The bystander effect, otherwise known as bystander apathy, is a psychological occurrence of a traumatic experience. This can happen to individuals who are a part of a crowd that witnesses a disturbing event where no one responds to help. There have been many stories and cases of these kinds of scenarios. Darley, J.M., and Latane, B researched the bystander effect and published an article entitled “To Help or not to Help.” This study brought to light the reasons why individuals do not jump to action when there is an emergency. Psychologists have studied the reasons why a person would not be quick to provide aid to another person. For example, why didn’t people jump to action or speak up? Why didn’t people call the police? Why did some sit back
…show more content…
They could be thought of as the main event, like Kitty. The participants being studied were the observers. In Kitty’s case, the participants being studied were the people in the neighborhood who saw what was taking place. In the case with the seizure, the students who were listening to the person on the intercom were the participants being studied. The same goes for the smoke experiment. The participants were considered to be the ones in the room.
The methods to test the hypothesis were similar to those of the independent variables. For Kitty, sadly, the method that was being seen was stabbing, which resulted in death. For the seizure experiment it differed on the amount of the students that were listening at a time. For the smoke experiment the hypothesis was the smoke in the room as well as the amount of people that filled up the room.
The reason that no one responded in these instances was due to the people that were around in this situation. There were many people around who saw what happened. Everyone thought that the other person cried out for help. However, no one did. The result is that the more people there are, the less calling response. If there were only a couple people in the midst of the scene, there would be a greater likelihood the response would be greater. The hypothesis was thoroughly supported in each situation and case that was
They could be thought of as the main event, like Kitty. The participants being studied were the observers. In Kitty’s case, the participants being studied were the people in the neighborhood who saw what was taking place. In the case with the seizure, the students who were listening to the person on the intercom were the participants being studied. The same goes for the smoke experiment. The participants were considered to be the ones in the room.
The methods to test the hypothesis were similar to those of the independent variables. For Kitty, sadly, the method that was being seen was stabbing, which resulted in death. For the seizure experiment it differed on the amount of the students that were listening at a time. For the smoke experiment the hypothesis was the smoke in the room as well as the amount of people that filled up the room.
The reason that no one responded in these instances was due to the people that were around in this situation. There were many people around who saw what happened. Everyone thought that the other person cried out for help. However, no one did. The result is that the more people there are, the less calling response. If there were only a couple people in the midst of the scene, there would be a greater likelihood the response would be greater. The hypothesis was thoroughly supported in each situation and case that was