Two Approaches Psychologists Use to Understand Bystander Behavior
A bystander can be defined as any person present when an event occurs, but they are not involved. Bystander behavior is the way people behave in response to a particular event. Various psychologists have done many research methodologies to apprehend the motions behind bystander behavior. The two research strategies examined during this essay are the discourse analysis method which employs qualitative research the experimental method, which utilizes quantitative research.
This approach will be founded on two cases, the first being the killing of Catherine Genovese in 1964 and the second of James Bulger in 1993. Both research methodologies were invented following incidents whereby bystanders were present at crimes and failed to intercede. They will investigate the meaning of the bystander effect from a more profound perspective by considering the case of the murder of Catherine and later an experiment to investigate this incident.
Bystander Effect
The bystander effect can be understood from the perspective that an individual is slightly likely to intercede in a problematic situation when other people are present. A person who witnesses an emergency event alone has a higher probability of intervening than someone who sees a similar event alone (Byford, 2014, p. 232), as demonstrated in the bystander effect module video (The Open University, 2020b). An actor in distress is lying on the street where people are passing. Many people did not bother to investigate what was happening to the person despite seeing him. A lady walked by and decided to see whether someone would notice her intentions to offer help. After witnessing another member trying to help, she changed her mind and joined him. Two different approaches discussed below were taken to investigate the bystander effect.
Catherine Genovese, a woman, living in New York, was brutally attacked when returning home from work. The incident happened on the streets where she resided near her house. The attack prevailed for almost thirty minutes, whereby she was stabbed many times before losing her life (Byford, 2014, p. 225). After a police investigation, it was discovered that almost 38 bystanders were present during the attack. Some just viewed in the comfort of their homes through windows, and others reported hearing Catherine scream for help (Byford, 2014, p. 225).
Even though there were 38 witnesses, only one of them attempted to interfere by yelling, ‘leave the girl alone’ (Byford, 2014, p. 225). When the police were informed, Catherine Genovese had already died. If emergency services had been offered to her some few minutes earlier, she would have survived. This led Latané and Darley to develop a model of bystander behaviour. It applies the five-stage model to indicate the outcomes of a series of bystander intervention decisions. These phases advance from whether the observer witnesses the happening to resolve whether their intervention would put them at risk.
Psychologists Latané and John Darley wanted to investigate why 38 witnesses failed to intercede following the murder of Catherine Genovese. According to their arguments, the neighbors lacked incuriosity (Byford, 2014, p.228). Furthermore, Latané and Darley came with opinions that the failure of intervention from the 38 witnesses did not come from their low interest but rather examined reasons why people respond to emergencies and fail in some scenarios (Byford, 2014, p. 228).
Latané and Darley carried out controlled experiments to determine the validity of these assumptions. The experiment was done in a laboratory with participants under control. The investigation was called ‘lady in distress,’ the activities involved included filling out questionnaires (Byford, 2014, p. 229). The participants would be invited by a lady into a room either in pairs or individually to complete a questionnaire. In the process of filling out the questionnaire, the lady would leave the room, leaving a recorded sound of a loud crash and a woman’s scream. This would stimulate a scenario where the lady had climbed on a chair, fallen off, and injured herself.
The main aim of the experiment was to examine the participants’ behaviour. The study was repeated over a hundred times to investigate whether people were willing to help the woman when they were alone or in with the company of another person (Byford, 2014, p. 230). The research findings, it indicated that 70% of individuals, when alone, offered to help the lady in distress, and while in pairs, only 40% intervened. From the results, cases of being with an unknown bystander reduce the chances of help by almost half (Byford, 2014, p. 232).
Another third condition was a passive confederate, investigated by placing 15 participants in a room, and 14 were told to ignore the lady. It indicated that one person would be influenced by the 14 others to help, accounting for 10% of intervened. Through this, Latané and Darley presented the ‘bystander effect’ (Byford, 2014, p.232). The results would be compared to the audio discussion with Jovan Byford and Catriona Harvard (The Open University, 2020a). Latané and Darley concluded that during an emergency, the presence of others could limit the chances of intervention.
If the amount of people is higher, the response is slower, and if the people present are few or none, the answer is quick. When the experiment conducted is linked to the case of Catherine Genovese, it can be seen that the thirty-eight bystanders present reduced attempts to rescue her. Another incident is the murder of the three-year-old James Bulger in 1993. Robert Venables and Jon Thompson, both ten years old, abducted James Bulger from a shopping centre in Liverpool. They were in a company with James for almost two hours and then decided to take him to an isolated railway track and kill him (Byford, 2014, p. 226).
Thirty-eight witnesses were presented in court, stating that they had seen the three boys walk together. Others said that they observed James and concluded that he felt uncomfortable. Surprisingly, none of the witnesses intervened to question why James was in that state. From the principle of the ‘bystander effect’ by Latané and Darley, social psychologist Mark Levine argued that there was a probability that the bystanders were alone.
Levine decided to conduct his own research into bystander behavior using a qualitative discourse analysis approach. Thirty-eight witness testimonies were examined from the trial of Venables and Thompson, and studies were done as to why each witness did not intervene and prevent the situation from happening (Byford, 2014, p. 235). Levine’s research implicated great interest in investigating real-life situations of bystanders. This was done by looking into accounts, explanations, and interactions. Levine, through his study, indicated that lack of intervention would not be associated with the number of bystanders present. He instead examined the relationship existing between the three boys.
Lavine concluded that the bystanders thought that one of the boys was James Bulger’s older brother, and maybe he was sad due to family relations which might have been poor. By the fact that they were together, nobody would think that there were some bad intentions behind this scene. He found that other bystanders were alone when they encountered James and the other boys in his company.
Correspondingly, some individuals were just working on the streets with typical day to day routines. They could therefore be concentrating on their issues rather than watching people around. He thus reasoned that there was something else that made the bystanders unreactive to the situation. He concluded that family matters are private, and therefore, the bystanders found it difficult to question them (Byford, 2014, p. 236). The guidelines of life on the streets followed a specific norm.
Despite both methods using different approaches, some aspects are shared in common. For instance, both processes try to come up with an explanation behind bystander behavior and a practical reason as to why bystanders behave differently when faced with emergency events. Different types of data in both approaches are used to examine bystander behavior. Latané and Darley used quantitative data, which was seen in his experiment involving counting people and analyzing data (Byford, 2014, p. 231). On the other hand, Levine’s method utilized qualitative data in his study. This further supports the difference that Latané and Darley’s study was based on an experiment that was controlled artificially and artificially and not based on real life.
Levine’s study used real-life situations, making his study more appropriate. This is because it had not been manipulated by experiments in any manner. The two methods do not address the same question, even though they explain bystander behavior (The Open University, 2020b). Latané and Darley’s main aim in the experiment was to explain the failure of the 38 bystanders in the Catherine Genovese case indicating a bystander effect principle. Levine’s study used a different topic, and he argued against the bystander effect by saying that it was irrelevant when applied to the James Bulger case.
The significant difference is that both studies used different data and methodologies, therefore creating their own unique disadvantages and advantages. For example, experiments manipulate and indicate a false impression that is not real life. Discourse analysis examines the real-life experiences of people. The life testimonials can be narrated for a detailed explanation of why certain behaviours are possessed by people. Despite of the disclosure analysis being based on real life, it could create some disadvantages. It invades the personality of a person under study, which is against human rights (The Open University, 2020a). Giving out information about other people’s economic, social, or political matters can lower their self-esteem.
Experiments are standard in psychology since they can be controlled to allow examination of some unknown features, but they have disadvantages. They create false situations in everyday life like the ‘lady in distress. In conclusion, few differences were seen in the comparison and contrast made in the two studies. The two approaches were different in terms of data where one applied the qualitative and the other method used the quantitative. The remarkable difference spotted is that one course manipulated an experiment to come up with the bystander effect, and the other one applied a real-life situation. However, the investigation created a false implication since it was manipulated for illustrations. Disclosure analysis was seen to be the most effective as it illustrated a real-life situation. This is because it used testimonials made by the bystanders and accurate transcripts to explain the bystander effect.
Reference List
Byford, J. (2014) ‘Living together, living apart: the social life of the neighborhood’, in Clarke, J. and Woodward, K. (eds.) Understanding Social Lives, Part 2, Milton Keynes.
The Open University (2020a) ‘Bystander behavior discussion’ [Audio], DD102 Introducing the Social Sciences. Web.
The Open University (2020b) ‘The bystander effect’ [Video] DD102 Introducing the Social Sciences. Web.