Onlooker Awe of Negative Evaluation - Coursework Example

Name: Institution The Bystander Effect Introduction The bystander effect is a relatively well established discourse that surfaced in the criminology realm in 1960s, which connotes the tendency of an invisible effect of a bystander that inhibits people’s motivation to intervene in circumstances in which social norms are violated. In essence, the bystander effect manifests when the presence of other people hinders an individual from intervening in an event in which human right or freedom is aggressed. The concept was popularized by social psychologists (Latane & Darley, 1969) after a queer criminal event in which a woman, Kitty Genovese was stabbed to death seemingly in full glare of 38 neighbors (Nairne, 2009). The theoretical rationale is that whilst the stabbing took some time outside her apartment, bystanders observed the whole event without any of them intervening to assist or even call the police. The bystander discourse is underlain the psychological context in which a diffusion of responsibility holds the bystanders at ransom, making them only likely to intervene if there are a few or no other people watching. Accordingly, the rationality of social influence bolsters the Genoese’s case in which each of the onlookers monitored the behaviors of each other, and the wholesome inaction precipitated the ubiquitous conclusion that their help was of no need. Case Scenario: Street Bag Snatch Event As aforementioned, the bystander effect (BE) revolves around the diffusion of responsibility to help when more people are about, and each person expects the other to make the first move in order for them to recognize the need for their help in arresting the situation. This premise was no different in a personal experience involving a bag snatch in June 2011. This personal experience event occurred in June 2011 as I was walking towards home from the train station at around 5-5.30pm. Dusk was setting in and light had started fading as sunset approached on this fine day during winter. As I neared the intersection of X and Y streets I heard a woman’s scream from the other side of the road, directly in front of Z-Café. I first saw a man and a woman embroiled in a tussle on the ground. They both soon got to their feet and the woman was firmly clutched on her hand bag. I was soon noticed a younger lady standing closer to old woman: their relationship was mother and daughter while at the same time I was aware that I was now standing at the pedestrian refuge island in the middle of the road. I briefly halted and surveyed the scene. I was aware the woman appeared not seriously injured and that the perpetrator of this incident seemed wild, wide eyed and animalistic. In that brief moment I feared for my own safety and remained frozen. The daughter was then screaming. I expected the perpetrator to flee but he slowly retrieved a baseball cap that had dislodged and my anticipation of further violence increased, hoping that the perpetrator would not turn the aggression on me. Then unexpectedly a man who I refer to as ‘the hero’ appeared from nowhere so it seemed to me and verbally challenged the perpetrator. Words exchanged, abuse from the perpetrator who suggested to the hero that they fight it out there and then which did ensue. By this time I recall I was standing beside the mother and daughter and the perpetrator had landed a few heavy punches to the hero’s face. I recall while watching the fight thinking ‘why does the perpetrator continue to act so aggressively, why not flee this location of a failed bag snatch?’ After a short while the perpetrator finally made his move to run from the scene and our hero set off in chase. His final words to bystanders as he set off in pursuit were ‘call the police’. I further recall the incident attracted two other bystanders, a young man on a bicycle and a hippie-alternative dressed woman who seemed intoxicated and as I was later to learn from the police, suspected to be known to the perpetrator. The two or three staff and six customers within the cafe remained inside. Bystander Theories Attitudes to a BE event leave many theoretical gaps, for instance what can explain what prompted the hero to enter the scene and deal with the perpetrator as he did. The actions of the hero man manifests the theoretical principles or moral outrage (Goodnough, 1997) that address the responses to targeted behaviors of others that are perceived as threatening. The man was motivated intrinsically to respond to infringements on the immunities of the old woman by the bag snatcher. Theoretical assertions provide that the transgressions of the rights and privileges that go with individual social identities in relationships to which the cultural properties can be party to make up the contents of a person’s social character and territory precipitates moral outrage. If we consider the ‘arousal: cost reward model’ as outlined by Fletcher and Clark (2008), this may help explain the hero’s action. Contextually, the reward for the hero lay within his emotions, by way of setting a wrong right. This is contrary my case where according to the principle of ‘bystander calculus’, I determined that the potential cost of engaging with the perpetrator outweighed any potential reward. Synthesis of the Context It is imperative that as the BE discourse is theoretically presided, the responsibility diffusion played full in my scenario in that beside being aware that the aggressor was a thief, the daughter and I failed to intervene for to safe the elderly mother despite us being immediate to the scenario. Additionally, the full event happened with full knowledge of more than eight people stuck inside the nearby Z-Café, and it only took the intervention of the man “my hero” to ignite the intervention mood that saw me also joining the mother to comfort her. This context evokes the question allayed in the BE dichotomy that the social influence dissuades onlookers from intervening because they belief unless their neighbors make the first move, their help is likely unwanted. The BE is contextually a term deployed to explain such a situation as mine in which people base their decision of acting to arrest an aggressive situation on their bystanders. Research by Goodnough (1997) intimated that the presence of other people decreases onlookers’ willingness to help a victim in a situation where social norms are abused. This context extrapolated even to emergency situations where the first witnesses shy away from summoning their humane courage to save the victims. The main problem seems to be that the psychological reactions in the onlookers’ minds may dissipate reason, which distorts the conceptualization of the situation thus depriving people of the ability to form the appropriate course of action. In the BE context, it is not that people are truly unwilling to render their help, but they do not know certainly if their interpretation of the event is right or wrong (Karakashian, Walter, Christopher and Lucas, 2006). This premise entertains the social influence hypothesis in that people engage their monitory cues to confirm by looking at the behavior of other onlookers: social cognition is let to largely dictate upon the bystanders’ behaviors. Goodnough (1997) identified three social psychological processes that may take precedence when an individual stands amidst others, which seek to expedite the rationale anchoring the social inhibition of helping as characterized in BE. Generally, the social risk-cost theorem plays in the conviction to indulge and appear the hero by risking embarrassment if you decide to intervene while you misinterpreted the situation. The social risk dogma manifested when despite the decision to intervene and face the violent attacker in the bag snatch scenario, the man who called the shots first sustained defeating jabs. Summarily, the audience inhibition theory underscores the tendency by bystanders to avert embarrassment by entering the duel without confirmed information about the situation: people would tend to avoid personality hurting outcomes resulting from intervention without full understanding of the situation. In the BE context, people would go through the social influence psychological process in which they would seek affirmation through assessing the behaviors of their bystanders in relation to the situation at hand. Moreover, the responsibility diffusion discourse is a processes via which stimuli induces psychological cost reduction behavior by summoning non-intervention. The BE discourse revolves around the selfishness of humanity in that onlookers would question their intervention n the presence of others who can help and are not doing it first. Conclusion This discussion built around the richly psychological discourse of bystander effect, which tries to explain why people manifest the social inhibitory help tendencies. Theoretical assertions support the plausibility of the hypothesis that fear of negative evaluation on behalf of the active hero bystander and the passive witness bystander (this author) played no part in their assistance towards the victim. The hero in the case scenario acted in a way congruent with the self-presentational model: help was offered in a public condition with the presence of an audience. The bystander effect is a fertile field for psychologists to build more plausible models explaining the natural help inhibitory behavior common in mankind References Fletcher, G.J.O., & Clark, M.S. (2008). Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Interpersonal processes. (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Goodenough, W.H. (1997). Moral outrage: Territoriality in human guise. Zygon, 32(1), 5-27. Karakashian, L., Walter, M., Christopher, A., & Lucas, T. (2006). Fear of negative evaluation affects helping behaviour: The bystander effect revisited. North American Journal of Psychology, 8(1), 13-32. Latane, B., & Darley, J. (1969). Bystander “apathy”. American Scientist, 57, 244-268. Nairne, J.S. (2009). Psychology. (5th ed). London, UK: Cengage Learning. Read More

I was aware the woman appeared not seriously injured and that the perpetrator of this incident seemed wild, wide eyed and animalistic. In that brief moment I feared for my own safety and remained frozen. The daughter was then screaming. I expected the perpetrator to flee but he slowly retrieved a baseball cap that had dislodged and my anticipation of further violence increased, hoping that the perpetrator would not turn the aggression on me. Then unexpectedly a man who I refer to as ‘the hero’ appeared from nowhere so it seemed to me and verbally challenged the perpetrator.

Words exchanged, abuse from the perpetrator who suggested to the hero that they fight it out there and then which did ensue. By this time I recall I was standing beside the mother and daughter and the perpetrator had landed a few heavy punches to the hero’s face. I recall while watching the fight thinking ‘why does the perpetrator continue to act so aggressively, why not flee this location of a failed bag snatch?’ After a short while the perpetrator finally made his move to run from the scene and our hero set off in chase.

His final words to bystanders as he set off in pursuit were ‘call the police’. I further recall the incident attracted two other bystanders, a young man on a bicycle and a hippie-alternative dressed woman who seemed intoxicated and as I was later to learn from the police, suspected to be known to the perpetrator. The two or three staff and six customers within the cafe remained inside. Bystander Theories Attitudes to a BE event leave many theoretical gaps, for instance what can explain what prompted the hero to enter the scene and deal with the perpetrator as he did.

The actions of the hero man manifests the theoretical principles or moral outrage (Goodnough, 1997) that address the responses to targeted behaviors of others that are perceived as threatening. The man was motivated intrinsically to respond to infringements on the immunities of the old woman by the bag snatcher. Theoretical assertions provide that the transgressions of the rights and privileges that go with individual social identities in relationships to which the cultural properties can be party to make up the contents of a person’s social character and territory precipitates moral outrage.

If we consider the ‘arousal: cost reward model’ as outlined by Fletcher and Clark (2008), this may help explain the hero’s action. Contextually, the reward for the hero lay within his emotions, by way of setting a wrong right. This is contrary my case where according to the principle of ‘bystander calculus’, I determined that the potential cost of engaging with the perpetrator outweighed any potential reward. Synthesis of the Context It is imperative that as the BE discourse is theoretically presided, the responsibility diffusion played full in my scenario in that beside being aware that the aggressor was a thief, the daughter and I failed to intervene for to safe the elderly mother despite us being immediate to the scenario.

Additionally, the full event happened with full knowledge of more than eight people stuck inside the nearby Z-Café, and it only took the intervention of the man “my hero” to ignite the intervention mood that saw me also joining the mother to comfort her. This context evokes the question allayed in the BE dichotomy that the social influence dissuades onlookers from intervening because they belief unless their neighbors make the first move, their help is likely unwanted. The BE is contextually a term deployed to explain such a situation as mine in which people base their decision of acting to arrest an aggressive situation on their bystanders.

Research by Goodnough (1997) intimated that the presence of other people decreases onlookers’ willingness to help a victim in a situation where social norms are abused. This context extrapolated even to emergency situations where the first witnesses shy away from summoning their humane courage to save the victims.

Read More