Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Impact of mass media coverage
Impact of mass media coverage
Impact of mass media coverage
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Impact of mass media coverage
The amount of situations appear with public indifference is increasing in current community. This lack of perception for general public is concern. There is a recent case in China, Yue-yue, a two-years old girl was run over twice, ignored by eighteen passers-by in seven minutes without any aid and finally passed out. This paper agrees with the belief that social apathy is an issue in today’s world. There are two main reasons for this: first, the scare emotion of the negative outcome after assist others, and second, bystander effect.
The first reason for the issue of public indifference in recent world is the negative feelings of the danger outcome after giving hand to others. The topic about citizens who lend a hands to others need to be liable like to pay large sums of money appear increasingly frequent in recent news. It seems that the more decent act person did, the more chance they face such liable that is harmful. If there is a situation that someone is hurt, passers-by may think twice before they do. This idea may cause people afraid to lend a hand to others. According to “The Economist” (2013), in 2007, an old woman whom Peng Yu helped after claims that he is a man who cause the accident. He was order to pay a large amount of money. The rate of such similar case is increasingly high in society. It seems that the case cause people believe that they would be having some negative consequences. Every time when they see someone is need help, they may think twice before they do. It is not fair to people if they lend a hand to others but they have chance to be hurt. That feeling is one of the most influential reasons to create aloofness in society.
The second reason of the issue of social apathy in today’s world is the bystande...
... middle of paper ...
...little attention on finding the solution to deal with the problem it create.
Works Cited
1. The Economist (2013). The search for civic virtues. The unkindness of strangers. Accessed 12th February, 2014 from http://www.economist.com/news/china/21582295-soul-searching-debate-rages-about-apathy-towards-those-need-unkindness-strangers
2. Brady (2013). Daily Mail. Russian performance artist nails himself to Red Square cobblestone by his TESTICLES in protest at Kremlin's crackdown on rights. Accessed 12th February, 2014 from http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2497811/Russian-performance-artist-nails-Red-Square-cobblestone-TESTICLES-protest-Kremlins-crackdown-rights.html
3. Myer (2011). Help Thy Neighbour: Explaining Civic Apathy in China. Accessed 12th February, 2014 from http://www.echinacities.com/expat-corner/Help-Thy-Neighbour-Explaining-Civic-Apathy-in-China
The bystander effect refers to the tendency for an observer of an emergency to withhold aid if the:
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.
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
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
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,
“Altruism and Indirect Reciprocity: The Interaction of Person and Situation in Prosocial Behavior” was based significantly off of the findings of the study done by David De Cremer called “Why Prosocials Exhibit Greater Cooperation then Proselfs: The Roles of Social Responsibility and Reciprocity.” Both studies preliminarily tested the college students with a social value orientation test to classify the participants as either prosocial or proself. Next, the participants participated in series of “games” that differed in each study. De Cremer used scenarios that allowed the participant to decide how many chips (a made up source of perceived value) they wanted to contribute to either a group or partner, followed by an inquiry as to how responsible they felt to “further the collective interest.” This study aimed to understand the different behaviors and feelings associated with being prosocial or proself. For example, it was found that a prosocial feel more socially responsible and want to restore equality in outcomes of situations, therefore increasing their tendency to behave cooperatively. The “Altruism and Indirect Reciprocity” study went through scenarios in which the participants would participate in “dictator games” in which they were given two opportunities to help another person, once in public the other in private. This study aimed to explain why certain people behave in prosocial ways. For example, the study found that altruists were more likely to
The bystander effect plays a key role in society today. More and more people ignore a person in distress.
In any case the amount of bystanders in the situation affects the help given to the victim. The individuals in a group observe those around them and their behaviour to dictate their own actions. In which case the strangers form a temporary group with one rule, don’t help. An individual, seeing the inaction of others, will judge the situation as less serious that he would if alone. (D, A. Examples of Indifference | Reference.com Answers) For example; Kitty Genovese was murdered outside her house in 1964, the inaction of her neighbours concluded in each on lookers decision that their own help was not needed. (Faculty.babson.edu Latané and Darley: Bystander Apathy) Instead of helping the onlookers ask themselves, no-one else has reacted, why should I? This event caused the psychologists Darley and Latané to research the effects of bystanders. One of their experiments was ‘The Case of the Stolen Beer’, this tested whether group influences increase intervention if their was a villain involved. Though the results concluded with 10% more single customer...
Most people just complain about the wickedness and the corruption of society, and they do not realize that they are contributing to the problem by doing nothing to stop it and just being mere bystanders. Bystanders are those individuals that do not take part in events despite being present during those times. In spite of the consequences that it entails being a bystander, this kind of behavior is usually driven by the desire to avoid problems. In order to avoid this misleading mentality, many philosophers and social activists have advocated against people being bystanders. An individual should not be a bystander because being a bystander is morally incorrect, inhuman, and harmful.
The objective of this paper is to discuss Social Norms and their impact on Social Action. To start, we will be defining what social action is, which Weber says that “Action is “social” insofar as its subjective meaning takes account of the behaviours of others and is thereby oriented in its course.” (Basic Sociological Terms [BST], p. 103). What this simply means is that not all action taken is social, any act that takes the account of how other individuals will react or behave to the action is defined to be social. An example of social action is when telling a joke in a group of friends, the individual says this joke which accounts for the dynamic of the group, its appropriateness, whether the group is the target audience for said joke, and if the delivery is right. A joke that displays the sport of hockey in an ill manner may not be appropriate to a group of people watching the
One of the strengths is providing a new insight into bystander effect. The study argued that researchers have previously neglected the potential benefit of bystanders and thus, the study provided a new horizon by proving reversed bystander effect through experiment. This allows us to be aware of the fact that someone may be providing help merely due to impression management. This arouses a doubt on whether the one who provides help is genuinely concerned about the needs of the victims, or one is just motivated by upholding his/her reputation when surrounded by a crowd. Besides, carrying out a manipulation check right after this experiment is beneficial to this study as well....
This essay presents evidence for various arguments of the causes of the bystander effect including: diffusion of responsibility, perceived authority, audience inhibition and individual differences. Although the bystander effect is partly caused by diffusion of responsibility, it is important to remember that we must take into consideration other factors that also contribute. As individuals we have different beliefs, attitudes and values. Therefore we respond to situations differently. Some people are self-absorbed in their own lives so assume someone else will help, others comply with authority, some are embarrassed to help and many people are just not able to help. This disagrees with the claim that the bystander effect is caused by diffusion of responsibility, suggesting all factors can cause the bystander effect depending on the
Darley, J. M. & Latané, B. (1968) Bystander intervention in emergencies: Diffusion of responsibility, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 8, 377–383
However, that opposing argument can be found as hypocritical. If a person was getting robbed in an ally and they saw many witnesses taking no action they would likely be upset by the fact of no one is offering any assistance to them. Bystanders should put themselves into the shoes of the person in need and ask themselves how they would expect others to respond if they were the one in need. Often time’s bystanders take no intervention because of the diffusion of responsibility. “When there are four or more people who are bystanders to an emergency situation, the likelihood that at least one of them will help is just 31%” (Gaille). Another statistic shows that 85% of people who were bystanders would intervene if they knew or at least though they were the only person present in the situation. Often the only thing keeping people from intervening in bystander situations are other people. It is important for bystanders to understand the statistics of the people around them in order to create action because often times they do not realize that if they were to intervene other people would likely support them in the situation. Bystanders need to make it a personal responsibility to intervene in situations for the good of other. If people were to always take action the amount of bullying, sexual harassment, crime, and many other significant issues within a society would drastically
Xiaobo, L., (2011), ‘Two Essays on China’s Quest for Democracy’ Journal of Democracy, 22(1): 154-166.