Bystander Intervention

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).

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.

Well it does and it’s called Bystander Nonintervention. Bystander Nonintervention means just the way it sounds; it’s when people, bystanders, watch instead of intervene in a situation. This article relates very well to chapter 13 in our psychology. I would say this article is the number #1 example used to show bystander nonintervention, I mean it’s used in the book. So what causes bystander intervention? It’s not so much that people don’t care, which psychologist used to think was the case, coining the term bystander apathy. But the bystander effect was more along the lines of “psychological paralysis” according to John Darley and Bibb Latane. People want to help in an emergency but find themselves frozen perhaps because of shock. With bystander nonintervention there is more danger in numbers than safety, totally opposite from what you usually hear. The more people around the less likely people will help. There are to major factors the contribute to bystander nonintervention according to Darley and Latane; pluralistic ignorance which prevent us from interpreting if a situation is an emergency, if no one is around helping is must not be an emergency, and diffusion of responsibility which discourages us from offering assistance in an emergency, if you don’t help it’s not your

My article was Darley’s and Latane’s, “Bystander Intervention in Emergencies: Diffusion of Responsibility.” They conducted this study to figure out how would people react in various group sizes in an emergency situation. As well as which one those individuals in different size groups would go and call for help. The concept of this was taken from the famous case of Kitty Genovese, who was stabbed to death multiple times and finally was killed in her own neighborhood and no one intervened. This is known to be the bystander effect. However, in this research experiment, people were either in groups of 2, 3, or 6 and then they would overhear the person having an epileptic seizure. It was predicted that due to the presence of

The objective of this study was to indicate the reasons as to why such demoralizing and inhumane lack of intervention was given to the young women who was stabbed to death in a residential area of New York City. Researchers presumed the reasons as to why bystanders refused to intervene, ranged from imbrute demeanor, unwanted liability and the application of unperceived aid. These considerations lead researchers to develop the hypothesis that the more bystanders that

As ultra social creatures, human beings tend to have the propensity and desire to help others who are in need. However, there are certain instances where people seem less wiling to help. The question this paper will address is what makes people more willing to help in non-emergency situations as opposed to times of crisis. Why do we experience the phenomenon of the bystander effect during times when help is most needed? The introduction should clearly define the problem or issue at hand, and state the research question. It should also provide a clear statement of purpose, the goals of the paper, and an overview of the structural plan. It starts out broadly and becomes increasingly specific.

Ego: You want to use the bathroom but you don't cut in line because you don't want to get in trouble.

StepUp is an interactive workshop that talks about how to intervene in situations with problematic behavior either intentional and unintentional. In the workshop, I learned how to assess challenging situations and determine how to safely intercede and still be protected from or not exposed to danger or risk implementing the 3Ds- Direct, Distract, and Delegate. I also learned about “Bystander Intervention”- a philosophy and strategy for prevention of various types of violence, including bullying, hazing, harassment, sexual assault, relationship violence, discrimination, binge-drinking, and mental health concerns. How these are of great importance was addressed as well- why these prevent the pre-mentioned harmful situations and how we can use them.

Since elementary schools, kids have been taught about the importance of helping others. Flashy catchphrases like, “If you see something, say something!” have made appearances in schools all across the country. However, when the time comes for standing up for others, many find themselves turning away from the situation. All individuals have a responsibility to intervene on the behalf of others and a moral obligation to help those in need.

The Bystander Effect was first demonstrated by psychologists Bibb Latané and John Darley in 1968, four years after the brutal murder (encompassing thirty or more witnesses) of Kitty Genovese. It is a social phenomenon in which observers believe that someone else in a group will intervene and offer help to a victim in need (1). According to these psychologists, there are two important factors attributed to this phenomenon, social influence and a perceived diffusion of responsibility. Social

“The longest period of fasting was fixed by his impresario at forty days, beyond that term he was not allowed to go.” (Kafka) Matthew 4:1-11 tells the story of Jesus being tempted by the devil in the desert after fasting for forty days and forty nights. Lastly, at the very end of Kafka’s story, the hunger artist reveals that he fasted because he had to. “I can’t help it… I couldn't find the food I liked. If I had found it, believe me, I should have made no fuss and stuffed myself like you or anyone else.” Romans 4:25 explains that Jesus died for sinners so that they could be made right with God. If it was possible for humans to be sinless, Jesus would not have had to die, yet he did. The artist as well, fasted because no one else could fast

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

Diffusion of responsibility is a social theory that proves the probability of a person’s instinct to help an individual in distress is less likely. As a matter of fact, diffusion of responsibility goes hand in hand with the by standard effect; an in depth social stigma that shows the greater number of people present, the less likely people are willing to assist a distressed individual. The reason why people are quick to discard those in distress is because of the lacked sensation of interference, and since there are other out lookers within the premise, a misconception of “help on the way” is construed.