MT1 intro to social/developmental psych- helping Flashcards
(112 cards)
What were the contemporary reactions to the Kitty Genovese murder
The tragedy was the consequence of city living and urban alientation
What was the reported Kitty Genovese case
38 individuals saw the murder of Kitty Genovese and did nothing, noone telephoned the police went to help
What were the facts of the Kitty Genovese case- 38 witnesses?
Manning et al (2007)- no evidence 8 people witnessed the assult, the trial only called on 5
What were the facts of the Kitty Genovese case- attacks?
Manning et al (2007)- there were 2 seperate attacks not 3, and they did not continue for ‘more than half an hour’
What were the facts of the Kitty Genovese case- witnesses watching the murder?
Witnesses mostly heard rather than saw the original brief attack, the second attack was in a stairwell and could not be easily seen
What were the facts of the Kitty Genovese case- no intervention?
Shouts from the apartment block opposite initially scared the attacker off, police were contacted after the 1st attack despite no 911 service being available, victim was still alive when police arrived on the scene
Was at 3am, most asleep!
What did Latane and Darley argue in contrast to the contemporary popular belief about he;ping
The presence of other people sometimes makes helping LESS likely
What does Latane and Darley’s model (1970) of bystander intervention suggest about helping
Helping is not a direct response to an emergency but requires the helper to make a series of successive decisions, several of which may be influenced by other people
What is Latane and Darley (1970)’s 5-step decision making model of bystander intervention
MUST BE
1) High awareness of event
2) Interpretation of event as emergency
3) Personal responsibility
4) Mode of assistance available (can I help?)
5) Implementing the intervention
What is the procedure for Latane and Darley’s (1968) smoke experiment
Ppts recruited for study of ‘problems of urban life’ filled out questionnaires either alone or in groups of 3
Simulated smoke was pumped into the room through an air vent
Investigators recorded how long ppts took to notice the smoke and to go get help
Latane and Darley’s (1968) smoke experiment- results, how did presence of others affect noticing the emergency (STAGE 1 of model)
63% of ppts noticed the smoke within 5secs when aloen
26% of ppts noticed the smoke within 5secs when waiting with others
Latane and Darley’s (1968) smoke experiment- results,why are we less likely to notice an emergency when with others
Constraints we feel in public places
We scan our environment more when noone is around
Subjects in groups didn’t want to appear rude and inquisitive
Latane and Darley’s (1968) smoke experiment- results, what was the behaviour of ppts reporting smoke when alone
Quick to react, 50% within 2 mins, in total above 70%
Latane and Darley’s (1968) smoke experiment- results,what was the behavior of ppts reporting smoke when with 3 naive participant
Initially only around 15% reacted, in total around 40% reaction
Latane and Darley’s (1968) smoke experiment- results,what was the behaviour of ppts reporting smoke when with 2 passive confederates
Only 10% reacted within 2 mins, after this reaction did not rise
What is pluralistic ignorance
Latane and Darley (1968)- the presence of other people may make it less likely than an ambiguous situation is interpreted as an emergency
If everyone is looking around and trying to appear calm while gauging the reactions of others, everyone will appear calm and noone will conclude the situation is an emergency
Latane and Darley (1970)’s 5-step decision making model of bystander intervention- how does the presence of other people reduce people’s sense of personal responsibility (STAGE 3)
The presence of others makes it less likely that each of them takes personal responsibility for intervening, so they are less likely to
If someone was alone, help must come from them, so they have personal responsibility
Darley and Latane’s (1968) seizure experiment, setting up scenario
Ppts recruited for discussion of personal problems of college life
Ppts talk from seperate cubicles using an intercom system, taking turns with their mic only operating for a fixed 2 min period
In reality, all problems were prerecorded except the genuine ppts
Darley and Latane’s (1968) seizure experiment, why were the mics only turned on for fixed periods one person at a time
Prevents ppts discussing with each other whether they should intervene or who should intervene
Darley and Latane’s (1968) seizure experiment, what happened in the experiment
First speaker talked abuot problems, mentioned his proneness to seizures
On their second turn, this speaker started out calmly then grew increasingly loud and incoherent- asking for help, choking noises, saying they’re going to die then silence
Darley and Latane’s (1968) seizure experiment, what were the 3 conditions
2 person group- discussion involved seizure man and real participant
3 person group- discussion involved one other (fake) participant
6 person group- discussion involved 4 other (fake) ppts
Darley and Latane’s (1968) seizure experiment- results, what % of ppts intervened before the victim’s mic cut off in each condition
2 person- Around 85%
3 person- Around 60%
6 person- Around 30%
Why might the presence of others prevent someone from implementing an intervention and helping (STAGE 5)
Latane and Darley (1976)- evaluation apprehension. Bystanders worry about other people’s reactions if helping goes wrong
How did Latane and Darley (1976) test evaluation apprehension (STAGE 5)
Manipulated whether ppts were alone and whether they could see/be seen by a bystander when witnessing a victim receive an electric shock over CCTV- help was offered least in bystander condition