Wednesday, September 18, 2019
The Bystander Effect :: bystanderââ¬â¢s reactions
The purpose of this paper is to analyse how the bystander effect, ââ¬Å"the likelihood that an individual will intervene in an emergency goes down as the number of bystanders increasesâ⬠(Olson, Breckler, Wiggins, 2008, p.482), occurs in chosen an emergency situation (Appendix nr1). I am going to show why and how participantââ¬â¢s behaviour confirms or not that effect. There are many interactions among people witnessing an emergency situation. Behaviours of witnesses are influenced by occurring psychological reactions and responses to situation. ââ¬Å"A false impression of how other people are thinking, feeling and respondingâ⬠(Karn, 2010,) creates a common ignorance and influences bystanderââ¬â¢s behaviours. Interpretation of situation as a nonemergency is based on other bystanderââ¬â¢s reactions or their no reactions. The presence of others diminishes a feeling of personal responsibility (Karn, 2010). Because an emergency case chosen for analysis contains an element of aggression I introduce now the social psychological definition of aggression that is: ââ¬Å"behaviour that is intended to injure someone physically or psychologicallyâ⬠and a special kinds of aggression, such as a hostile aggression:â⬠harm-doing that arises out of negative emotions such as anger, frustration, or hatredâ⬠(Olson and all, 2008, p. 419). I use also the GAM (General Aggression Model) theory: â⬠a broad theory that conceptualizes aggression as the result of a chain of psychological processes, including situational events, aggressive thoughts and feelings, and interpretation of the situationâ⬠(Olson and all, 2008, p. 423), and frustration-aggression hypothesis, ââ¬Å"proposition that frustration always leads to some form of aggressionâ⬠(Olson and all, 2008, p. 425). I also apply Latane and Darleyââ¬â¢s decision tree ââ¬Å"that specified a series of decisions that must be made before a person will intervene in an emergencyâ⬠(Olson and all, 2008, p. 479). Five different processes should occur for intervention to happen, such as: (1) the event must be noticed (if an individual do not notice he/she will not help), (2) the event must be interpreted as an emergency (witnesses fail to intervene, because they do not interpret the event as an emergency), (3) a personal responsibility must be accepted (if other people are present a witness can assume that others will help), (4) an appropriate form of assistance needs to be chosen, and finally (5) the action has to be implemented. If a negative response occurs at any stage of the process the bystander will not intervene. As a passenger of TAXI I observed two drivers before the emergency situation began. The Bystander Effect :: bystanderââ¬â¢s reactions The purpose of this paper is to analyse how the bystander effect, ââ¬Å"the likelihood that an individual will intervene in an emergency goes down as the number of bystanders increasesâ⬠(Olson, Breckler, Wiggins, 2008, p.482), occurs in chosen an emergency situation (Appendix nr1). I am going to show why and how participantââ¬â¢s behaviour confirms or not that effect. There are many interactions among people witnessing an emergency situation. Behaviours of witnesses are influenced by occurring psychological reactions and responses to situation. ââ¬Å"A false impression of how other people are thinking, feeling and respondingâ⬠(Karn, 2010,) creates a common ignorance and influences bystanderââ¬â¢s behaviours. Interpretation of situation as a nonemergency is based on other bystanderââ¬â¢s reactions or their no reactions. The presence of others diminishes a feeling of personal responsibility (Karn, 2010). Because an emergency case chosen for analysis contains an element of aggression I introduce now the social psychological definition of aggression that is: ââ¬Å"behaviour that is intended to injure someone physically or psychologicallyâ⬠and a special kinds of aggression, such as a hostile aggression:â⬠harm-doing that arises out of negative emotions such as anger, frustration, or hatredâ⬠(Olson and all, 2008, p. 419). I use also the GAM (General Aggression Model) theory: â⬠a broad theory that conceptualizes aggression as the result of a chain of psychological processes, including situational events, aggressive thoughts and feelings, and interpretation of the situationâ⬠(Olson and all, 2008, p. 423), and frustration-aggression hypothesis, ââ¬Å"proposition that frustration always leads to some form of aggressionâ⬠(Olson and all, 2008, p. 425). I also apply Latane and Darleyââ¬â¢s decision tree ââ¬Å"that specified a series of decisions that must be made before a person will intervene in an emergencyâ⬠(Olson and all, 2008, p. 479). Five different processes should occur for intervention to happen, such as: (1) the event must be noticed (if an individual do not notice he/she will not help), (2) the event must be interpreted as an emergency (witnesses fail to intervene, because they do not interpret the event as an emergency), (3) a personal responsibility must be accepted (if other people are present a witness can assume that others will help), (4) an appropriate form of assistance needs to be chosen, and finally (5) the action has to be implemented. If a negative response occurs at any stage of the process the bystander will not intervene. As a passenger of TAXI I observed two drivers before the emergency situation began.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.