social psychology question 1 bystander effect.

Get Started. It's Free
or sign up with your email address
Rocket clouds
social psychology question 1 bystander effect. by Mind Map: social psychology question 1 bystander effect.

1. Latané and Darley.

1.1. 1 person in a room doing a survey, smoke coming from under the door, when alone the person confronted the experimenter about it, when in a room with two other strangers, they all wait to see how each other reacts. waiting for someone to make the first move.

2. Kitty Genovese

2.1. 1964, 38 New Yorkers looked through their windows to witness Kitty Genovese 28 being murdered. she was walking home one night after work when she got followed and attacked. Kitty began to run down the street after noticing she was being followed, but the attacker ran after her and caught up with her and attacked her. her screams were so loud that they reverberated throughout the area. lights went on in the apartments around the area. ( people were seeing this) one person who lived on the 7th floor opened the window to shout " whats going on down there" when the attacker heard someone shouting he ran back to his car.

2.1.1. Kitty was still alive when the attacker returned to his car. she got up ran around the corner screaming where she collapsed inside a hallway, there was an apartment above her in the hallway. the man living there CL opened the door as the attacker returned and began to stab Kitty, he then closed the door and did nothing. after stabbing kitty 8 times in the back the attacker fled and left her to bleed to death in the hallway. eventually a neighbor called the police but it was to late. Kitty was died before they got her to the hospital. people watched as she was being murdered. if someone had intervened might kitty have survived?

3. Alturism

3.1. helping purely out of the desire to benefit someone else, with no benefit ( and often a cost ) to oneself, many of the heroes of 9/11 for example gave their lives in order to help strangers.

4. Pro social behavior

4.1. someone might act in a pro social way out of self interest hoping to get something in return.

5. Norm of reicprocity

5.1. the expectation that helping others will increase the likelihood that they will help us in the future. those most likely to survive were people who developed an understanding with their neighbors about reciprocity " i will help you now with agreement that when i need help you will return the favor" because of its survival value such a norm of reciprocity may have become genetically based.

6. Latané and Darleys cognitive model 1968.

6.1. 1. bystander encounters emergency. 2. goes through four stages.3. a decision made at each stage.4. only if stage four is reached will help be given.

6.2. victim emergency > 1. attending to the incident. > 2. define the incident. > 3. accept personal responsibility > 4. decide what to do > final decision.

7. Latané and Darley 1968.

7.1. tested their model by investigating when and weather the presence of other bystanders would influence responses to an emergency.

7.1.1. 75% who were alone reported smoke. 38% with another took any action. 10% with a confederate who ignored the smoke raised the alarm.

8. processes underlying bystander apathy effect.

8.1. diffusion of responsibility. audience inhibition - normative social influence, informational social influence.

9. diffusion of responsibility

9.1. in some situations there is a clear emergency ( not ambiguous and no fear of getting it wrong). when others are present people believe they are less personally responsible.

10. bystander effect definition.

10.1. research shows people are less likely to help in an emergency when they are with others than when they are alone.

11. Kitty genovese experiment.

11.1. two people communicating to each other through intercoms in different rooms. student hears other person ( actor) having a seizure and calling for help. the student runs down the hall to find the person to help. when in a group nobody got up to help. waiting to see who acted first.

12. Audience inhabition

12.1. people are inhibited from helping for fear of negative evaluation by others if they intervene and the situation is not an emergency.

12.1.1. can be a product of : normative social influence (.the influence of other people that leads us to conform in order to be liked and accepted by them) or informational social influence ( where a person conforms to gain knowledge, or because they believe that someone else is 'right'. schools, colleges.... leaders teachers etc.. feel more personally responsible so more likely to help.

13. pilivans bystander calculus model 1981.

13.1. Like the cognitive model, the model takes into account the role of diffusion of responsibility in explaining the bystander intervention, but also takes into account people’s physiological response when they witness an emergency situation • Bystanders go through three stages when they have observed an emergency .

13.1.1. emergency > physiological arousal > labeling the arousal > calculating the costs (of helping) or ( of not helping)

13.2. Pilivan proposed a matrix to illustrate the cost of helping and the cost of not helping … • When the cost of helping is low and the cost of not helping is high, a bystander is likely to directly intervene in an emergency

14. domestic abuse and the bystander effect

14.1. Shortland & Straw (1976) showed participants a videotape of a fight between a man and a woman – ‘Get away from me! I don’t know you!’ or – ‘Get away from me! I don’t know why I ever married you!’ • Participants then reported perception of danger …

14.1.1. • Participants believed the women was in greater danger when fighting with a stranger, and that they would be in more danger intervening in the domestic fight • Results indicate that participants would be more likely to intervene when they observed a woman fighting a stranger, because the costs of helping were lower and the costs of not helping would be higher, than for the domestic fight