A Bystander Apathy Research Paper

The bystander effect also arises from a diffusion of responsibility as each bystander can better rationalize his or her lack of action. In some cases, people assume that in a large group, there will be someone else that is more qualified to help and therefore, each person feels less obligated to act. For example, a doctor is far more qualified to provide medical assistance to a victim and likewise, a police officer or stronger-bodied man can better subdue a perpetrator. If the crowd of bystanders is large,

First ‘The Bystander Effect’, states ‘that individuals are less likely to intervene in emergency situations when other people are present’. Latne & Darley, (1970) cited in Byford J.( 2014 pp 232). Simply put, where emergency situations arise, if more than one person is present the likelihood of someone in distress being helped reduces. This is the ‘diffusion of responsibility’ effect were each bystander feels less obliged to help because the responsibility seems to be divided with others present’. (Byford J., 2014 pp233) An example of Bystander Apathy shown within a video (The Open University 2016).

This happened to Kitty Genovese when she was killed by Michael Dorman. Many people heard her screams, but not one person wanted to help because they thought someone else would. This shows how bystander apathy can stop people from helping others in trouble. The Good Samaritan law, is a rule that helps people who try to help others in an emergency. Some people think it's really important because it encourages people to help without worrying about getting in trouble.

If you saw someone being attacked on the street, would you help? Many of us would quickly say yes we would help because to state the opposite would say that we are evil human beings. Much research has been done on why people choose to help and why others choose not to. The bystander effect states that the more bystanders present, the less likely it is for someone to help. Sometimes a bystander will assume that because no one else seems concerned, they shouldn't be (Senghas, 2007). Much of the research that has been done supports this definition of the bystander effect. There have also been recent situations where this

The murder case of Kitty Genovese sparked the city because of how her neighbors ignored her screams and didn’t bother to call the police till the last minute. According to Bibb Latane, a social psychologist, he questioned the idea of how these neighbors of Kitty Genovese didn’t respond to the situation quickly. In Latane’s experiment, he tested how a single individual react to an emergency situation compared to a group. As a result, an individual is likely to report the problem immediately compared to a group of people. The bystander apathy is present when there is a group of people in an emergency situation, where they think that someone will take the responsibility to help.

But the Kew Gardens slaying baffles him — not because it is a Murder, but because the “good people” failed to call the police.” (189) By Gansberg’s saying this he is getting at how people help too late or don’t help at all. Many people see a person in need of help but sadly do nothing about it this is called the bystander effect. The bystander effect is most common when people are in groups or just in this case people are in there apartment, looking out there window. A reason people do not help others is because they are Crayton 2 afraid.

In the 2007 article “the bystander effect” the author Dorothy Barkin’s was talking about the reasons why most people decide not to get involved in complex situations. Many think that the reasons maybe very obvious such as the fear of possible danger to one’s self or having to go through long legal proceedings. However, the author talks about two main reasons for such actions. The first being ambiguity, the fact the most people do not know how to evaluate different situations and there lays most for the decision making. As knowing what the problem that you are facing in that moment, that alone creates a high-pressure environment that most people would not like to be involved in. Not to mention, being able to help effectively

Currently in the United States, there is no legal requirement to help others who are in need. This lack of a law requiring bystanders to help someone who obviously needs help has sometimes resulted in the death of the person in need. For example, in the cases of Kitty Genovese and Andrew Mormille that we have studied, bystanders have watched and done nothing to help as others died. Often the consequences of not helping are not so drastic, but the situations are still appalling. In one case I know of, a handicapped student fell down a staircase. Other students stepped over her, ignoring her pain and fear. Also, it was obvious they noticed her lying there, but none of them were willing to take the time or effort to help her up or make sure she was not seriously hurt. Should U.S. citizens be required by law to help those in need, especially

Society decides that we take action to help others in emergency situations, but often, we don 't. Darley and Latane greatly contributed to explaining a confusing human behavior. In the famous case of Genovese, where 38 bystanders watched a woman get brutally murdered, they all chose to do nothing in rescue of

yet not getting involved. For ex: In the 1st passage it was talking about people watching someone

The Bystander Effect, or Bystander Apathy is a social psychological phenomenon that refers to cases in which individuals do not offer any means of help to a victim when other people are present. Why do people conform ? Both social psychology professors John Darley and Bibb Latane noticed that all

According to Aronson, Wilson, and Akert (2013) prosocial behavior is defined as an act performed for the benefit of another person. Altruism is referred to as the want to help another individual even if it means no benefits, or possibly a cost, for the helper (Aronson, Wilson, & Akert, 2013). One particular factor, the bystander effect, has a profound impact on whether or not people help others. The bystander effect states that as the number of people who witness an emergency increases, the likelihood that any of those people will help decreases (Aronson et al., 2013). Processes associated with the bystander effect such as pluralistic ignorance, diffusion of responsibility, and victim effect all impact the likelihood of prosocial

Each of us has the capacity to help others. Demonstrations of courage by everyday heroes are lauded, as they show the best of human nature. Unfortunately, human nature has its faults as well, and people fall victims to others when others seek to do harm; additionally, people fall victim to others when those around fail to act in preventing that harm. Social psychology research and experimentation have defined a “bystander effect.” This describes how, when in the presence of many others, an individual will diffuse responsibility when seeing a potentially dangerous interaction occurring and will be less likely to intervene. Despite our intentions and self-serving biases, most of us are susceptible to the effect.

In today’s society, a person is expected to offer help to those that require it, especially during an emergency. As a race, there is an expectancy to look out for one another. Researchers believe that there appear to be basic mechanisms in social animals which in turn make us want to help others (Deacon, 2013, p106). Instead, social behaviour and cultural influences that begin to be formed in early infancy, have a profound affect on the factors that determine whether or not to get involved during an emergency. Early exposure to pro-social models as well as the moral standards of a parent, contribute to the choices that a bystander will make when faced with a situation that requires their intervention. Darley and Latane (1968) hypothesised that helping behaviour can also be determined by the size of the crowd surrounding the emergency. The resulting study revealed that pro-social behaviour became less likely as group size increased and this was termed as the “Bystander Effect”. Other factors such as the role of social influence, dictates an individual 's fear of acting in a way that could be considered out of the norm. The motivation for personal glory can also contribute to the decisions made by a witness to an emergency. This essay will focus on the factors which determine whether or not a person will intervene in an emergency.

Pluralist ignorance helps to explain the bystander effect. Pluralist ignorance explains that in a group, if they majority of the group reject a norm but will assume that everyone else has accepted it, which leads them to inevitably accept it themselves. In turn, this helps to explain that if no one reacts when they witness an emergency, others witnesses may believe that reacting would be wrong and therefore no one does anything. the Bystander effect could most definitely be used to explain the domino effect that seems to have occurred on the night of the murder, as each neighbor noticed that no one intervened, leading them do the same, but it is really difficult to believe that this misfortune can be explained this simply. The bystander effect can be linked the Georg Simmel’s theory of individuals acting differently in groups, as we conform to what we think people in the group would like us to do. If the bystander effect was indeed what occurred on the night of the murder, it is regretful that not one person could have broken away from the pack and tried to help Kitty