PSY 363 SUNY College Group Inhibition of Bystander Intervention Discussion

PSY 363 SUNY College Group Inhibition of Bystander Intervention Discussion PSY 363 SUNY College Group Inhibition of Bystander Intervention Discussion ORDER NOW FOR CUSTOMIZED AND ORIGINAL NURSING PAPERS Unformatted Attachment Preview Psyc 363 paper assignment, fall 2020 1 Psychology 363 Paper Assignment, Fall 2020 Your assignment is to read and discuss a classic study from social psychology, and “interrogate [some of the] validities.” You will be graded on how well you understand and can apply the concepts covered (so far) in class and in Morling. Explain and apply Morling’s concepts. Spend a lot more time on Morling than on Latané and Darley. You’ll need a copy of Latané, B., & Darley, J. M. (1968). Group inhibition and bystander intervention in emergencies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 10(3), 215-221. You can find the paper from the library databases. Ask for help if you need it. The DOI won’t be much help: it will take you to the publisher, who will charge you for a copy. Introduction. Tell me about the study. What were Latané and Darley trying to find out? What were their hypotheses? One paragraph will do. Basic questions. Is their study making a frequency, associational, or causal claim? Who were the participants? How were they recruited? What does this say about the study’s external validity? Variables. What were the independent (manipulated) and dependent (measured) variables? How did they measure the dependent variable(s) (self-report, observation, physiological)? Don’t forget the interview at the end! Were the variables good measures of what Latané and Darley wanted to demonstrate? (Construct validity.) Did the study show internal validity? (See chapter 3 in Morling) What did Latané and Darley control by having three passive confederates compared to one “real” participant? What about the interview at the end—self report, observational, or physiological measurement? Was there any information about reliability or validity? Given how Latané and Darley used it, does reliability or validity matter? Psyc 363 paper assignment, fall 2020 2 Results. Be very brief. I know this already; I just want to know if you understand the basics. Latané and Darley analyzed the following: Participant alone compared to participant with three passive confederates. Participant alone compared to three naïve participants. PSY 363 SUNY College Group Inhibition of Bystander Intervention Discussion There is a longish section here explaining the authors’ math. Since they were measuring three “real” participants, any one of them might have left. The numbers had to be adjusted to reflect the actual probability of at least one of the three people leaving. The results in the right column of page 218 says that as time goes on, the difference between “alone” and groups gets larger (see Fig 1). Their last analysis before “noticing the smoke” (left column on p. 219) is confusing; they’re arguing that there’s really no difference between the three confederates condition and three “real” participants, if we adjust for any one of the three participants leaving. Conclusion. Briefly! Repeat and summarize main points. Focus on Morling, not on Latané and Darley. Did the study support Latané and Darley’s hypothesis? Does the study show construct, internal, and external validities? (Pay attention to external validity—the study is really old, and consider the participants and how they were recruited.) Was the study ethical? Details. 1. The assignment is about Morling, not Latané and Darley. 2. I require complete APA 7 student paper format. Title page, correct page numbers in a header, APA reference page, APA citations, etc. Your reference page will probably only have Latané and Darley and Morling, plus anything else you consult. You will be graded on the following: 1. Did you understand Latané and Darley enough to briefly discuss it? 2. Do you understand and properly apply Morling’s points to the study? 3. Is this a 300-level college paper? Minimal grammar or spelling problems? Are your ideas expressed clearly? 4. Did you follow APA format correctly page breaks where necessary. 11/03/20 rev. Journal at Personality and Social Psycholoty 1968, Vol. 10, No. 3, 215-221 GROUP INHIBITION OF BYSTANDER INTERVENTION IN EMERGENCIES l BIBB LATANfi 2 AND Columbia University JOHN M, DARLEY » New York University Male undergraduates found themselves in a smoke-filling room either alone, with 2 nonreacting others, or in groups of 3. As predicted, Ss were less likely to report the smoke when in the presence of passive others (10%) or in groups of 3 (38% of groups) than when alone (75%). This result seemed to have been mediated by the way 5s interpreted the ambiguous situation; seeing other people remain passive led Ss to decide the smoke was not dangerous. Emergencies, fortunately, are uncommon events. Although the average person may read about them in newspapers or watch fictionalized versions on television, he probably will encounter fewer than half a dozen in his lifetime. Unfortunately, when he does encounter one, he will have had little direct personal experience in dealing with it. And he must deal with it under conditions of urgency, uncertainty, stress, and fear. About all the individual has to guide him is the secondhand wisdom of the late movie, which is often as useful as “Be brave” or as applicable as “Quick, get lots of hot water and towels 1” Under the circumstances, it may seem surprising that anybody ever intervenes in an emergency in which he is not directly involved. PSY 363 SUNY College Group Inhibition of Bystander Intervention Discussion Yet there is a strongly held cultural norm that individuals should act to relieve the distress of others. As the Old Parson puts it, “In this life of froth and bubble, two things stand like stone—kindness in another’s trouble, courage in your own.” Given the conflict between the norm to act and an individual’s fears and uncertainties about getting involved, what factors will determine whether a bystander to an emergency will intervene? We have found (Barley & Latane”, 1968) that the mere perception that other people are also witnessing the event will markedly decrease the likelihood that an individual will intervene in an emergency. Indithank Lee Ross and Keith Gerritz for their thoughtful efforts. This research was supported by National Science Foundation Grants GS 1238 and GS 1239. The experiment was conducted at Columbia University. 2 Now at the Ohio State University. 8 Now at Princeton University. viduals heard a person undergoing a severe epileptic-like fit in another room. In one experimental condition, the subject thought that he was the only person who heard the emergency; in another condition, he thought four other persons were also aware of the seizure. Subjects alone with the victim were much more likely to intervene on his behalf, and, on the average, reacted in less than one-third the time required by subjects who thought there were other bystanders present. “Diffusion of responsibility” seems the most likely explanation for this result. If an individual is alone when he notices an emergency, he is solely responsible for coping with it. If he believes others are also present, he may feel that his own responsibility for taking action is lessened, making him less likely to help. To demonstrate that responsibility diffusion rather than any of a variety of social influence processes caused this result, the experiment was designed so that the onlookers to the seizure were isolated one from another and could not discuss how to deal with the emergency effectively. They knew the others could not see what they did, nor could they see whether somebody else had already started to help. Although this state of affairs is characteristic of many actual emergencies (such as the Kitty Genovese murder in which 38 people witnessed a killing from their individual apartments without acting), in many other emergencies several bystanders are in contact with and can influence each other. In these situations, processes other than responsibility diffusion will also operate. Given the opportunity to interact, a group 215 216 BIBB LATAN£ AND JOHN M. DARLEY can talk over the situation and divide up the helping action in an efficient way. Also, since responding to emergencies is a socially prescribed norm, individuals might be expected to adhere to it more when in the presence of other people. These reasons suggest that interacting groups should be better at coping with emergencies than single individuals. We suspect, however, that the opposite is true. Even when allowed to communicate, groups may still be worse than individuals. Most emergencies are, or at least begin as, ambiguous events. A quarrel in the street may erupt into violence, but it may be simply a family argument. A man staggering about may be suffering a coronary or an onset of diabetes; he may be simply drunk.PSY 363 SUNY College Group Inhibition of Bystander Intervention Discussion Smoke pouring from a building may signal a fire; on the other hand, it may be simply steam or air-conditioning vapor. Before a bystander is likely to take action in such ambiguous situations, he must first define the event as an emergency and decide that intervention is the proper course of action. In the course of making these decisions, it is likely that an individual bystander will be considerably influenced by the decisions he perceives other bystanders to be taking. If everyone else in a group of onlookers seems to regard an event as nonserious and the proper course of action as nonintervention, this consensus may strongly affect the perceptions of any single individual and inhibit his potential intervention. The definitions that other people hold may be discovered by discussing the situation with them, but they may also be inferred from their facial expressions or their behavior. A whistling man with his hands in his pockets obviously does not believe he is in the midst of a crisis. A bystander who does not respond to smoke obviously does not attribute it to fire. An individual, seeing the inaction of others, will judge the situation as less serious than he would if he were alone. In the present experiment, this line of thought will be tested by presenting an emergency situation to individuals either alone or in the presence of two passive others, confederates of the experimenter who have been instructed to notice the emergency but remain indifferent to it. It is our expectation that this passive behavior will signal the individual that the other bystanders do not consider the situation to be dangerous. We predict that an individual faced with the passive reactions of other people will be influenced by them, and will thus be less likely to take action than if he were alone. This, however, is a prediction about individuals; it says nothing about the original question of the behavior of freely interacting groups. Most groups do not have preinstructed confederates among their members, and the kind of social influence process described above would, by itself, only lead to a convergence of attitudes within a group. Even if each member of the group is entirely guided by the reactions of others, then the group should still respond with a likelihood equal to the average of the individuals. An additional factor is involved, however. Each member of a group may watch the others, but he is also aware that the others are watching him. They are an audience to his own reactions. Among American males it is considered desirable to appear poised and collected in times of stress. Being exposed to public view may constrain an individual’s actions as he attempts to avoid possible ridicule and embarrassment. The constraints involved with being in public might in themselves tend to inhibit action by individuals in a group, but in conjunction with the social influence process described above, they may be expected to have even more powerful effects. If each member of a group is, at the same time, trying to appear calm and also looking around at the other members to gauge their reactions, all members may be led (or misled) by each other to define the situation as less critical than they would if alone. Until someone acts, each person only sees other nonresponding bystanders, and, as with the passive confederates, is likely to be influenced not to act himself. This leads to a second prediction. Compared to the performance of individuals, if we expose groups of naive subjects to an emergency, the constraints on behavior in public coupled with the social influence process will lessen the likelihood that the members of the group will act to cope with the emergency. GROUP INHIBITION op BYSTANDER INTERVENTION IN EMERGENCIES It has often been recognized (Brown, 1954, 1965) that a crowd can cause contagion of panic, leading each person in the crowd to overreact to an emergency to the detriment of everyone’s welfare. PSY 363 SUNY College Group Inhibition of Bystander Intervention Discussion What is implied here is that a crowd can also force inaction on its members. It can suggest, implicitly but strongly, by its passive behavior, that an event is not to be reacted to as an emergency, and it can make any individual uncomfortably aware of what a fool he will look for behaving as if it is. METHOD The subject, seated in a small waiting room, faced an ambiguous but potentially dangerous situation as a stream of smoke began to puff into the room through a wall vent. His response to this situation was observed through a one-way glass. The length of time the subject remained in the room before leaving to report the smoke was the main dependent variable of the study. Recruitment of subjects. Male Columbia students living in campus residences were invited to an interview to discuss “some of the problems involved in life at an urban university.” The subject sample included graduate and professional students as well as undergraduates. Individuals were contacted by telephone and most willingly volunteered and actually showed up for the interview. At this point, they were directed either by signs or by the secretary to a “waiting room” where a sign asked them to fill out a preliminary questionnaire. Experimental manipulation. Some subjects filled out the questionnaire and were exposed to the potentially critical situation while alone. Others were part of three-person groups consisting of one subject and two confederates acting the part of naive subjects. The confederates attempted to avoid conversation as much as possible. Once the smoke had been introduced, they stared at it briefly, made no comment, but simply shrugged their shoulders, returned to the questionnaires and continued to fill them out, occasionally waving away the smoke to do so. If addressed, they attempted to be as uncommunicative as possible and to show apparent indifference to the smoke. “I dunno,” they said, and no subject persisted in talking. In a final condition, three naive subjects were tested together. In general, these subjects did not know each other, although in two groups, subjects reported a nodding acquaintanceship with another subject. Since subjects arrived at slightly different times and since they each had individual questionnaires to work on, they did not introduce themselves to each otBer, or attempt anything but the most rudimentary conversation, Critical situation. As soon as the subjects had completed two pages of their questionnaires, the experimenter began to introduce the smoke through 217 a small vent in the wall. The “smoke” was finely divided titanium dioxide produced in a stoppered bottle and delivered under slight air pressure through the vent.2 It formed a moderately fine-textured but clearly visible stream of whitish smoke. For the entire experimental period, the smoke continued to jet into the room in irregular puffs. By the end of the experimental period, vision was obscured by the amount of smoke present. All behavior and conversation was observed and coded from behind a one-way window (largely disguised on the subject’s side by a large sign giving preliminary instructions). If the subject left the experimental room and reported the smoke, he was told that the situation “would be taken care of.” If the subject had not reported the presence of smoke by 6 minutes from the time he first noticed it, the experiment was terminated. RESULTS Alone condition. The typical subject, when tested alone, behaved very reasonably. Usually, shortly after the smoke appeared, he would glance up from his questionnaire, notice the smoke, show a slight but distinct startle reaction, and then undergo a brief period of indecision, perhaps returning briefly to his questionnaire before again staring at the smoke. Soon, most subjects would get up from their chairs, walk over to the vent, and investigate it closely, sniffing the smoke, waving their hands in it, feeling its temperature, etc. The usual alone subject would hesitate again, but finally walk out of the room, look around outside, and, finding somebody there, calmly report the presence of the smoke. No subject showed any sign of panic; most simply said, “There’s something strange going on in there, there seems to be some sort of smoke coming through the wall . . . .” The median subject in the alone condition had reported the smoke within 2 minutes of first noticing it. Three-quarters of the 24 people who were run in this condition reported the smoke before the experimental period was terminated. Two passive confederates condition. The behavior of subjects run with two passive confederates was dramatically different; of 10 people run in this condition, only 1 reported 2 Smoke was produced by passing moisturized air, under pressure, through a container of titanium tetrachloride, which, in reaction with the water vapor, creates a suspension of tantium dioxide in air. 218 BIBB LATANE AND JOHN M. DASLEY the smoke. The other 9 stayed in the waiting room as it filled up with smoke, doggedly working on their questionnaire and waving the fumes away from their faces. They coughed, rubbed their eyes, and opened the window—but they did not report lie smoke. The difference between the response rate of 75% in the alone condition and 10% in the two passive confederates condition is highly significant (p < .002 by Fisher’s exact test, two-tailed). Three naive bystanders. Because there are three subjects present and available to report the smoke in the three naive bystander condition as compared to only one subject at a time in the alone condition, a simple comparison between the two conditions is not appropriate. On the one hand, we cannot compare speeds in the alone condition with the average speed of the three subjects in a group, since, once one subject in a group had reported the smoke, the pressures on the other two disappeared. They legitimately could (and did) feel that the emergency had been handled, and any action on their part would be redundant and potentially confusing. Therefore the speed of the first subject in a group to report the smoke was used as the dependent variable. However, since there were three times as many people available to respond in this condition as in the alone condition, we would expect an increased likelihood that at least one person would report the smoke even if the subjects had no influence whatsoever on each other. Therefore we mathematically created FIG. 1. Cumulative proportion of subjects reporting the smoke over time. “groups” of three scores from the alone condition to serve as a base line.8 In contrast to the complexity of this procedure, the results were quite simple. Subjects in the three naive bystander condition were markedly inhibited from reporting the smoke. Since 75% of the alone subjects reported the smoke, we would expect over 98% of the three-person groups to contain at least one reporter. In fact, in only 38% of the eight groups in this condition did even 1 subject report (p < .01). Of the 24 people run in these eight groups, only 1 person reported the smoke within the first 4 minutes before the room got noticeably unpleasant. Only 3 people reported the smoke within the entire experimental period. Cumulative distribution of report times. Figure 1 presents the cumulative frequency distributions of report times for al … Purchase answer to see full attachment Get a 10 % discount on an order above $ 100 Use the following coupon code : NURSING10

Struggling to find relevant content or pressed for time? – Don’t worry, we have a team of professionals to help you on
PSY 363 SUNY College Group Inhibition of Bystander Intervention Discussion
Get a 15% Discount on this Paper
Order Now
Calculate the price
Make an order in advance and get the best price
Pages (550 words)
*Price with a welcome 15% discount applied.
Pro tip: If you want to save more money and pay the lowest price, you need to set a more extended deadline.
We know how difficult it is to be a student these days. That's why our prices are one of the most affordable on the market, and there are no hidden fees.

Instead, we offer bonuses, discounts, and free services to make your experience outstanding.
Sign up, place your order, and leave the rest to our professional paper writers in less than 2 minutes.
step 1
Upload assignment instructions
Fill out the order form and provide paper details. You can even attach screenshots or add additional instructions later. If something is not clear or missing, the writer will contact you for clarification.
Get personalized services with MyCoursebay
One writer for all your papers
You can select one writer for all your papers. This option enhances the consistency in the quality of your assignments. Select your preferred writer from the list of writers who have handledf your previous assignments
Same paper from different writers
Are you ordering the same assignment for a friend? You can get the same paper from different writers. The goal is to produce 100% unique and original papers
Copy of sources used
Our homework writers will provide you with copies of sources used on your request. Just add the option when plaing your order
What our partners say about us
We appreciate every review and are always looking for ways to grow. See what other students think about our do my paper service.
Not all sources were " American sources" as directed
Customer 452615, September 16th, 2021
Great! Thanks again!
Customer 452707, July 4th, 2022
Great job on the paper!
Customer 452885, December 14th, 2022
Customer 452813, June 19th, 2022
Customer 452813, June 25th, 2022
Customer 452813, July 10th, 2022
Thanks for the help, appreciate it
Customer 452821, August 27th, 2022
Customer 452813, July 9th, 2022
Thank you so very much!!!
Customer 452517, May 11th, 2021
IT, Web
Did an excellent job with the body of the paper and staying on the topic.
Customer 452885, October 27th, 2022
Social Work and Human Services
Thank You, Don!!! :)
Customer 452587, November 9th, 2021
Great Work!
Customer 452587, March 10th, 2022
15% OFF your first order
Use a coupon FIRST15 and enjoy expert help with any task at the most affordable price.
Claim my 15% OFF Order in Chat

Get top-notch homework help now. 20% off first 10 orders!


Thank you for choosing MyCoursebay. Your presence is a motivation to us. All papers are written from scratch. Plagiarism is not tolerated. Order now for a 15% discount

Order Now