Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Bystander effect research paper
Media violence arumentative essay
Bystander effect research paper
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Bystander effect research paper
1. Describe how the presence of bystanders affects helping. Some people may believe that being around many people would make them safer. However, that is not always the case. This is what social psychologists call the bystander effect (Edkins, n.d.a; Kassin, Fein, & Markus, 2010). Studies have shown that participants were less likely to aid another person in an emergency when they were in a larger group. According to Latane and Darley, there are five steps in an emergency situation (As cited by Kassin et al, 2010). The first step is taking notice that something is happening. In a large crowd, distractions and self-concerns can cause a person to not notice a problem occurring. Also, people who live in larger cities may be used to seeing people lying on the ground among other things causing what is called a stimulus overload. Also, as people look around, they may have pluralistic ignorance which is where people will look around and think that other people do not appear to be worried so it must not be an emergency (Edkins, n.d.a). The next step is interpreting the situation as an emergency (Kassin et al, 2010). In this step, ambiguity can cause a person to not perceive an event as an emergency. Also, if there is a perceived relationship between the victim and attacker, people may not think that it is an emergency. Following interpreting the event as an emergency, people will need to take responsibility to help the victim. However, in this step a person may diffuse responsibility from him or herself by making excuses like someone else is going to help. The fourth step is deciding on how to help. In this step, people may begin to have doubts about helping. This may be because of the person’s lack of competence in the skills they posse... ... middle of paper ... ...s through cultivation causing the person’s attitudes and values to change. Although it has been shown through research that viewing violence can influence a person to become violent, censorship would not be the way to solve the problem. For starters, this is highly unlikely to happen, and even if it did happen it would be unlikely to help. When looking at today’s societies, violence can be seen ranging from children’s cartoons to adult movies. Children are often exposed to aggressive and violent behaviors. Rather than censor these things, people should approach the subject from a different perspective. The most probable approach to handling violence in the media would be through proper education. Teaching children critical thinking skills for viewing violence in the media and enhancing their education about violent behaviors is more likely to work than censorship.
The bystander effect refers to the tendency for an observer of an emergency to withhold aid if the:
Kitty Genovese case led to the development of the 911 emergency call system and inspired a long line of research led by psychologists Bibb Latané and John Darley around the time of 1970 into what circumstances lead bystanders to help someone in need. They discovered that, the more people available to help, the less likely any individual person would help—a phenomenon they called the “bystander effect.” If you are the only one around when an elderly person stumbles and falls, the responsibility to help is yours alone, but, with more people present, your obligation is less clear. Latané and Darley called this the “diffusion of responsibility” (CSI). A more recent case of the bystander effect was when assault victim Marques Gains laid motionless in the street due to by a hit-and-run; traffic whizzed past along with a few people stopped and seemed to stand over Gaines, who was crumpled near the curb on North State Street. No one tried to lift him from the pavement or block traffic. The lack of action by passers-by cost the hotel cocktail server his life after a cab turned the corner and drove over him. Experts says that a traumatic or odd event occurring in a public setting triggers an array of social and cultural cues and, combined with human nature, often leads to the lack of action by witnesses
Latane and Darley (1968) investigated the phenomenon known as the bystander effect and staged an emergency situation where smoke was pumped into the room participants was in. Results showed that 75% of participants who were alone reported the smoke, whereas only 38% of participants working in groups of three reported (Latane & Darley, 1968). Their findings provide evidence for the negative consequence of the diffusion of responsibility. In line with the social influence principle, bystanders depend on reactions of others to perceive a situation as an emergency and are subsequently less likely to help. Latane and Darley’s findings were also supported in recent research: Garcia and colleagues (2002) found that even priming a social context by asking participants to imagine themselves in a group could decrease helping behaviour. It can be contended that these findings are examples of social proof where individuals believe actions of the group is correct for the situation, or examples of pluralistic ignorance where individuals outwardly conform because they incorrectly assumed that a group had accepted the norm (Baumeister & Bushman,
...p; If the government ever did censor violent entertainment who knows where they would stop, or even if they would. Perhaps they would try to censor violent speech or try to censor the speech of those who disagreed with the actions of the government. The simple message is don't promote censorship, because it could easily get out of hand, and as the old saying goes “the road to hell is paved with good intentions”. There are then only two ways to get rid of the violent entertainment in our lives: we could shame those who make the violent movies, television shows, books, and plays, into having a social conscience, making them be less prone to creating violent entertainment; or we could simply solve the problem ourselves, with a push of a button, or the turn of a page.
Today, there is more violence on TV, in video games and in music than ever before. Many times, media violence is linked with kids and teenagers committing violent acts. This is an attempt by parents and critics to eliminate violence in the media. Although, many think media violence is a cause of violence among children, they should be looking at what else causes violence.
In a research analysis of Media and Violence, studies show that “Although the typical effect size for exposure to violent media is relatively small ... this ‘small effect’ translates into significant consequences for society as a whole” (“Media and Violence: An Analysis of Current Research”, 2015). This states violent behaviors can come from the smallest variables, or clips from videos, which is why it is important for parents to control what their kids see, read, and watch, and limit the amount of violence exposure.
...though the researchers weren’t looking for it, he results represent ideas that can help the bystander effect in a situation. Smaller numbers increase the percentage of realization when it comes down to an emergency. The victim, if cohesive, actually plays a big role in causing the bystander effect as well. When a victim is unable to verbally communicate with bystanders, it lessens the chance of help. If a victim is capable of communicating, the help given could be more efficient. This is because it can help break the diffusion of responsibility. A victim looking a bystander directly in the eyes can even spark a quicker reaction in them. These are all ideas that psychologists still study today, and many even consider learning about this phenomenon a requirement.
However, that opposing argument can be found as hypocritical. If a person was getting robbed in an ally and they saw many witnesses taking no action they would likely be upset by the fact of no one is offering any assistance to them. Bystanders should put themselves into the shoes of the person in need and ask themselves how they would expect others to respond if they were the one in need. Often time’s bystanders take no intervention because of the diffusion of responsibility. “When there are four or more people who are bystanders to an emergency situation, the likelihood that at least one of them will help is just 31%” (Gaille). Another statistic shows that 85% of people who were bystanders would intervene if they knew or at least though they were the only person present in the situation. Often the only thing keeping people from intervening in bystander situations are other people. It is important for bystanders to understand the statistics of the people around them in order to create action because often times they do not realize that if they were to intervene other people would likely support them in the situation. Bystanders need to make it a personal responsibility to intervene in situations for the good of other. If people were to always take action the amount of bullying, sexual harassment, crime, and many other significant issues within a society would drastically
Fischer, P., Krueger, J., Greitemeyer, T., Kastenmüller, A., Vogrincic, C., Frey, D., Heene, M., Wicher, M., & Kainbacher, M. (2011). The bystander-effect: A meta-analytic review on bystander intervention in dangerous and non-dangerous emergencies. Psychological Bulletin, 137, 517-537.
The last thing in the director 's mind is that he has to convey violent messages to minds of the viewers. The purpose of television is to be entertaining so that everyone who worked on the show can make a profit. The shows do not have any information that is likely to convince anyone to commit a crime. They are just there for pure entertainment purposes. Therefore it would be expected that there should be no correlation between aggressive behavior and the media. There are people that believe that media violence does not promote aggressive behavior. People who believe this argue that it is not the media that causes violent behavior; “the interest in violent action…and the related viewing habits also turns out to be related, within each sex , to personality’(). When people look at the gender of children it is clearly visible that boys usually play rougher than girls, and are easily excited by what they are viewing. It may not be the television or video games that cause aggression it may just be the personality of the viewer. If boys watch over an hour of exciting television, they get excited easily and start rough playing. In the other hand you can have girls watch the same program for the same amount of time and nothing her attitude may not change at all. People who believe that media violence promotes aggressive behavior often blame the rise of crime because people play too many violent video games or watch too much violent programs. People tend to focus on is the crime rates, mainly for homicide especially since the rates “increased sharply from about 1965 to 1980...But the rate then levelled off, and has been dropping sharply(). What happens when the crime rate is decreasing? The supporters of this theory keep quiet. Especially since in recent years the
Darley, J.M., Latane, B. (1968). Bystander intervention in emergencies: Diffusion of responsibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8 (4), 377-383.
MURDER, SEX, DRUGS, and VIOLENCE are all across screens and in music today. It has made quite an impact on society. When watching a violent video or movie or even playing a violent video game, people tend to get hooked right into it. Their mind set is completely set on violence. The main focus in society is to get people anxious and ready for the “next big thing”. Studies show that most Americans favor violent and destructive movies, rather than Romanic comedy. When the average person sees a violent movie or video, most of the time the clip does not show the consequence. So when they see the person or character performing violent and physical acts they believe it is perfectly normal. Media violence negatively affects society because it influences the imitation of aggressive behavior.
Darley, J. M. & Latané, B. (1968) Bystander intervention in emergencies: Diffusion of responsibility, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 8, 377–383
We all respond in different ways in the event of a disaster. But there are a few key things that happen to everyone in an event. In the first chapter of The Unthinkable, Zedeno states she was overwhelmed with a feeling of peace and calm when she found herself trapped in an elevator in the World Trade Center during the attempted detonation of a car bomb. During the events of September 11th, it was also pointed out by Zedeno that she observed co-workers making phone calls and shutting down their computers, not realizing the urgency of the situation. In most instances people fall into a kind of fog where they have a hard time focusing on the reality of the situation. This tendency is called normalcy bias. This “fog” causes people to underestimate the disaster and its effects. People also tend to interpret warnings in the most optimistic way possible, making the situation seem less serious (Spalding).
On youtube, you can find thousands of videos of people quickly reacting to an emergency and leaping into action to help save someone or even a creature of some sort. Most of these people are pretty normal, but they just get into that moment and go into action. For example, someone driving down a highway and sees a burning car but the people are still in the vehicle. Some people will call 911, but a select few will stop and run over to that burning car to pull out that person. This type of action of putting oneself in danger without proper training is not recommended but sometimes is necessary to do. If you help save someone like this you will look good and you are most importantly are helping others in the need of help. People sometimes just get into the moment sometimes and go out of there way to help someone in serious