hazard becomes an emergent situation. Tornadoes in the Midwest, hurricanes along the Gulf Coast or earthquakes in California are all hazards that residents in those regions accept and live with. This paper will examine one hazard that caused a disaster requiring a response from emergency management personnel. Specifically, the hazard more closely examined here is an earthquake. With the recent twenty year anniversary covered by many media outlets, the January 17, 1994, Northridge, California earthquake to date is the most expensive earthquake in American history.
Just as it has for the United States as a whole, the world in which emergency first responders work has changed in fundamental ways since September 11, 2001. Members of professions already defined by their high levels of risk now face new, often unknown threats on the job, specifically when responding to a terrorist event. At a basic level, terrorist attacks throughout the world have forced emergency first responders to see the incidents they are asked to respond to in a new light. One distinction between responding to deliberate attacks and responding to natural or technological disasters is that a terrorist attack could become an intentional hostile environment for first responders. In order to exacerbate physical and psychological casualties, terrorists may deliberately target emergency response capabilities and first responders.
A issue that is highly debated is should bystanders intervene when there is trouble, bystanders need to be involved so they can stop the situation, and they should, bystanders can stop the situation by using their voices, when bystanders don’t stop the trouble, it can give the attacker encouragement to continue what they are doing, and finally, if the bystander can’t help, it’s an extra call away from contacting someone who can help. Yes, bystanders should have the right to intervene when there is trouble. First of all, why bystanders should be able to help and can help is that, when bystanders use their voices it can aware the attacker that people are watching and he/she may get in trouble. When bystanders use their voices they can potentially stop the trouble. “But perhaps an even more
...though the researchers weren’t looking for it, he results represent ideas that can help the bystander effect in a situation. Smaller numbers increase the percentage of realization when it comes down to an emergency. The victim, if cohesive, actually plays a big role in causing the bystander effect as well. When a victim is unable to verbally communicate with bystanders, it lessens the chance of help. If a victim is capable of communicating, the help given could be more efficient. This is because it can help break the diffusion of responsibility. A victim looking a bystander directly in the eyes can even spark a quicker reaction in them. These are all ideas that psychologists still study today, and many even consider learning about this phenomenon a requirement.
...ames M. Hudson and Amy S. Bruckman study a specific component of the bystander effect: social cues. This component states that, “Individuals actively look to one another for cues about how to behave in the situation. The inaction of others will likely cause the inaction of the individual” (Hudson and Bruckman 170). Humans are always worrying about what others think of them. Therefore, if there is a situation which requires help, but the majority is simply watching, an individual who may be willing to assist will quickly change their mind. This is the case with the magistrate. Since so many people were watching and treating his torture as a spectacle, those who would want to help didn’t for fear of standing out. This fear of helping the magistrate and going against the Empire is a result of the pressure that war brings to stay completely loyal to a person’s nation.
A bystander is a person who is present and overlooks an event but takes no part within it. If someone was to be lying on a sidewalk unconscious and another person walked by and ignores the fact that there is a human being lying passed out in front of them, it makes them a bystander. However, bystanders are present in many different varieties. A possible bystander could be someone who hears a conversation occurring about breaking into a house, if the person decides not to say anything and later the house gets broken into it makes them a bystander. A psychological study done by Bibb Latané and John Darley discovered that “…people are less likely to offer help when they are in a group than when they are alone” (Burkley). This discovery can be
Fischer, P., Krueger, J., Greitemeyer, T., Kastenmüller, A., Vogrincic, C., Frey, D., Heene, M., Wicher, M., & Kainbacher, M. (2011). The bystander-effect: A meta-analytic review on bystander intervention in dangerous and non-dangerous emergencies. Psychological Bulletin, 137, 517-537.
Darley, J. M. & Latané, B. (1968) Bystander intervention in emergencies: Diffusion of responsibility, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 8, 377–383