Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Bystander effect in social psychology
The bystander effect concept paper
Bystander effect in social psychology
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Bystander effect in social psychology
One may assume that in an emergency situation the more people present, the more likely a person is to receive help. This has however, been disproven in multiple experiments. This social phenomenon, known as the bystander effect, has been studied since the late 1960’s. The diffusion of responsibility is often used to explain the bystander effect- a social phenomenon in which people become less likely to offer assistance to someone in an emergency when there are other people present (1). Researches Latane and Darley first became interested in the effect of the diffusion of responsibility in the 1960’s, after the death of Kitty Genovese who was murdered outside of her apartment while 38 people made no effort to help her.
The diffusion of responsibility may be affected by many things; however there is a specific process that each person goes through while an event is happening. The model, developed by Latane and Darley (1970), explains the stages bystanders go through when deciding to offer assistance or not;
1. Notice that something is wrong
2. Identify that someone needs help
3. Take responsibility for helping the person
…show more content…
in distress 4. Decide on an appropriate response 5. Implement the appropriate response (2) Though help may be inhibited in any stage of this process, it is the diffusion of responsibility in stage 3 which generally prohibits people from providing assistance (3). In an experiment by Latane and Darley (1968), participants were asked to fill out a questionnaire while the room they were in began to fill with smoke. When participants were alone they noticed the smoke within 5 seconds, when they were in groups it took at least 20 seconds. Though each participant was able to notice that something was wrong, those alone and those in a group showed stark differences in how they interpreted the event. Each person who was alone in the room got up to report the smoke, while only one participant out of the 24 men in eight groups reported the smoke to an experimenter. When in groups the participants based their interpretation of the event off of the body language of others. Because each participant judged the others to be calm, they assumed there was no reason to panic, even though by the end of the experiment they could not see the paper in front of them. This is known as pluralistic ignorance (Allport, Katz 1930). Pluralistic ignorance is the concept that the majority of members in a group reject a social norm, in this case smoke filling the room, but each assume that every other member accepts it, therefore they do not question it. This effect has a big impact on the diffusion of responsibility, as it may stop a person from identifying that there is someone who needs help in the first place. The diffusion of responsibility may be effected by bystanders being under time pressures.
Even when a person is alone and the sole responsibility for helping a person falls unto them, if they are under time pressure they are far less likely to offer assistance. Darley and Batson (1973) told one group of students that they were late for their appointment in another building, while they told another group that they had plenty of time to make their way over. Those who believed they were needed urgently only stopped to help a man in obvious physical struggle 10 per cent of the time, while those who were not in a hurry stopped two thirds of the time. This suggests that even though a person may believe that they are responsible for helping in an emergency, they are far less likely to offer this assistance if they are under some amount of time
pressure. Being similar to another person is linked to an increased chance of liking them, and liking a person increases the chances of helping them. Therefore, people are more likely to offer help to those who are similar to them (Miller et al, 2001). Emswiller (1971) found that university students were far more willing to help other students dressed in a similar fashion to themselves at two thirds of the time, compared to less than half of the time for those dressed differently.
The bystander effect refers to the tendency for an observer of an emergency to withhold aid if the:
Researchers have studied the bystander affect for many years now and have found out a few reasons why it happens. The bystander affect is important in night because of how people act in groups. Germans watched the Jews go by and didn’t say anything some even threw bread at them (night). Night shows that the more people that are around the less likely people are to help. Kitty was killed in front of 30 some people and no one did anything to help (the death of kitty Genovese.) During her murder people sat and watched out there window thinking someone else had called or helped her. Also, the bystander affect was shown in knight because as the Jews were being mass murdered not one person stood up to try and help until it was too late. Likewise,
Although it may be natural human behavior when stripped from civilization, how the boys' behavior has changed morally based on their situation is the main part of the destruction on the island. One thing is that the boys on the island were not willing to go after and help each other. The bystander effect engaged, they let all these horrible things happen to each other without taking action to stop it and get things under control. This quote shows us an example of how the bystander effect was happening while Jack and his tribe were killing Simon: “Again the blue-white scar jagged above them and the sulphurous explosion beat down. The littluns screamed and blundered about, fleeing from the edge of the forest, and one of them broke the ring of biguns in
A man is running late to work one day when he passes by a homeless person asking for help. This man and many others usually consider this particular man to be generous, but since he is late, he ignores the homeless person and continues on his way. One can assume that if he had the time, he would have helped. Does that matter, though, seeing as in that situation, he did not in fact help? Scenarios like this supports Lee Ross and Richard Nisbett’s idea that it is the situation that influences a person’s behavior, not he or she’s individual conscience. Although a person’s individual conscience could play a part in how one behaves in a given scenario, ultimately, the “situational variable” has more impact on the actions of the person than he or she’s morals.
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,
De Cremer established the main differences between prosocials and proselfs as being the way that they feel about their role in society therefore influencing their behavior within society. Brent Simpson and Robb Willer use these findings to establish a base for their own study about the relationship between altruism and indirect reciprocity. They use previous data to formulate a hypothesis that aims to explain why people act
...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.
Marcus, R.F., & Jenny, B. (1977). A Naturalistic Study of the Reciprocity in the Helping
Have you ever been in a position where you had to waver your chances of survival, not knowing if you’d make it out alive or not? Countless times people are found in these types of situations on their own accord, or by accident, but who would be to blame?
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
There is one question that has certainly thought of most Americans in their life, and remains to outbreak the whole country. Should I just walk away or should I help? What I am discussing to be something psychologists have named the Bystander Effect. The bystander effect is well-defined as such: the more people’s desires help, the less likely any of them is to give help....
The next step in offering assistance in an emergency is assuming responsibility. Often times, diffusion of responsibility takes place instead. Unfortunately, with people around, each ind...
Paciello, M., Fida, R., Cerniglia, L., Tramontano, C., & Cole, E. (2013). High cost helping scenario: The role of empathy, prosocial reasoning and moral disengagement on helping behavior. Personality & Individual Differences, 55(1), 3-7. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2012.11.004