Diffusion of Responsibility

Name:
Instructor:
Course:
Date:
Diffusion of Responsibility
The article provides a significant overview of the people’s response to emergencies. It is an article that categorically outlines the critical reasons why bystanders take period to respond to emergencies. The news commentators, preachers, and scholars take a deliberate move to research the fundamental reasons as to why persons are conscious in undertaking intervention. The research is carried out basing on the situation of college institution setting (Darley et al 378). Moreover, the research entails comprehensive information of numerous cases in which bystanders are in a position to save the situation. The article further explains relevant theoretical approaches in the bystander intervention (Darley et al 378).
The article postulates that whenever somebody is attacked, the expected response is that the bystanders will save the victim. It is widely expected that they will do anything just to ensure the person being assaulted is unharmed. That is why whenever the bystanders do not act towards it they are considered inhuman, and their action is negatively criticized. This was the case when a young girl was brutally attacked by somebody on the streets of New York in 1964.The young lady kept screaming so that people could save her but sadly no one turned up. They kept watching from their balconies.
The case of bystanders’ reluctance is further disturbing as the lady is left at the hands of a dangerous attacker. The article introduces shocking revelation of slow and harmful action the attacker took inflicting pain and torturing the lady.

Finally, there was a breakthrough and someone managed to call in the police. The police arrived 2 minutes later. It was, however, late because the young lady had died. The act was condemned by a section of professionals among them psychologists (Darley et al 376). Two psychologists: John Darley of the University of New York and Bibb Latane of the University of Columbia, were deeply disturbed by the occurrence and they decided to come up with an explanation for this behavior. They decided to carry out research on the same.
The key theoretical approach that appears in the case is the hypothetical theory of diffusion of responsibility. Initially, the participants of the experimental emergency team acknowledged the theory. It is in that regard that they begin with a hypothetical theory about it. It is known whenever there is an emergency many people don’t rush to the scene to help because they know another person will help out. People will just watch in the belief that somebody else will offer the much-needed help. It ends up becoming a cycle, and eventually, the victim in emergency ends up being attended to very late or not at all. This behavior was called diffusion of responsibility.
The research methodology and techniques in this field the two scholars, Darley and Latane, decided to back up their theory with practical aspects. They were to have subjects (students). The primary objective of the study was to note the behavior of the subjects and their reaction towards an emergency (Darley et al 376). They put together the necessary variables and worked on a hypothesis that would guarantee depended on the outcome. The students were tasked with the responsibility of sharing out their experience while studying in New York. They were, to be frank about their stay in the institution.
It is prudent to understand that the instruments of the research were to be communication gadgets (intercom). It was required that the use of questionnaires would later replace the use of communication. The participants, learners, and other interested groups were led into the laboratory. In this case, they were put in separate rooms. The interview practice was to be unique in some way. For instance, it was to be natural as possible, and students didn’t need to have a clue that they were being interviewed. So the communication equipment would only be tracked down by Latane and Darley. The student was put into three groups and separated from each other. They were to talk to each other but not face to face.
The three experimental groups worked separately as an outline. A member of firs team thought he was talking to another member of his group. A member of the second division knew too speak well to another two people. That from the third group assumed talking to five more people of that group. In a real sense, each interviewed separately, and Latane and Darley would capture the conversation through the intercom.
There was a plan to set up the emergency base to handle the critical cases of the students. The plans were effectively laid out to ensure all the areas are substantially organized to curb ineffectiveness. The psychologists creatively came up with an epileptic seizure. One student had to describe about his studies and challenges he faced while in New York. He explained that he was even disadvantaged because when exposed to high levels of stress he would develop an epileptic seizure. He talked so well, but later on the intercom, his speech would become slurry an indication of the seizure attack. All this was just on tape (Darley et al 377). The information was recorded and thus efficiently relevant for further examination and in-depth analysis.
There are several outcomes from the experimental research undertaken by the subjects. The article clearly shows that the individuals who served in group one quickly took action of reporting. The reaction and reporting in the order were expected as outlined earlier theoretically. Those from groups two followed them, and the least to react were those from group three. Darley and Latane formed a basis for their hypothesis. The groups that involved more people (group two and three respectively) thought other people were at the scene of the emergency and therefore they would attend to the victim. They saw no need of going to help as others would readily do it. Those in group one had nobody to it, therefore, took the responsibility upon themselves.
The outcome further provides that subjects perceived the process as real and thereby the information received from the study is very relevant to the typical setup. It is a great to step towards understanding the situations from different perspectives (Darley et al 376). This is since the outcomes are derived from the plausibility of manipulation, the group size response and the urgency of addressing the emergency situation. The outcomes, therefore cover wider scope hence carry a large amount of relevance in understanding the bystander intervention issues.
Lastly, the general results and findings from the experiment greatly identify the situational forces as the fundamental reasons for urgency and response. It does not consider the unconfirmed argument about personality (Darley et al 378). It lays its emphasis on the number of bystanders as the significant factor more than the authoritarianism, alienation, social responsibility acceptance and Machiavellism role. It is evident that among other reasons the obvious one was that the students expected others to be there at the scene of the emergency. Moreover, the scholars found out that the situational forces prompt persons to respond to the emergencies.
Works Cited
Darley, John M., and Bibb Latane.”Bystander intervention in emergencies: diffusion of responsibility.” Journal of personality and social psychology8.4p1 (1968): 377.
Latane B., & Darley. Journal of Personality and social psychology 1968, vol.8, no.4, 377-383.Latane, B., & Darley, J. M. Group inhibition of bystander intervention in emergencies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (1970):10, 215-22l.