Bystander Apathy Research Paper

People have a tendency, known as social proof, to believe that others' interpretation of the ambiguous situation is more accurate than their own. Hence, a lack of response by others leads them to conclude that the situation is not an emergency and that response is not warranted. Finally, empirical evidence has shown that the bystander effect is negated when the situation is clearly recognized as an emergency. In a 1976 study published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Lance Shotland and Margaret Straw illustrated that when people witnessed a fight between a man and a woman that they believed to be strangers to each other, they intervened 65 percent of the time. Thus, people often do not respond appropriately to an emergency situation because the situation is unclear to them and as a result, they have misinterpreted it as a non-emergency based on their own past experience or social cues taken from others.

Social psychology first examined the phenomena later termed “bystander effect” in response to a 1964 murder. The murder of a young woman with as many as 38 witnesses and none who helped until it was too late. The bystander effect is individuals seeing an emergency situation but not helping. There are many reasons why individuals do not respond: diffusion of responsibility, not noticing or unsure if it is an emergency, and not wanting to be liable if the person still dies are a few.

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).

In the book Bystander, Eric, the protagonist, was a bystander, who noticed about bullying but, never did anything about it. Eric learned to take action for what is right to prevent from bullying and not be a bystander. As Eric realized that he was a bystander, he learned to stand up and confront the bullies.

Everyday humans are presented with new opportunities and situations. These events can change the way they think and make decisions. But it's the way it can change ones relationships that can really hurt one's ability to care. There is a total of 7.442 billion people alive today. Yet only a small portion of that are people one truly cares about. For many people, a specific setting, situation or emotion can alter the way people can think rationally.

Apathy is one of the most difficult issues to over come. Disasters can be a abstract concept to individuals who haven’t experienced them. This can lead to decisions that may not fully address a problem, or to victim blaming. People who experience a disaster may have their perspectives change from apathy to empathy. This can be a powerful as an individual may see the need for additional programs or aid. Additionally, it may have an effect on the mentality of people

Sometimes people do not get involved in the situation because they are detached from the situation or the person in the crisis. For example, in the poem “Not Waving but Drowning,” by Stevie Smith there was a man in need of help. This man displayed a happy and joking personality, and because of this no one genuinely knew what was happening in his life. His need for help was not evident on the surface. No one came to his aid because they did not realize he was in jeopardy. People were not involved in his life and therefore felt detached from the situation

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

Honestly yes they should have the responsibility to intervene when something bad is happening. Because who wouldn’t want to help someone who is trouble that needs help from a bystander that just passing by. My question is “ are they at fault if they don’t intervene ?” Bystanders should not have to live with the guilt that they should have, or they should've done something to stop but didn’t. You don’t have to have to hold it against you that you didn’t help them because you weren’t sure if you should intervene with something so dangerous that could possibly hurt you.

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

Darley and Latane begin their essay by using solid examples of when the bystander effect presented itself, and why people were harmed because of it. They explain why nice people do not help in certain situations, and why someone can pass by a person in distress when others are around, and why more people respond when no one is around. Darley and Latane show what it takes for people to respond; they have to actually realize that it is an emergency and not a ruse or a normal occurrence. Sitting idly by while a dangerous situation is happening does not make someone a bad person, it just reveals their humanity.

Merriam-Webster defines the word apathy as a lack of feeling, emotion, interest, or concern. The FY16 Chief Petty Officer Selects, however, feel that there is more to this word. Pure apathy is the personal choice of removing any and all shred of interest or concern to a particular person, place, or thing. This individual choice can be depicted in a variety of ways. One of these ways is doing just enough to get by, or flying under the RADAR, as some may put it. This type of behavior can be extremely dangerous for many reasons, one of the biggest reasons is that it could lead to someone losing their life. For instance, the job of a Cryptologic Technician is to gather vital, time-sensitive information that front line

Today a lot of individuals are praised for their bravery and their heroism. A lot of

By and large, apathy is considered the antithesis of human advancement and achievement; Einstein himself said that “the world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it.” And while it is true that absolute apathy—complete lack of concern for anything or anyone— is not something that is desired (or even humanly possible), there is some measure of this attitude that is desperately needed in today’s world.

When there is an emergency, why is taking out our phones to take a picture or video the very first thing we want to do? Why do we casually walk by a person who is in trouble, and go about our business as if we did not anyone? Why do we not help or act when someone is getting, but instead we just stand in a crowd and watch? Why do we bury our moral instincts during emergencies? “We witness a problem, consider positive action, and respond by doing nothing. Why do we not help in these situations and put our moral instincts in shackles” (Keltner & Marsh, 2017). We as people are bystanders to the world around us daily, but the question is why? The answer to all the “why” questions is the bystander effect.