In 1964, Kitty Genovese was murdered in front of her home, thirty-eight neighbours acknowledged the murder taking place but despite this no one intervened. Researchers regarded the failure to act as being due to the diffusion of responsibility felt by the by stander. Using a vignette the research investigates the effects of the amount of people present in an emergency situation and helping intention and also how the characteristic of the victim effects this. A Two-way unrelated ANOVA was ran, the results found that two effects the amount of people and the characteristic of the individual (whether they are visually impaired or not.) to be significant. No significant effect on the interaction was found. It is concluded that the amount of people
…show more content…
Many that would go beyond the current literature, in respect of this. The research reports on the social, situational factor of the predictability of the bystanders’ behaviour.
Analysing the behaviour from a social factor, researchers regard the failure to act as being due to the lack of responsibility felt by the by stander. Latane & Darley (1970), stated that in order for this to happen, the by stander must first notice the event. Feel apathy and from this a personal responsibility will initiate the by stander to act. If apathy is not felt the by stander will not intervene.
Being in a large group or crowd diffuses the sense of responsibility and apathy because of anonymity or social cues. The individual may think someone else may intervene, or they may refrain from assisting because they think they will block help being given as too many people may take action and make the situation worse. This explanation became known as the Diffusion of Responsibility. If everyone in the group is to think like this as seen in Kitty Genovese case, unfortunate circumstances happen. Here we sew that an increased amount of people inhibited helping. (Ross and Braband, …show more content…
Secondly, due to the victim being perceived as not being responsible for the situation, in this case the victims visibility, it is predicted the bystander will respond as being more likely to help the “victim,” if they are visually impaired compared to when they are not. Finally relative to the characteristics of the victim and the amount of people, Bystanders will be more likely to help if the victim is alone in a park and visually
Many that would go beyond the current literature, in respect of this. The research reports on the social, situational factor of the predictability of the bystanders’ behaviour.
Analysing the behaviour from a social factor, researchers regard the failure to act as being due to the lack of responsibility felt by the by stander. Latane & Darley (1970), stated that in order for this to happen, the by stander must first notice the event. Feel apathy and from this a personal responsibility will initiate the by stander to act. If apathy is not felt the by stander will not intervene.
Being in a large group or crowd diffuses the sense of responsibility and apathy because of anonymity or social cues. The individual may think someone else may intervene, or they may refrain from assisting because they think they will block help being given as too many people may take action and make the situation worse. This explanation became known as the Diffusion of Responsibility. If everyone in the group is to think like this as seen in Kitty Genovese case, unfortunate circumstances happen. Here we sew that an increased amount of people inhibited helping. (Ross and Braband, …show more content…
Secondly, due to the victim being perceived as not being responsible for the situation, in this case the victims visibility, it is predicted the bystander will respond as being more likely to help the “victim,” if they are visually impaired compared to when they are not. Finally relative to the characteristics of the victim and the amount of people, Bystanders will be more likely to help if the victim is alone in a park and visually