|
|
Post by connorthompson on Apr 10, 2016 2:33:07 GMT
In Bystander Intervention in Emergencies: Diffusion of Responsibility, it was found that helpful reaction times for observers of traumatic events were significantly longer as the group got much larger. The study took a group of students, separated them into rooms, and made them listen to a participant having a seizure (that was staged). The study found that students who believed it was just them and the epileptic reacted far more quickly than when they were in a larger group. My thought question is this: Do you think culture plays a role? The study only focused on American students in New York, yet there have been cases across the world of "diffusion of responsibility". For example (TRIGGER WARNING DYING KID | Ignore racist youtube comments): www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BRzzqkpN0U. In this video a Chinese boy is brutally run over by a car, yet many people walk by them and offer no help. It's not just China, the study cited a case where NYers observed a stabbing and did absolutely nothing. Do you think our diffusion of responsibility could be influenced by different cultural values on life? NYers and Urban Chinese might be less inclined to help out a fellow human due to a variety of cultural factors (less inclined to meddle in the lives of strangers, busier, less empathy / value on life). Do you think if the study was performed in a smaller town or suburb, they would achieve the same results? Discuss. |
|
|
|
Post by elipshutz on Apr 12, 2016 5:01:48 GMT
I definitely think that culture plays a role. In certain cultures acts of violence and crime are more common. If people are more used to seeing crime then they can become less sensitive to it. When something becomes more common it looses the overall affect. For example if the dinning hall serves my favorite food, then I get really excited. However, if my favorite food was always offered I would not get as excited. The food is not as special because it is not a rare occasion that it is available. In this situation I have gotten so used to always having my favorite food, that it no longer impacts me. Similarly in different cultures people can become so used to seeing crime that it does not impact them as much as it would if it were a rare occasion.
Culture can also play a role when it comes to what morals are valued. If certain cultures really emphasize a feeling of community then a person might feel more inclined to step in, in order to fulfill what is expected of them from there society. New York is a place where there are lots of people, so individuals tend to stay to themselves unless they know someone and do not go out of their way to be overly friendly. New York is a city where it is emphasized that people need to have a strong skin and be independent. Also it is a fast paced city. This can be one explanation why people were less inclined to help out the person that was being stabbed. Overall culture can have large influences on how people will react in unsettling situations.
|
|
|
|
Post by vannahyazon on Apr 12, 2016 6:00:34 GMT
I agree with the points that you bring up and i do feel like responsibility is influenced by different cultural values on life, so i agree with the first comment. In addition to morals and cultures emphasizing on a feeling of community, i feel like it also has to do with empathy and solidarity within cultures. If there is no empathy or solidarity, i feel like people don't have much of a reason to go and help, thus adding to the bystander effect. If people can't feel others pain or danger, then they won't put themselves in another person's shoes, and not want to help them. If we think neurologically like someone said in class, maybe this has to do with cortical mirror neurons that aid in empathy. Maybe in specific places because of differing cultures, mirror neurons could be greater in number or used more.
This is why i feel like if you were to perform this study in a smaller town or suburb that the results would be different and there would be alot more empathy and sympathy between the community because of the small number, and more change of being close-knit and overall more close to your community regardless of culture. I feel like the bystander effect would be reduced because you are more likely to help if you know or feel for anther person.
|
|
|
|
Post by stacyli on Apr 12, 2016 6:15:32 GMT
I'm sure cultural values definitely play a role in how people react in situations of danger because cultural values are what tend to be the origins of what we are taught in our upbringings. But on top of cultural values, I feel like this is a discussion of general education and ethical values. I also feel like the problem may be that people are generally not taught to react to many dangerous situations growing up in most places. Yes, we've been taught to scream and if we're the ones being attacker, but we are not taught to react if we see others being attacked. And even if we are taught to recognize it, in emergency situations, most people react with instinct, not necessarily what we are taught. Most often in dangerous situations people respond with fear and an inability to properly think. Point being, it may be just as much of an issue with societal value as it is an aspect of human biology. As people also brought up towards the end of our discussion last week, biological and evolutionary connections seem to be present in many, if not all, human thoughts and interactions. In this situation for example, perhaps the bystander act occurs because it was evolutionarily beneficial to not get involved in something potentially dangerous. It was the most strategic survival strategy to stray as far away as possible from danger.
|
|
|
|
Post by rebeccah on Apr 12, 2016 6:58:05 GMT
Cultural values definitely play a role in the bystander effect because in a big urban environment, the connections between people are much harsher and less personal. Whereas, in a smaller suburban area, most everyone is familiar with each other and is somehow connected, making it much harder to ignore an emergency situation. Not only is there that personal connection between victim and bystander, but as shallow as this sounds, people gossip and no one likes to be the subject of negative gossip. In this sense, there is an obligation to yourself as well as the victim to step in.
|
|
|
|
Post by connorthompson on Apr 12, 2016 18:02:04 GMT
elipshutz: I definitely agree with your theory of desensitization. When people get desensitized to crime in Urban areas, it can definitely make them less empathetic, and thus react less often or not at all. I don't now how society could overcome this, but I think it leads to a broader discussion on an education on ethics and sociology. Which leads to stacyli's comment about how people are education, or rather the lack of education they have when it comes to responding to dire situations. On the one hand, responding to a situation like this is not something that can easily be taught in class. It's hard to feel empathetic towards a scenario, especially when you are forced to see it in a safe, risk-free environment. However, we can't just take a bunch of kids, put them in a warzone, and tell them to learn how to respond by "doing."
|
|
rkipp
New Member
Posts: 34 
|
Post by rkipp on Apr 13, 2016 4:23:00 GMT
Ultimately I think all humans share common behaviors in regards to reacting to serious incidents, regardless of if they live in an urban or rural area.
As the "Bystander Intervention in Emergencies" article states in its conclusion, the bystander effect "lies more in the bystander's response to other observers than in presumed personality deficiencies of 'apathetic' individuals. Thus, I do not believe that the values of individuals in an urban or rural area necessarily play that large of a role. Instead, people base their actions on how everyone else is responding, which can possibly be based on cultural values, or just on typical human behaviors and concerns to keep safe. As stacyli mentioned, the evolutionary benefits of not getting involved with dangerous scenarios may be why humans do not react to all situations, since most humans want to keep themselves safe before worrying about others.
In regards to the importance of education - I do not think it is a matter of teaching people how to respond to such situations, but rather teaching people how to be leaders and take charge in situations based on what they feel is right, regardless of how others are behaving.
|
|
|
|
Post by connorthompson on Apr 14, 2016 2:30:33 GMT
rkipp excellent point about education! It's hard to offer solutions that can be very event-specific. Rather, teaching kids to take charge and be leaders might be a better choice, letting them use these skills to act in an event like a stabbing or public abuse. Regarding individual values, I agree that all humans do share some common behaviors. However, I think a crowd in an urban area will exhibit different values and actions than one in a rural area. The crowds that watch people be abused an do nothing are indeed made up of individuals, yet these individuals are all doing the same thing: looking towards each other to make a move. If people in Urban areas are individually less inclined to help out, so will the crowd as a whole.
|
|
