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 investigating the Bystander Effect.
Firstly ‘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).
How did this come about? In 1964 New York, Catherine Genovese, was murdered on her way home. She Called out for help. 38 residents heard this but apart from one shouting out ‘to leave the girl alone’ no other person intervened Rosenthal, AM (2008 [1964] thirty-eight witnesses: cited in Woodward and Clarke (2014, p.225). This caused a public outcry asking why nobody Intervened and two psychologists Bibb Latne and John Darley sought to explain why none of the ‘38’ intervened. To them this was not an issue of indifferent neighbours as stated within the ‘media’ but that of some other phenomenon preventing people from responding. They therefore investigated this by conducting experiments resulting in the concept ‘The Bystander Effect’.
This led to another psychologist in the 1990’s a Mark Levine deciding to look further into the ‘bystander effect’ because of the murder of James Bulger and the trial in 1993 of his killers, two lads Venables and Thompson. As throughout this case various numbers of people witnessed this incident and according to the bystander effect those witnesses on their own, should have helped but for some inexplicable reason did not. He then investigated this by using a discourse analysis approach to the problem. Mark Levine (1999) cited in Byford, J. (2014 Pg. 235).
First, the Experiment Method, described as ‘A research method used to investigate the effect of one variable on another. It examines whether two variables (events, properties, characteristics or behaviours) are casually related’. (Byford J. 2014 pp.229) This type of experiment is conducted in controlled environments. Therefore, accurate measurements are possible. Usually a researcher will decide where, when and how and in what circumstances it takes place and this means that it can be replicated by other researchers.
Secondly the ‘Discourse Analysis Method’ where real life events are analysed by examining transcripts of witness evidence, accounts of what happened and explanations that were given at the time, in this case the murder of James Bulger. it is defined as ‘a method of analysing the structure of utterances longer than one sentence, taking into account both their linguistic content and their sociolinguistic context.’ (oxford.dictionary. 2016).
Having outlined two approaches into investigating ‘The Bystander Effect’, we can now look at some Similarities and Differences between them. (The Open University. 2016).
First, both question, ‘why people behave in the way that they do and go against the commonly accepted social rule that people should help others in an emergency situation’. (The Open University. 2016).
Secondly, both share a social science approach to the incidents in that questions, claims and evidence are looked at assessed and then analysed, with results being obtained.
Thirdly both look at the claims made, experiments looking at whether or not the presence of others had an effect on people when deciding to help.
Whereas, discourse analysis looks at whether people behave differently because of the perceived relationships between them. (Byford, J.2014 Pp.235).
Fourthly, both looked at concepts, with experiments taking our ‘mental rule book’ into account, which tells us to help others which is then contradicted by another rule which tells us not to get involved in other people’s business. Latane and Darley (1970) cited in Byford, J. chapter 6 ‘ordering lives’ (2014 Pg. 233).
Whereas discourse analysis takes into account the ‘duty of care owed’ to others. Both methods ‘trying to explain these factors to determine whether onlookers (including neighbours) will or will not assist someone in an emergency situation’. (Byford, J.2014 Pp.227).
Fifthly, both methods show a commitment to work with evidence. The experimental method gaining evidence from conducting experiments and discourse analysis from the meanings of experiences told by actual witnesses.
Sixthly, another similarity albeit not a good one for having no resolution is neither method has to date come up with any strategies that would be able to increase the intervention by bystanders during emergencies. (Levine, M 1999, Pg. 3).
Finally, both consider, ‘whether bystanders noticed that anything was amiss and also interpreted what they saw as something that might require action on their part.’ Levine, M (1999, Pg10).and Latane and Darley (1970). cited in Levine M. (1999).
Having addressed some of the similarities this essay will now look at some differences.
First, the ‘Bystander Effect’, ‘Latne & Darley, (1970) cited in Byford J. (2014 pp 235). was proposed as general principles concerning bystander behaviour, and was thought, could be applied to more than one emergency situation.
Whilst discourse analysis investigates people’s experiences and therefore cannot provide rules about human behaviour which apply to more than one situation.
Moreover, as Levine says ‘the traditional model may be right to stress the importance of the presence of others in how people make sense of the situation but does not go far enough and cannot account for the specific facts of the abduction and murder of James Bulger. Mark Levine (1999 pg. 20) cited in Byford, J. (2014 Pg. 235).
Secondly, experiments are laboratory based and Artificial in nature, precisely controlling what happens, thus they cannot replicate real life events and are therefore subject to human errors and are not ecologically valid.
Whereas, in discourse analysis, information is taken from real events and peoples responses to those events to establish the meanings given to people’s thoughts, behaviours and actions which is not Artificial in nature (The Open University. 2016).
Thirdly, experiments are large in scale including many replications all consisting of test subjects and researchers who are not ‘passive’ and this can therefore affect the experiment and its results. An example of an experiment, ‘The lady in distress’ by Latne, Darley and Rodin cited in. (Byford J. p., 2014 p.229 ) .
Whereas, Levine’s approach was not to conduct large experiments but to examine the ‘Bulger’ case, ‘analysing spoken evidence in the form of transcripts and statements from witnesses that occurred in a real life context’. Levine, R.M. (1999) ‘Rethinking bystander intervention’ cited in Byford, J (2014, p.235).
Fourthly, experiments allow researchers to test different hypothesis, drawing conclusions about how one variable affects another, while other variables are held constant’. (Byford J. 2014 pp.229).
In contrast discourse analysis is able to use people’s accounts as ‘Data’, therefore not relying on general factors such as how many people were present but on the way people interpreted what they saw where no manipulation of variables is needed. (Levine, M 1999 pp.19).
Fifthly, experiments use ‘Quantitative Data’, something that can be measured. Usually presented in the form of graphs and numbers.
However, discourse analysis uses ‘Qualitative Data’ which focuses on the social context of situations, data which cannot successfully be presented statistically.
Sixthly, Experiments can easily be replicated by other researchers. Whereas discourse analysis cannot guarantee that different scientists would come up with the same analysis.
Finally, ‘focusing on the impact of the presence of others, experiments ignore the social meanings, which attend not only to the way events might be perceived but also to the decision to intervene’ Mark Levine (1999 pg.22) Whilst discourse analysis focuses on these social meanings and on their cultural context.
In conclusion, after having examined what is meant by the ‘Bystander Effect’ it was defined and explained. The essay then looked into both methods within the framework of two stated cases. Those being the murder of ‘Catherine Genovese,’ 1964.and ‘James Bulger’ 1993. The essay examined each method in turn, defining each one and noting down some of their similarities and differences. Coincidentally seven similarities and seven differences were found to show examples, but this is not the definitive number as others may interpret this data differently. It was however noted that experiments in bystander intervention were right to stress the importance of the presence of others and also that discourse analysis was correct to concentrate on the perceived relationships between people. Indicating that using both methods might achieve better results.