Antisocial behaviour in response to social influence.
Help!
|
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Factors influencing antisocial behaviour | Diffusion of responsibility
Audience inhibition
Social influence
Groupthink
Cost benefit analysis
🗑
|
||||
| Diffusion of responsibility (example) | Sometimes when there are several bystanders, they look at each other to see how they are reacting to the emergency. If nobody in the group responds to the emergency, then it is possible each bystander has experienced diffusion of responsibility
🗑
|
||||
| Diffusion of responsibility (def) | where the presence of others leads the bystander to feel less responsibility for helping a person in need. Each bystander believes that it is the responsibility of the other bystander to take charge and provide help - more likely to do on own
🗑
|
||||
| Audience inhibition (def) | the presence of other bystanders can make a potential helper feel self-conscious and therefore inhibit the helping behaviour
🗑
|
||||
| Audience inhibition aka | also known as ‘the fear of blunders’ where people are afraid that others will judge them by their actions if they make an incorrect move, they will experience audience inhibition
🗑
|
||||
| Social influence | other bystanders reaction will influence the likelihood of help. If the others appear unconcerned, then potential helpers might not perceive the situation to be one that warrants assistance. If crowd concerned, likely that bystanders will provide help
🗑
|
||||
| Groupthink - defn | tendency of group members to make decisions based on maintaining group harmony and cohesion rather than critically analysing and realistically appraising the situation.
🗑
|
||||
| group think - all oppose | Individuals in these situations tend to put aside their personal beliefs and adopt the beliefs of the group (defn)
Likewise, people who are opposed to group decision tend to remain silent rather than cause disruption by voicing their opinions.
🗑
|
||||
| Cost benefit analysis defn | the cost-benefit analysis model by Piliavan and co (1981) suggests that bystanders weigh up the pros and cons of helping before they decide whether to help or not in an emergency situation.
🗑
|
||||
| cost benefit model | includes both cognitive & physiological processes. It suggests that when bystanders are confronted with emergencies, they weigh up the costs & benefits of providing help compared to those for not helping. bystanders have 3 stages.
🗑
|
||||
| According to this model bystanders work their way through 3 stages before they respond to an emergency | o Physiological arousal
o Labelling the arousal with a specific emotion
o Evaluating the consequences of helping
🗑
|
||||
| Physiological arousal | increased heart rates & respiratory rate triggered by witnessing a victim’s distress. the greater the arousal, the more likely it is that the bystander will help
🗑
|
||||
| Labelling the arousal with a specific emotion (personal distress) | In an emergency this might be either personal distress or empathetic concern
Personal distress - feeling of anxiety & tension when someone else is in distress. Bystanders take action to make themselves, rather than the victims feel better
🗑
|
||||
| Empathetic concern | - the ability to recognize someone else’s emotional state and express appropriate concern if that state is negative
🗑
|
||||
| Evaluating the consequences of helping | This involves working out whether the costs of helping outweigh the benefits. Cost usually involves time & effort
greater cost, less likely
A helper must weigh up the personal costs and the empathy cost of their helping or not helping
🗑
|
||||
| According to this cost | The more onlookers, the less likely it is that a bystander will help because there is a reduced personal cost for not helping - public disapproval, self-blame
Then greater the victims need for help, the greater the personal distress of not helping
🗑
|
||||
| According to this cost + | If the victim is a relative, friend or is perceived to be similar to the bystanders, then the bystanders are likely to help because they will experience greater physiological arousal and more empathy costs - guilt for not helping
🗑
|
||||
| groupthink explains | Groupthink has been used to explain instances of poor decision making when social justice or foreign policies have been made by groups in power or in times of crisis such as war (usa - pearl habour)
🗑
|
Review the information in the table. When you are ready to quiz yourself you can hide individual columns or the entire table. Then you can click on the empty cells to reveal the answer. Try to recall what will be displayed before clicking the empty cell.
To hide a column, click on the column name.
To hide the entire table, click on the "Hide All" button.
You may also shuffle the rows of the table by clicking on the "Shuffle" button.
Or sort by any of the columns using the down arrow next to any column heading.
If you know all the data on any row, you can temporarily remove it by tapping the trash can to the right of the row.
To hide a column, click on the column name.
To hide the entire table, click on the "Hide All" button.
You may also shuffle the rows of the table by clicking on the "Shuffle" button.
Or sort by any of the columns using the down arrow next to any column heading.
If you know all the data on any row, you can temporarily remove it by tapping the trash can to the right of the row.
Embed Code - If you would like this activity on your web page, copy the script below and paste it into your web page.
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Created by:
procrast
Popular Psychology sets