This report will examine the evidence provided focusing on the bystander effect and will look at why victim LH did not receive help.
The bystander effect refers to a social phenomenon that occurs when an individual abstains from assisting others in an emergency situation when others are present (Latané & Darley, 1968). In the evidence presented above it can be seen that LH was a victim of the bystander effect when friends and onlookers saw that she was in distress but did not attempt to assist her. Darley and Latané stated that this can be referred to as diffusion of responsibility. They suggested that less responsibility is felt by individuals when it is shared by bystanders; when the number of bystanders increases people are less likely to …show more content…
Although other individuals did not help LH some through fears of blame and others hoped that someone else would deal with the problem, AW however broke away from the bystander phenomenon and assisted LH by seeking medical help and also contacted family members. Latane and Dabbs (1975). Found that women tend to obtain greater assistance when events occur than males do, although males tend to help more than females do. This research supports the evidence presented above as AW was male and continued to help LH despite being told not to as she was a female even when most of the passers by and onlookers did not attempt to help LH. It could be suggested that this would support Mill’s (1848) dependency theory, which states that men view themselves as defenders and contributors to …show more content…
Firstly is diffusion of responsibility, this transpires when individuals think that others will intervene and therefore, they feel less sense of responsibility (Wallach, Kogan & Bem, 1964). Secondly pluralistic ignorance can be used as an explanation; this refers to the attitude that their personal help is not needed as no one else is reacting to the situation so why should they. Compared to when the individual is alone the indecisiveness of others will make them feel the emergency may not be really serious. This could be because individuals may think they are less qualified to help than other observers. In Darley and Latane’s (1968) seizure study they established that the existence of a medical student who was male had no greater effect on assistance than the presence of unqualified bystanders. They concluded that this was due to the fact that interpreting the distress of the victim does not necessitate any level of medical capability. Schwartz and Clausen's (1970) also found that help for female victims was reduced in the presence of a medically competent bystander. To avoid conveying negative images to others, bystanders simply do not respond to the emergency (Miller & McFarland, 1987). Christy and Voigt (1994) established that bystander apathy is condensed when the victim is a friend, associate, family or a child being publically
The bystander effect refers to a social phenomenon that occurs when an individual abstains from assisting others in an emergency situation when others are present (Latané & Darley, 1968). In the evidence presented above it can be seen that LH was a victim of the bystander effect when friends and onlookers saw that she was in distress but did not attempt to assist her. Darley and Latané stated that this can be referred to as diffusion of responsibility. They suggested that less responsibility is felt by individuals when it is shared by bystanders; when the number of bystanders increases people are less likely to …show more content…
Although other individuals did not help LH some through fears of blame and others hoped that someone else would deal with the problem, AW however broke away from the bystander phenomenon and assisted LH by seeking medical help and also contacted family members. Latane and Dabbs (1975). Found that women tend to obtain greater assistance when events occur than males do, although males tend to help more than females do. This research supports the evidence presented above as AW was male and continued to help LH despite being told not to as she was a female even when most of the passers by and onlookers did not attempt to help LH. It could be suggested that this would support Mill’s (1848) dependency theory, which states that men view themselves as defenders and contributors to …show more content…
Firstly is diffusion of responsibility, this transpires when individuals think that others will intervene and therefore, they feel less sense of responsibility (Wallach, Kogan & Bem, 1964). Secondly pluralistic ignorance can be used as an explanation; this refers to the attitude that their personal help is not needed as no one else is reacting to the situation so why should they. Compared to when the individual is alone the indecisiveness of others will make them feel the emergency may not be really serious. This could be because individuals may think they are less qualified to help than other observers. In Darley and Latane’s (1968) seizure study they established that the existence of a medical student who was male had no greater effect on assistance than the presence of unqualified bystanders. They concluded that this was due to the fact that interpreting the distress of the victim does not necessitate any level of medical capability. Schwartz and Clausen's (1970) also found that help for female victims was reduced in the presence of a medically competent bystander. To avoid conveying negative images to others, bystanders simply do not respond to the emergency (Miller & McFarland, 1987). Christy and Voigt (1994) established that bystander apathy is condensed when the victim is a friend, associate, family or a child being publically