This essay will ‘compare and contrast’ two approaches made in investigating the ‘bystander effect’. It will discuss in some depth as to what exactly is meant by the bystander effect, illustrating when this concept was first shown and why. An outline will be made of the different methods used, those being experiments and discourse analysis, explaining each one in turn, within the framework of two cases. The first being the murder of ‘Catherine Genovese,’ 1964.and the second ‘James Bulger’ 1993. The essay will then show examples of the differences and similarities between each method. Concluding with a summary of findings into the two approaches to investigating the Bystander Effect.
Historically U.S. Presidents benefit form inherent advantages over Congress in foreign policy, advantages reinforced by various key Supreme Court rulings. Under that premise, a President is more likely to act unilaterally during crisis than regular times. Global dynamics and situations likely will dictate when and for what he uses executive powers to respond to crisis. Although it is in the Presidents best interest to use Congressional authorization to grant him power to act even unilaterally, ultimately the President will make the decision to act and in some cases, without the Congress or close allies support. An example of these dynamics where exemplified during the August 2013 situation with the Syrian regime alleged use of chemical weapons.
“Thirty-Eight Who Saw Murder But Didn’t Call the Police” is unfortunately a true story about citizens who witnessed their neighbor being assaulted and didn’t take action. The neighbor’s negligence perturbed me, and I had to look into it. The Samuel Merritt University refers to it as “The Bystander Effect” and explains it as “a diffusion of responsibility . . . the more people there are to witness an event, the less each individual feels personally responsible for doing something” (Samuel Merritt University, “Bystander Intervention & Prevention”). This article about Kitty Genovese and her selfish neighbors reminded me of a dispute I once saw between a small group and an individual. It wasn’t the fight that startled me, but the group of apprehensive
The bystander effect is both a social and psychological phenomenon in which an individual’s inclination towards showing helping behaviours are minimised by the influence of other people. Research has found that the more people acting as bystanders in a situation, the less likely it is that helping behaviours will be demonstrated. However in the correct conditions, where conditioned cues increase self-awareness, it is possible to reverse the bystander effect phenomenon. The bystander effect is prevalent in everyday life, and often decorates the news, shocking the world, especially when authority figures such as police men and women succumb to the effect. Diffusion of responsibility, ignorance of others interpretation of an event and self-consciousness are all social processes which appear to lead to social inhibition of helping behaviours and one of the main theories of the bystander effect is provided Latané and Darley (1970) whose cognitive model provides a series of decisions that can lead to social inhibition. The bystander effect is influenced by the conditions an individual is in when an event occurs, for example the bystander effect appears to be most dominant when an individual is in a group of strangers with low group cohesiveness. FINISH
2) A simpler definition of bystander effect is to break down the word actually- a person who stands by with no effect. An example of the bystander effect is always seen with correlation to bullying or fights because you never see a very bold person run quickly to diffuse the situation. There is a bold person every so often but it is not common enough. I have personally seen the bystander effect with a previous friend of mine. The girls name is Gwendolyn, she was a smart young lady but everyone thought she was weird because Gwen was outgoing and crazily fun. I was always around Gwen because we were basically the same type of fun but others would always bother her for no reason. One day a group of girls began to yell and argue with Gwendolyn
Everybody wants to be a hero and to change the world. To make it a better place and make a difference. So why then in the face of danger do we back down? Why do we just stand by as cruel things happen to good people. Science has coined this term as the bystander effect. The bystander effect is defined as, 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. You can see this effect in full in the movie, The Hunger Games, as people just stand by and let the killing of innocent children happen year after year.
People act differently when they are alone versus when they are in a group. Of course, it would seem logical that when a person is in a group they would act better because people are around, probably some of whom they know, to judge actions. This may be the case for most actions, but a curious psychological response, called the "bystander effect", has been observed which shows a troubling aspect of group behavior. This essay will look at a particular case that started the research into this phenomena, why it happens, and how it is effected by other variables.
The bystander effect or Genovese syndrome is a phenomenon that happens with bystander. For greater the number of the bystander, the effect will be greater. The phenomenon causes people to ignore the calling for help of other people. By psychological explanation, people would become hesitated to help other people when there are many people in that situation. Not only when they are with other people, people won’t interfere when they don’t think the situation is an emergency. There are also factors that determine how people react to the situation. The first factor is the diffusion of responsibility. People are likely to feel less responsible to the situation because they think the other would interfere. The pressure to take action was reduced
I think the word bystander effect means when individuals do not offer help in an emergency situation.the studies show the majority of students are likely to be a bystander when it is related to sexual assault because they might see it as being acceptable or they’re too scared to help or don't want to involve themselves in the situation. Reasons because they don't want to talk to the police or have to have a witness. People film rape and put it in social media because they want everybody to know what's going. Some People would film it because they have phones or they would do it for views.
But doesn't this all seem to be a little familiar? That's because the same formula of a peaceful country turning into a land of misery by one man, and then that man being overthrown with the help of outsiders has happened many times. All you have to do is look at World War II or the Soviet Union or King Leopold II and the Congo.
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.
Bystanderism or the Bystander Effect can be defined as the phenomenon that an individual is less likely to help in an emergency situation when passive bystanders are present (Darley and Latané, 1968). Latane and Darley (1970) published a book entitled, Theory of the Unresponsive Bystander. According to the theory, the presence of other people or just the perception that other people are witnessing the event will decrease the likelihood that an individual will intervene in an emergency due to psychological processes like: (1) diffusion of responsibility, wherein the responsibility is diffused when more bystanders are present and this reduces the psychological costs of not intervening, (2) pluralistic ignorance or informational social influence, which means that if the situation is ambiguous people will look to other people around to see what they do, and (3) evaluation apprehension, wherein individual bystanders are aware that other people are present and may be afraid of being evaluated negatively if they react.