Victoria Habenicht
Darley and Latane, Bystander Intervention
1. What I found to be most fascinating about the bystander intervention was the (probably what was…) hindsight bias among the participants. The participants were psychology students, and during the post-experiment evaluation, 20 out of 65 participants agreed with the suggested statement, “"I thought it must be some sort of fake". There were only two cases in the study that suggested they suspected the experiment’s false objective, and those results were thrown out (and considered to be outliers). I figured the students would be more aware of their own biases and perhaps be able to give more thoughtful answers. I’m subsequently surprised that the post-experiment survey did not seem to have a free response section. In a study that seemed to account for almost every facet that could affect the conclusion and calculate such possible skewing, why wouldn’t they give the option? If they were worried that people wouldn’t bother writing anything, why couldn’t some suggestions be given (such as the ones they actually gave to the participants)?
2. In the first table (titled, “Effects of groups size on likelihood and speed of response”, the results indicate that the group size is very significant (p< 0.05). Overall, the researchers claim that their personality measures …show more content…
Diffusion of responsibility is a major social psychology concept that can be connected to this study. The term refers to an individual where he/she is less likely to take action when more people are present. The study made sure that the participants believed that (in some cases) others were present, but their physical presence was absent as a way to control the variables that are introduced if actual people were there (such as attractiveness of the confederates). In another similar study, the researchers experimented in open and closed environments (such as a train or outside) and has identical conclusions about the diffusion of
Darley and Latane, Bystander Intervention
1. What I found to be most fascinating about the bystander intervention was the (probably what was…) hindsight bias among the participants. The participants were psychology students, and during the post-experiment evaluation, 20 out of 65 participants agreed with the suggested statement, “"I thought it must be some sort of fake". There were only two cases in the study that suggested they suspected the experiment’s false objective, and those results were thrown out (and considered to be outliers). I figured the students would be more aware of their own biases and perhaps be able to give more thoughtful answers. I’m subsequently surprised that the post-experiment survey did not seem to have a free response section. In a study that seemed to account for almost every facet that could affect the conclusion and calculate such possible skewing, why wouldn’t they give the option? If they were worried that people wouldn’t bother writing anything, why couldn’t some suggestions be given (such as the ones they actually gave to the participants)?
2. In the first table (titled, “Effects of groups size on likelihood and speed of response”, the results indicate that the group size is very significant (p< 0.05). Overall, the researchers claim that their personality measures …show more content…
Diffusion of responsibility is a major social psychology concept that can be connected to this study. The term refers to an individual where he/she is less likely to take action when more people are present. The study made sure that the participants believed that (in some cases) others were present, but their physical presence was absent as a way to control the variables that are introduced if actual people were there (such as attractiveness of the confederates). In another similar study, the researchers experimented in open and closed environments (such as a train or outside) and has identical conclusions about the diffusion of