Critically evaluate the claim that the bystander effect is caused by diffusion of responsibility
PSYC122
Franklin Chang
201235317
The bystander effect occurs when the presence of others discourages an individual from intervening in an emergency situation. For instance, an example of the Bystander effect is a person observing a fight or even murder yet ignoring it and walking on by as they feel that someone else would have called for help. Diffusion of responsibility is the lessening of responsibility by individuals in a group situation or social collective and it is thought to be a reason for the bystander effect. In the theory, the individual assumes that others either are responsible for taking action or have already done so. Pluralistic ignorance is when bystanders think that others are interpreting the incident in a way in which they are not, for example calling for help when an individual is in trouble. This thought comes into notion as bystanders witness a situation, then base their reaction to the incident by gaging other onlooker’s responses to the incident. If the bystander sees others reacting a certain way, then they too will be more apt to express their thought of the incident as not being too big of an issue, thus effecting their helping influences. Ultimately, the view that the bystander effect is caused by diffusion of responsibility is true in that diffusion of responsibility is one of the main ways people deal with witnessing an uncomfortable event, thus people are less likely to intervene in this type of situation.
The study on the case of Kitty Genovese relates to diffusion of responsibility as it supports the notion that when others are present people tend to assume that someone else will have taken action, such as calling the police, and by not observing others behaviour closely they therefore regard the situation as being dealt with and are reluctant to intervene themselves in case of complicating matters. It was reported that 38 witnesses had observed the attack yet no one intervened apart from one man calling out for the attacker to stop. Although the attacker took more than half an hour to kill Kitty Genovese, not one of the 38 people who watched from the safety of their own apartments came out to assist her. There are also fears about intervening in something that is not our personal business and that we may be penalised for our actions. (Milgram & Hollander, 1964) One example of diffusion of responsibility that many of us see in our day to day lives is seeing harassment in the workplace. As an office will have a large amount of people working in it many assume that someone else will report it, such as the person being harassed, or consequently we do not want to risk our own reputation with our boss if they are the harasser and thus tend to stay quiet.
There are many famous examples of diffusion of responsibility, for example the Nazi officers claiming to only have been following orders in the Holocaust as well as the case of Kitty and more recently, Shanda Sharer. Another key example is witnessing a car crash occur on the motorway, where many tend to drive past as they assume help is on its way and thus pass on the responsibility to someone else.
In a study by Darley and Latane, participants were told that the nature of the study was to disclose personal information about their problems they are experiencing at college, however the true purpose was to test how the participants reacted to the person they were conversing with experiencing an epileptic seizure. The findings of the study support the idea that the bystander effect is caused by a diffusion of responsibility, with it emphasising how the larger the group is that is present at a scene leads to an increased chance that the bystander effect will occur. Eighty-five percent of the subjects who observed no other bystanders reported the seizure before the victim was cut off whereas only Thirty-one percent of people reported the scene when they observed the four other bystanders were present. Judging by the subjects' nervousness when they reported the fit to the experimenter, by their surprise when they discovered that the fit was simulated, and by comments they made during the fit (when they thought their microphones were off), one can conclude that almost all of the subjects perceived the fit as real. There were two exceptions in different experimental conditions, and the data for these subjects were dropped from the analysis. Personality and individual differences such as Gender had no effect on the results.
Four studies examined the relation between college students' own attitudes toward alcohol use and their estimates of the attitudes of their peers. AH studies found widespread evidence of pluralistic ignorance: Students believed that they were more uncomfortable with campus alcohol practices than was the average student.
systematic errors in norm estimation- Many of these examples come from research on pluralistic ignorance. Pluralistic ignorance is a psychological state characterized by the belief that one's private attitudes and judgments are different from those of others, even though one's public behaviour is identical (Miller & McFarland, 1991). It develops most commonly under circumstances in which there is widespread misrepresentation of private views. In these cases, people's tendency to rely on the public behaviour of others to identify the norm leads them astray, for the social norm that is communicated misrepresents the prevailing sentiments of the group. If participants understood this state of affairs, the situation would be self-correcting.
However, they typically make the mistake of assuming that even though others are acting similarly, they are feeling differently. Their own behaviour may be driven by social pressure, but they assume that other people's identical behaviour is an accurate reflection of their true feelings.
Although many studies have demonstrated pluralistic igno- rance, both in and out of the laboratory (see, e.g., Breed & Ktsanes, 1961; Miller & McFarland, 1987; O'Gorman, 1975; Packard & Willower, 1972; Schanck, 1932), little research has addressed the question of how victims of pluralistic ignorance respond to the perceived discrepancy between their private at- titudes and the social norm.
In seeking to explain why bystanders fail to help a victim of an emergency, Latane and Darley (1970) suggested that pluralistic ignorance is at the root of this inaction. They argued that individual bystanders fail to act because they are unsure about the seriousness of the situation; however, these same bystanders often assume that the inaction of others reflects a high degree of confidence that the situation is not serious. In this case, pluralistic ignorance is easily resolved through internalization of the social norm: Bystanders will adopt a consensual (if erroneous) definition of the situation as a nonemergency.
In other cases of pluralistic ignorance, private attitudes and judgments are well established; here, individuals will be unable to internalize the normative position.
One such case is a classroom dynamic investigated by Miller and McFarland (1987, 1991). The situation is as follows: A professor who has just presented difficult material will typically ask students if they have any questions. This request for students to acknowledge their confusion often fails to elicit a response, even though confusion is widespread. The students' inaction is driven by pluralistic ignorance: Individual students are inhibited from raising their hands out of fear of asking a stupid question, but they interpret their classmates' identical behaviour as an indication that everyone else understands the material. In this situation, pluralistic ignorance will not be resolved by students deciding that they actually do understand the material. They have ample and irrefutable evidence that they do not understand it. Instead, pluralistic ignorance will likely persist, leaving students feeling deviant and alienated from each other.
The research conducted in the article was designed to explore the consequences of pluralistic ignorance. In all four studies, we examined pluralistic ignorance in the context of students' attitudes toward alcohol drinking on campus. Many theorists have argued that pluralistic ignorance frequently accompanies such periods of social change, with private attitudes changing more quickly than social norms (see Breed & Ktsanes, 1961; Fields & Schuman, 1976; Miller & McFarland, 1991). Thus, we expected the issue of alcohol use to provide an excellent context for our empirical studies.
Conclusion: 150 words-
Suggest any future research which needs to be conducted, summarise my argument for each key point:
Ways the bystander effect is caused by a diffusion of responsibility
Ways in which the bystander effect is not caused by a diffusion of responsibility
In conclusion, the degree to which the bystander effect can be claimed to be caused by a diffusion of responsibility is subjective in terms of factors such as pluralistic ignorance and private and social norms and ideals having a profound effect on an individual’s actions.
• Capitalise after semi colons in references,
• page numbers of references,
• don’t reference websites,
• write about Kitty in intro,
• don’t just list the examples in intro,
• find another study for first para.
• Make sure last sentence of para links to the first sentence of the next para in every paragraph.
TARGET: 1100 words on 13/11, 1200+ words by 15/11, 1400+ words by 16/11
Google scholar:
http://www.ivcc.edu/uploadedFiles/_faculty/_pommier/Example%20Article%282%29.pdf
http://www2.psych.ubc.ca/~schaller/Psyc591Readings/GarciaWeaverMoskowitzDarley2002.pdf
Kitty Genovise
http://www.idealessaywriters.com/bystander-effect/
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/43e9/57f87e561c4d2d65715e6fe94e872b34299e.pdf
Pluralistic ignorance: alcohol study example- Prentice, D. A., & Miller, D. T. (1993). Pluralistic ignorance and alcohol use on campus: some consequences of misperceiving the social norm. Journal of personality and social psychology, 64(2), 243.
Darley and Latane: Darley, J. M., & Latane, B. (1968). Bystander intervention in emergencies: diffusion of responsibility. Journal of personality and social psychology, 8(4p1), 377.
Books
Author, A. A. (year). Title of work. Location: Publisher.