Send the link below via email or IMCopy
Present to your audienceStart remote presentation
- Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
- People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
- This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
- A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
- Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article
The Bystander Effect. John Darley and Bibb Latane's experiments.
Transcript of The Bystander Effect. John Darley and Bibb Latane's experiments.
The probability of help has often appeared to be inversely related to the number of bystanders; in other words, the greater the number of bystanders, the less likely it is that any one of them will help. The Bystander Apathy Experiment Examples Analysis Made by: - Belen Hernández.
- Alba Aragón.
- Pedro Rodríguez.
- Alejandro Manzano.
- Moises Mediavilla. The experiment nowadays. The Bystander Effect Modern Experiment The Bystander Effect: Baby in a Car John M. Darley and Bibb Latane THE END Bibliography Wikipedia.org http://tufisio.net/efecto-espectador.html http://motivacion.about.com/od/psicologia_social/ss/Ayudar-A-Los-Demas-O-Pasar-De-Largo.htm John Darley and Bibb Latane conducted an experiment in an introductory psychology class at New York University. The students were asked to have an anonymous discussion with other students about their personal and academic issues. During the discussion one member of the group would suddenly appear to be having an epileptic seizure. The Experiment In one-on-one situations, all of the participants helped with an average reaction time of less than a minute. In “groups” of 3 people, 85% of subjects responded within the four minute period. When subjects believed there were 5 other people, reaction times averaged over 3 minutes and only 60% reported the emergency. Two reasons were offered to explain the bystander apathy effect. First is diffusion of responsibility. This occurs when other people think that another person will intervene and as a result, they feel less responsible. The second explanation is pluralistic ignorance. This refers to the mentality that since everyone else is not reacting to the emergency; my personal help is not needed. Seeing the inaction of others will lead to the thought that the emergency is not that serious as compared to perception when he is alone. Findings and Principles Ethical Principles Individuals may be lead to thinking that other observers are more qualified to help. In times of medical emergencies, people might think that maybe a doctor is present in the scene and the patient will be better off with the help of the doctor.
Some people may be too self-conscious that they don't want to give off negative images to other bystanders. For them to avoid this occurrence, these individuals simply do not respond to the emergency.
Fears associated to perception can also be an explanation of bystander effect. Such fears include being outranked by a superior helper, or being rejected when offering one's help, or having to deal with legal consequences of offering inferior or even worsening assistance.
Was the sue of deception justified? It could be argued that the use of deception may expose subjects to psychological risks, including guilt and a threat to self-esteem for not helping, stress during the emergency itself, and embarassment about being duped by the researchers. Experiment Information When: 1968
Where: in a cubicle amongst a number of other cubicles in which there were tapes of other students playing and the subject thought they were real people.
Designed to test: the diffusion of responsibility among the subjects who thought they were overhearing another student have an epileptic seizure. In the case which the participants were told they were one of two subjects, 85% of the subjects responded. In the case in which the participants were told they were one of six subjects, only 31% of the subjects responded. Questions it Asked Is the participants' concentration of responsibility contingent on the amount of people placed with the same responsibility at the same time?
Does one's sense of significance, ability, and individualism decrease as the group one is placed in increases.
What does this say about human behavior from an altruistic perspective?
How does this experiment highlight human apathy? Data Analysis The significantly higher percentage of subjects who asked for help in the first treatment condition entails that people react more if there is less number of people around an emergency or an event.
The significantly lower percentage of subjects who helped in the other treatment conditions entails that individuals are less likely to help in an emergency when other people are present. Theories Diffusion of Responsibility Theory: the less people involved, the greater sense of responsibility placed on the individual.
Pluralistic Ignorance: the mentality that since everyone else is not reacting to the emergency; my personal help is not needed.
Seeing the inaction of others will lead to the thought that the emergency is not that serious as compared to perception when he is alone.
Bystander Fears: fears associated to perception can also be an explanation of bystander effect. Such fears include being outranked by a superior helper, or being rejected when offering one's help, or having to deal with legal consequences of offering inferior or even worsening assistance. Variables Dependent variable- Time it takes for the participant to seek help
Independent variable- Number of participants within a discussion group
Positive correlation: is a direct relationship where as the amount of one variable increases, the amount of a second variable also increases
As the amount of participants increase, the amount of time it takes for the participant to seek help increases