1 / 24

Examples of Diffusion of Responsibility and Bystander Effect

Examples of Diffusion of Responsibility and Bystander Effect. Latané and Darley, 1968 Cubicles with sounds of severe choking Only person = 85%; One other person = 65%; four other people = 31% Pluralistic ignorance is where they assume nothing is wrong because nobody else looks concerned.

kristen-mccullough
Download Presentation

Examples of Diffusion of Responsibility and Bystander Effect

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Examples of Diffusion of Responsibility and Bystander Effect • Latané and Darley, 1968 • Cubicles with sounds of severe choking • Only person = 85%; One other person = 65%; four other people = 31% • Pluralistic ignorance is where they assume nothing is wrong because nobody else looks concerned.

  2. Conditions that strengthen conformity • Insecure, offering unwanted assistance or “losing face” in front bystanders • Behavior will be observed/judged • Group that has at least three people • The group is unanimous; look at other’s reactions in an emergency • Group’s status is admirable • No prior commitment to any response

  3. Step 1 – Will the Bystander Help? • Is the incident noticeable for the bystander? • Are there a lot of people around? • Noise, distractions

  4. Step 2 – Will the Bystander Help? • Can the situation clearly be identified as an emergency? • Pluralistic ignorance – others dictate our actions • If alone, 70% report situation as emergency within 4 minutes • With others present, only 12% report within 4 minutes • Darley & Latane, 1968

  5. Step 3 – Will the Bystander Help? • Based on the situation, am I responsible to act? • The more people present…less likely to take responsibility • If alone, 85% went to help victim • With others present, 31% went to help victim • Darley & Latane, 1968

  6. Step 4 – Will the Bystander Help? • Do I have skills/knowledge/some capacity to help the victim? • If answers to all steps are yes, then victim receives help • Situation noticeable? • Situation identified as emergency? • I have responsibility? • Can my actions help?

  7. Actions to counter bystander apathy • As a victim, single out one person in the crowd and appeal directly to them • In this way the person cannot diffuse their responsibility; it is placed on their shoulders • This counters pluralistic ignorance as one person in the crowd does help

  8. Examples • Stanford Prison Experiment • Diffusion of responsibility • Milgram’s Obedience Experiment • Prison Abuse in Iraq • Liverpool, England Murder

  9. Surveillance Tape - February 12, 1993; Strand Shopping Center near Liverpool

  10. Sequence of Events • The two boys kidnap James Bulger from the mall • As they walked outside, the boy had to be carried because he was crying for his mother and refused to walk anymore

  11. Sequence of Events • They continue to an isolated area under a bridge • The boys cover the injuries Many people notice the tears and blood but none intervene • James drags his feet, cries, and attempts to run away

  12. Sequence of Events • They go into three stores and are questioned by over a 15 people • Many give them directions to the police station • 2 ½ hours after kidnapping James, they take him to an area by train tracks • The boys throw stones and bricks, kick, punch, and hit James with an iron bar

  13. Sequence of Events • Thinking he is dead, they lay him on the railroad tracks before the train comes

  14. References • Latané, B. and Darley, J. M. (1970) The unresponsive bystander: Why doesn’t he help? Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall • Gladwell, Malcolm. (2000). The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference. ISBN 0316316962. • http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:_kKV8k7HvsoJ:www.crimelibrary.com/classics3/bulger/+boy+in+England,+bystander&hl=en&ie=UTF-8 Court TV website

  15. The Bystander Effect and Diffusion of Responsibility in The Boondock Saints

  16. Genovese Case • The film opens citing the textbook example of the Kitty Genovese case:

  17. The tone of the film is set with the preacher's monologue and the brother’s response • “We must fear…the indifference of good men” • “I do believe monsignor’s finally got the point.”

  18. The Saints represent the answer to diffusion of responsibility problem by taking on the work themselves. • They also represent the small groups of people who, when faced with an emergency, step out of the crowd and rise to action.

  19. The film establishes the problem of crime in America and shows that nobody is doing anything about it. • The film claims society is sitting by and watching this happen and that everyone wants someone to do something.

  20. The film alludes to the fact that this style of justice is the only way anything can be done. • The message has dual-intent • The audience either agrees and is called to action • The audience disagrees and seeks to fight non-fictional instances • Either way, the bystander effect/diffusion of responsibility is broken through audience action

  21. References • Boondock Saints, The. Dir. Troy Duffy. Perf. Willem Dafoe, Sean Patrick Flannery, Norman Reedus, David Della Rocco. 1999. DiVX AVI. 20th Century Fox, 2002.

More Related