|
|
Post by dchang on Apr 12, 2016 5:44:39 GMT
In the article we read about the Bystander effect, psychologists John Darley and Bibb Latané demonstrated that our willingness to help is dependent on three factors: perceived diffusion of responsibility, social influence/cohesiveness, and ambiguity. The Bystander effect states that the probability of receiving help is inversely proportional to the number of bystanders. In other words, the more people there is to help, the less likely it is for a victim to receive help.
In a newly published research experiment, psychologists performed a similar experiment to what Darley and Latané have done, but instead of adults, the subjects were 5-year-olds. (Link to the experiment: psmag.com/bystander-effect-also-found-among-five-year-olds-2db2882fe69d#.lvzwm1yc8). The results of the experiment were similar to the original Bystander experiment, where the kids were also least likely to help if there were others around. In a control group where bystanders were present, but confined behind a barrier and therefore unavailable to help, children helped just as if they did when they were alone. Thus, according to researchers, "It was not (a question of) shyness to act in front of others. Rather, it appears that the effect was driven by the diffusion of responsibility.”
So based on the 2 articles, my questions to you is this: Do you think that because 5-year-olds reacted in a similar way to adults, the reason of the bystander effect would be more of a natural psychological behavior? Or do you believe that this is the result of insufficient emphasis/education on the importance of responsibility in our early ages?
|
|
|
|
Post by rebeccah on Apr 12, 2016 6:51:47 GMT
I think this is a very interesting experiment because in my opinion, many adults in the same situation probably would have been influenced by being watched. Younger children tend to care less about what others think than adults do, so it seems they would be more likely to help in this situation. I do however believe that the bystander effect is a natural tendency because it is seen in such a wide range of ages and 5 year olds are still probably too young to have had miseducation or even be negatively influenced much by society.
|
|
|
|
Post by larissa on Apr 12, 2016 17:31:08 GMT
I agree with @rebeccah, younger children don't seem to be as self conscious or seem to care about what others think of them as much as adults do. I thought that this would lead to children being more likely to help than adults but it is interesting to see that they both responded in the same way. This could potentially lead to it being a psychological behavior but at the same time, it could just be our inability to know what to do in certain situations because nothing can really prepare you for that.
It has been seen though that in dangerous situations such as car accidents, someone will actually be willing to go in the burning car and save the person because similar to the "flight or fight" response, their first instinct is to help.
|
|
rkipp
New Member
Posts: 34 
|
Post by rkipp on Apr 13, 2016 3:48:11 GMT
I think the bystander effect in children is both a natural psychological behavior and insufficient education on the importance of responsibility. As larissa and rebeccah noted, since the bystander effect is widely seen among all ages, it most likely is somewhat naturally within humans. However, I think that this natural tendency to not help others when other people are also present can be reversed. As the article explained, adults must teach their children the importance of taking responsibility and showing leadership. If these attributes are taught at a young age, the children will carry them on throughout their life, otherwise they will just keep acting in their natural ways. The common idea that "leaders are not born, they are made" reflects the idea that people - especially children since they are young and still learning how to behave - can change for the better, if they are taught how.
|
|
|
|
Post by lilyzhuo on Apr 13, 2016 4:50:38 GMT
As the others have said, children are much less self-conscious than adults, and thus are able to act on their natural instincts to help. I like to believe, as human beings, we're naturally inclined to help other people/altruistic, though others argue that we're naturally much more selfish and unwilling to benefit others. Positive reinforcement/education for children about the significance of taking action and helping others is always beneficial, even if it already is our natural psychological behavior to do so. Children around the age of 5 are especially impressionable, and with the rising lack of empathy and sense of community among adults today, it seems that intentional education of not being a bystander is all the more important so that children won't perpetuate the social norm they commonly see of adults being bystanders.
|
|
|
|
Post by dchang on Apr 13, 2016 5:17:31 GMT
@rebeccah larissa I initially had the same expectations of the results as you guys; it would be plausible for children to be more likely to help someone in need since they are not yet "corrupted" by society in a way. And by "corrupted" I mean that they wouldn't care about what other's think about them and may be more altruistic since they do not think as much as adults do. However, because the results support otherwise, it made me think that such a response may instead be psychological. rkipp I totally agree with what you are saying. I think people's responses are definitely dependent on cultural/family background, which includes values that your family have instilled in you as a child. This can be very important because it is the first type of education a child receives, which usually serve as guidelines and act as a basis to their actions. Thus, I think that an emphasis on learning to take on more responsibility should definitely be part of a child's education early on. |
|
