Diffusion of Responsibility Definition and Examples in Psychology

What causes people to intervene and help others? Psychologists have found that people are sometimes less likely to help out when there are others present, a phenomenon known as the bystander effect. One reason the bystander effect occurs is due to diffusion of responsibility: when others are around who could also help, people may feel less responsible for helping. Key Takeaways: Diffusion of Responsibility Diffusion of responsibility occurs when people feel less responsibility for taking action in a given situation, because there are other people who could also be responsible for taking action.In a famous study on diffusion of responsibility, people were less likely to help someone having a seizure when they believed there were others present who also could have helped.Diffusion of responsibility is especially likely to happen in relatively ambiguous situations. Famous Research on Diffusion of Responsibility In 1968, researchers John Darley and Bibb Latanà © published a famous study on diffusion of responsibility in emergency situations. In part, their study was conducted to better understand the 1964 murder of Kitty Genovese, which had captured the public’s attention. When Kitty was attacked while walking home from work, The New York Times reported that dozens of people witnessed the attack, but didn’t take action to help Kitty. While people were shocked that so many people could have witnessed the event without doing something, Darley and Latanà © suspected that people might actually be less likely to take action when there are others present. According to the researchers, people may feel less of a sense of individual responsibility when other people who could also help are present. They may also assume that someone else has already taken action, especially if they can’t see how others have responded. In fact, one of the people who heard Kitty Genovese being attacked said that she assumed others had already reported what was happening. In their famous 1968 study, Darley and Latanà © had research participants engage in a group discussion over an intercom (in actuality, there was only one real participant, and the other speakers in the discussion were actually pre-recorded tapes). Each participant was seated in a separate room, so they couldn’t see the others in the study. One speaker mentioned having a history of seizures and seemed to begin having a seizure during the study session. Crucially, the researchers were interested in seeing whether participants would leave their study room and let the experimenter know that another participant was having a seizure. In some versions of the study, participants believed that there were only two people in the discussion—themselves and the person having the seizure. In this case, they were very likely to go find help for the other person (85% of them went to go get help while the participant was still having the seizure, and everyone reported it before the experimental session ended). However, when the participants believed that they were in groups of six—that is, when they thought there were four other people who could also report the seizure—they were less likely to get help: only 31% of participants reported the emergency while the seizure was happening, and only 62% reported it by the end of the experiment. In another condition, in which participants were in groups of three, the rate of helping was in between the rates of helping in the two- and six-person groups. In other words, participants were less likely to go get help for someone having a medical emergency when they be lieved that there were others present who could also go get help for the person. Diffusion of Responsibility in Everyday Life We often think about diffusion of responsibility in the context of emergency situations. However, it can occur in everyday situations as well. For example, diffusion of responsibility could explain why you might not put in as much effort on a group project as you would on an individual project (because your classmates are also responsible for doing the work). It can also explain why sharing chores with roommates can be difficult: you might be tempted to just leave those dishes in the sink, especially if you can’t remember whether you were the person who last used them. In other words, diffusion of responsibility isn’t just something that occurs in emergencies: it occurs in our daily lives as well. Why We Don’t Help In emergencies, why would we be less likely to help if there are others present? One reason is that emergency situations are sometimes ambiguous. If we aren’t sure whether there’s actually an emergency (especially if the other people present seem unconcerned about what is happening), we might be concerned about the potential embarrassment from causing a â€Å"false alarm† if it turns out that there was no actual emergency. We may also fail to intervene if it’s not clear how we can help. For example, Kevin Cook, who has written about some of the misconceptions surrounding Kitty Genovese’s murder, points out that there wasn’t a centralized 911 system that people could call to report emergencies in 1964. In other words, people may want to help—but they may not be sure whether they should or how their help can be most effective. In fact, in the famous study by Darley and Latanà ©, the researchers reported that the participants who didn’t help appeared nervous, suggesting that they felt conflicted about how to respond to the situation. In situations like these, being unsure of how to react—combined with the lower sense of personal responsibility—can lead to inaction. Does the Bystander Effect Always Occur? In a 2011 meta-analysis (a study that combines the results of previous research projects), Peter Fischer and colleagues sought to determine how strong the bystander effect is, and under which conditions it occurs. When they combined the results of previous research studies (totaling over 7,000 participants), they found evidence for the bystander effect. On average, the presence of bystanders reduced the likelihood that the participant would intervene to help, and the bystander effect was even greater when there are more people present to witness a particular event. However, importantly, they found that there may actually be some context where the presence of others doesn’t make us less likely to help. In particular, when intervening in a situation was especially likely to be dangerous for the helper, the bystander effect was reduced (and in some cases, even reversed). The researchers suggest that, in particularly dangerous situations, people may see other bystanders as a potential source of support. For example, if helping in an emergency situation could threaten your physical safety (e.g. helping someone who is being attacked), you’re probably likely to consider whether the other bystanders can help you in your efforts. In other words, while the presence of others usually leads to less helping, this isn’t necessarily always the case. How We Can Increase Helping In the years since initial research on the bystander effect and diffusion of responsibility, people have looked for ways to increase helping. Rosemary Sword and Philip Zimbardo wrote that one way of doing this is to give people individual responsibilities in an emergency situation: if you need help or see someone else who does, assign specific tasks to each bystander (e.g. single out one person and have them call 911, and single out another person and ask them to provide first aid). Because the bystander effect occurs when people feel a diffusion of responsibility and are unsure of how to react, one way to increase helping is to make it clear how people can help. Sources and Additional Reading: Darley, John M., and Bibb Latanà ©. Bystander Intervention in Emergencies: Diffusion of Responsibility.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology  8.4 (1968): 377-383. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1968-08862-001Fischer, Peter, et al. The bystander-effect: A meta-analytic review on bystander intervention in dangerous and non-dangerous emergencies.  Psychological Bulletin  137.4 (2011): 517-537. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2011-08829-001Gilovich, Thomas, Dacher Keltner, and Richard E. Nisbett. Social Psychology. 1st edition, W.W. Norton Company, 2006.Latanà ©, Bibb, and John M. Darley. Group inhibition of bystander intervention in emergencies.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology  10.3 (1968): 215-221. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1969-03938-001â€Å"What Really Happened The Night Kitty Genovese Was Murdered?† NPR: All Things Considered (2014, Mar. 3). https://www.npr.org/2014/03/03/284002294/what-really-happened-the-night-kitty-genovese-was-mu rderedSword, Rosemary K.M. and Philip Zimbardo. â€Å"The Bystander Effect.† Psychology Today (2015, Feb. 27). https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-time-cure/201502/the-bystander-effect

A Resemblance Of Harmonious Discord - 919 Words

A Resemblance of Harmonious Discord In eighteenth-century England, the proper use of wit in literary writing was highly regarded. While there are numerous view points on that which truly constitutes wit, the conceptions offered by Joseph Addison and Samuel Johnson are among the most recognized and accepted. On page 2653 of The Norton Anthology of English Literature, Addison’s notions on that which he calls â€Å"true wit† are eloquently reasoned: â€Å"In order therefore that the resemblances in the ideas be wit, it is necessary that the ideas should not lie too near one another in the nature of things; for where the likeness is obvious, it gives no surprise† (Addison 2653). Where â€Å"false wit† deals in the mere association or comparison of one thing to another, â€Å"true wit† offers the reader something unusual—a unique and unexpected â€Å"resemblance of ideas† (Addison 2654). In similar regard, Johnson’s views on wit†”relayed in the aforementioned anthology on page 2948—express a need for more than the mundane, a contradiction to that which is commonly observed: â€Å"But wit, abstracted from its effects upon he hearer, may be more rigorously and philosophically considered as a kind of discordia concors [harmonious discord]; a combination of dissimilar images, or discovery of occult resemblances in things apparently unlike† (Johnson 2948). Though Joseph Addison’s and Samuel Johnson’s notions of true and intellectual wit are discernable within a number of eighteenth-century works, these ideals areShow MoreRelatedTheories of Organizational Behavior10512 Words   |  43 Pagesâ€Å" The Relevance of Adam Smith† by Robert L. Hetzel, he says- â€Å"Both Smith and American statesmen were trying to devise social systems in accord with the spirit of natural law. They believed that the principles of social organization conducive to harmonious relations among men and between men and their government are inherent in and may be deduced from the natural forces that motivate men s behavior.† A constant theme in The Wealth of Nations is the importance of maintaining a strong relationshipRead MoreTheology of the Body32011 Words   |  129 Pagesact [doubtless connected with nuptial meaning of body and call to communion in love]. In 1 Cor 12:18-25, Paul says about the Mystical Body of Christ, â€Å"God has so composed the body, giving the greater honor to the inferior part, that there may be no discord in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another.† For Paul, the human body is worthy of honor, because man prescientifically â€Å"is† that body, [which is the sign or sacrament of the person]. The body deserves honor because of

The Return Shadow Souls Chapter 29 Free Essays

Someone was trying to make her drink out of a glass. Elena’s sense of smell was so acute that she could taste what was in the glass already – Black Magic wine. And she didn’t want that! No! She spat it out. We will write a custom essay sample on The Return: Shadow Souls Chapter 29 or any similar topic only for you Order Now They couldn’t make her drink. â€Å"Mon enfant, it is for your own good. Now, drink it.† Elena turned her head away. She felt the darkness and the hurricane rushing up to take her. Yes. That was better. Why wouldn’t they leave her alone? In the very deepest trenches of communication, a little boy was with her in the dark. She remembered him, but not his name. She held out her arms and he came into them and it seemed that his chains were lighter than they had been†¦when? Before. That was all she could remember. Are you all right? she whispered to the child. Down here, deep in the heart of communion, a whisper was a shout. Don’t cry. No tears, he begged her, but the words reminded her of something she couldn’t bear to think of, and she put her fingers to his lips, gently silencing him. Too loud, a voice from Outside came rumbling in. â€Å"So, mon enfant, you have decided to become un vampire encore une fois.† Is that what is happening? she whispered to the child. Am I dying again? To become a vampire? I don’t know! the child cried. I don’t know anything. He’s angry. I’m afraid. Sage won’t hurt you, she promised. He’s already a vampire, and your friend. Not Sage†¦ Then who are you afraid of? If you die again, I’ll be wrapped in chains all over. The child showed her a pitiable picture of himself covered by coil after coil of heavy chains. In his mouth, gagging him. Pinning his arms to his sides and his legs to the ball. Moreover, the chains were spiked so that everywhere they dug into the child’s soft flesh, blood flowed. Who would do such a thing? Elena cried. I’ll make him wish he’d never been born. Tell me who’s going to do this! The child’s face was sad and perplexed. I will, he said sadly. He will. He/I. Damon. Because we’ll have killed you. But if it’s not his fault†¦ We have to. We have to. But maybe I’ll die, the doctor says†¦ There was a definite lilt of hope in the last sentence. It decided Elena. If Damon was not thinking clearly, then maybe she wasn’t thinking clearly, she reasoned out slowly. Maybe†¦maybe she should do what Sage wanted. And Dr. Meggar. She could discern his voice as if through a thick fog. † – sake, you’ve been working all night. Give someone else a chance.† Yes†¦all night. Elena had not wanted to wake up again, and she had a powerful will. â€Å"Maybe switch sides?† someone – a girl – a young girl – was suggesting. Little in voice, but strong-willed, too. Bonnie. â€Å"Elena†¦It’s Meredith. Can you feel me holding your hand?† A pause, then very much louder, excitedly, â€Å"Hey, she squeezed my hand! Did you see? Sage, tell Damon to get in here quick.† Drifting†¦ â€Å"†¦drink a little more, Elena? I know, I know, you’re sick of it. But drink un peu for my sake, will you?† Drifting†¦ â€Å"Trs bon, mon enfant! Maintenant, what about a little milk? Damon believes you can stay human if you drink some milk.† Elena had two thoughts about this. One was that if she drank any more of anything, she might explode. Another was that she wasn’t going to make any foolish promises. She tried to speak but it came out in a thread of a whisper. â€Å"Tell Damon – I won’t come up unless he lets the little boy free.† â€Å"Who? What little boy?† â€Å"Elena, sweetie, all the little boys on this estate are free.† Meredith: â€Å"Why not let her tell him?† Dr. Meggar: â€Å"Elena, Damon is right here on the couch. You’ve both been very sick, but you’re going to be fine. Here, Elena, we can move the examination table so you can talk to him. There, it’s done.† Elena tried to open her eyes, but everything was ferociously bright. She took a breath and tried again. Still much too bright. And she didn’t know how to dim her vision anymore. She spoke with her eyes shut to the presence she felt in front of her: I can’t leave him alone again. Especially if you’re going to load him with chains and gag him. Elena, Damon said shakily, I haven’t led a good life. But I haven’t kept slaves before, I swear. Ask anyone. And I wouldn’t do that to a child. You have, and I know his name. And I know that all he’s made of is gentleness, and kindness, and good nature†¦and fear. The low rumble of Sage’s voice, â€Å"†¦agitating her†¦Ã¢â‚¬  the slightly louder murmur of Damon’s: â€Å"I know she’s off her head, but I’d still like to know the name of this little boy I’m supposed to have done this to. How does that agitate her?† More rumbling, then: â€Å"But can’t I just ask her? At least I can clear my name of these charges.† Then, out loud: â€Å"Elena? Can you tell me what child I’m supposed to have tortured like this?† She was so tired. But she answered aloud, whispering, â€Å"His name is Damon, of course.† And Meredith’s own exhausted whisper, â€Å"Oh, my God. She was willing to die for a metaphor.† How to cite The Return: Shadow Souls Chapter 29, Essay examples

Romeo Love Is Fickle free essay sample

Romeo’s love is expressed as fickle. It is in fact true that his love is fickle because of his romantic feelings for both Rosaline and Juliet. Before Romeo had met Juliet, he had loved Rosaline. In the play, it is described that Romeo is unconditionally in love with Rosaline. Rosaline, however, chooses to turn him down; Romeo says: â€Å"She hath forsworn to love, and in that vow/Do I live dead that live to tell it now. † This is the source of his depression. Benvolio  urges Romeo to sneak into the Capulet ball where, he claims, Rosaline will look like a crow alongside the other beautiful women. Romeo agrees to go, but doubts Benvolios judgement. Romeo explains that he only wants to go to the ball because his only love, Rosaline will be there. â€Å"I’ll go along, no such sight to be shown, But to rejoice in splendor of mine own. We will write a custom essay sample on Romeo Love Is Fickle or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page †After Romeo sees Juliet his feelings suddenly change. He claims that he has never loved or saw anyone as beautiful before he had seen Juliet: Did my heart love til now? Forswear it, sight / for I neer saw true beauty til this night†   Romeo love is fickle because even after having his heart broken by Rosaline, he can still fall in love with Juliet so quickly. His love changes in an instant from Rosaline to Juliet. Before Romeo had thought that Rosaline was the most beautiful woman in the world, but after seeing Juliet he had thought that Rosaline was no longer beautiful. Most often people forget that Romeo had another love interest before Juliet. Because Romeo keeps changing his mind on who he loves, he love is considered fickle.