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
Do you really want to delete this prezi?
Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.
Make your likes visible on Facebook?
Connect your Facebook account to Prezi and let your likes appear on your timeline.
You can change this under Settings & Account at any time.
Latane and Darley's Bystander Intervention Effect
Transcript of Latane and Darley's Bystander Intervention Effect
Bystander Intervention Experiment By Carly Boyd The Experiment The Experimenters The Experiment cont. Experiment 2: Lady in Distress Experiment 3: The Case of the Stolen Beer Experiment 1. Where There's Smoke, There's (Sometimes) Fire Works Cited After this incident, Bibb Latane and John Darley decided to conduct an experiment to possibly figure out why people reacted the way they did in that situation. They had subjects began to fill out questionnaires in a room to which they began to add smoke.
In one condition, the subject was alone.
In another, three naive subjects were in the room.
In the final condition, one naive subject and two confederates who purposely noticed and then ignored the smoke, even when the room became hazy from all the smoke, were in the room.
75% of alone subjects calmly noticed the smoke and left the room to report it.
Only 10% of the subjects with confederates reported it.
In the three naive bystander condition only 38% reported the smoke. In this experiment subjects either waited alone, with a friend, with a passive confederate, or with a stranger in a room.
The room was separated from another room by a curtain.
The experimenter who led them there returned to other room and left, turning on a tape recorded that simulated a fall and moaning about a hurt leg.
The experimenters measured the percent who took action and how long it took them to act.
Overall, 61% pulled back the curtain to check on the experimenter, 14% entered through another door, and 24% simply called out.
Nobody went to report the accident.
70% of alone subjects reacted, but only 7% of those with passive confederates reacted.
The subjects with confederates became confused and frequently looked over at the confederate.
Only 40% of stranger pairs offered to help. This experiment tested whether group influences would increase intervention if a villain was involved.
They staged a shoplifting theft of a case of beer at a liquor store.
They had two variables - one or two customers in the store, and one or two "robbers".
Overall 20% of subjects reported the theft spontaneously, and 51% reported upon prompting by the store owner.
65% of single customers reported the theft.
Only 56% of two-customer setups made a report. Whatley. Latane and Darley's (1970) Decision Model of Helping. Digital image. Prosocial Behavior. Dr. Whatley, n.d. Web. 07 Dec. 2012. Whatley. Latane and Darley's (1970) Decision Model of Helping. Digital image. Prosocial Behavior. Dr. Whatley, n.d. Web. 07 Dec. 2012. Rollag, Keith. "Latane and Darley: Bystander Apathy." Keith Rollag's Website. Babson College, n.d. Web. 07 Dec. 2012. Coates, Stacey D. "Bibb Latane." Psychology History. Muskingum University, n.d. Web. 07 Dec. 2012. "When Do People Help." When Do People Help. Rensselaer, n.d. Web. 07 Dec. 2012. "Don't Just Stand There - Do Something." Canada Safety Council. Canada Safety Council. Web. 06 Jan. 2013. The bystander intervention experiment was conducted to see how people reacted to emergencies and the time it took them to help, or if they even helped at all. There are three principles to this experiment: 1. The number of people present and the influence the people have on an individual 2. The impact of others increases as the number of people increases, but the rate of impact does not increase with the number of others added 3. Each person influences others, but as the audience size increases the influence decreases Together, they developed the Theory of Social Impact. Bibb Latane. Digital image. Psychology Headlines. Social Psychology Network. Web. 06 Jan. 2013. John Darley. Digital image. Psychology Headlines. Social Psychology Network. Web. 06 Jan. 2013. Bibb Latane. Digital image. Psychology Headlines. Social Psychology Network. Web. 06 Jan. 2013. John Darley. Digital image. Psychology Headlines. Social Psychology Network. Web. 06 Jan. 2013. In March 1964, Kitty Genovese was attacked in a Queens parking lot at 3 am. Almost 40 people watched from their windows while she was beaten and stabbed to death over a half hour period. No one even called the police until after the attacker fled. During an emergency, there are a series of questions one must answer. Should I take action?
If so, should I call the police or take responsibility for myself?
Will people think I'm a hero?
What if I don't succeed?
What if myself or someone else gets injured?
Is anyone else going to do something about this? Of course most of the time during an emergency, one does not stand there and think through every one of those questions. However, when one is faced with such a situation, they may look to other's behavior to see if they observe it as an emergency and if they are taking action. If one observes that others are not doing anything to help the situation, they will most likely not help either. One would react differently when they are alone, when they know no one will watch their actions and further judge them for it. As a way to prove the Theory of Social Impact, four experiments were conducted:
Where There's Smoke, There's (Sometimes) Fire
Lady in Distress
The Case of the Stolen Beer
A Fit to Be Tied The results appeared to be the same as they did in the smoke study; it seemed that the risk of inappropriate behavior is less with friends. Experiment 4: A Fit to Be Tied This experiment tested what people would do if they witnessed an emergency with the knowledge others are present but can't see or hear them.
They put a naive subject in a room and told him that they were to talk with others about normal stress problems with other students who were similarly in isolated rooms.
However, all the other students were on tape.
One of the other students became a victim that suffers a seizure and calls for help.
95% of all subjects responded within the first 3 minutes.
85% of perceived alone subjects left their cubicle before the victim finished speaking to report it.
Only 31% who thought there were four other bystanders did so. Impact on Psychology There weren't any major problems with the experiment.
It made a huge impact on psychology because it showed the thought process of bystanders during emergencies.
The experiment proved that a bystander's actions are based mostly on the people around them; who they are and what they are doing.
In every day life, when we are put into a situation when someone may need our help, we should not just be bystanders like the many subjects in these experiments.
Instead, we should not worry about the strangers or friends that are around us and do our best to make the situation better.