In today’s society, there are many unresponsive bystanders. In this paper, I will tell you what was done, who the subjects were, how they were picked and assigned, what was used during the experiment, and the results of the experiment. According to John Wiley and Sons, “participants were exposed to an emergency situation with either low or high potential danger to the victim and the bystander. In it, the bystander was either alone or in the presence of one additional passive bystander, a confederate of the experimenter who had been instructed to notice the emergency but to remain indifferent to it.
The participants’ alleged task was to evaluate a cross-gender communication between a man and a woman. Suddenly, the man starts to verbally attack and grab the woman. The degree of potential emergency-related danger was manipulated by the size of the male actor who was either of small stature or of large stature. ” This particular study was the first one that compared intervention frequency during emergency situations that had high and low danger levels for the helper and the victim.Studies before this did not systematically manipulate the variable of the same experimental designs.
The subjects that were involved in the experiment were 54 females and 32 males between the ages of 18 and 34 years old. The design that they used to test this experiment was a 2X2X2 factorial design. They were picked by their age and gender and were assigned randomly to the experimental conditions. John Wiley and Sons stated that the object they used for the experiment was “a hallway in the university building that was designated for a meeting point for all the participants.The participants learned that their task was to evaluate a cross-gender communication. Written instructions indicated that the study tested the hypothesis that in a first contract situation between men and women, the judgment of the actual sexual interest of the opposite sex is frequently subject to misinterpretation.
For instance, a male might misperceive the friendliness of a female as a sign of sexual interest. Each participant was collected by the experimenter and accompanied to the participants’ room.To ensure that the participants knew the location of the experimenter’s office, the experimenter stopped briefly at his office to get some questionnaires while the participant waited at the door. Then, the target room in which the cross-gender communication was to take place was shown to the participants to ensure that they knew its location and to make them familiar with the technical equipment involved in the experiment.
The target room was equipped with a video camera attached to a tripod stand in front of two opposing chairs and a visible cable connection to the television set in the participants’ room.Participants were shown this cable connection and were told that the video camera in the target room transmitted a live broadcast of the social interaction sequence onto the TV set in the participants’ room. In actuality, the television set was not connected to the video camera but to a hidden video recorder transmitting the faked social interaction video sequences. Afterwards, participants were led next door to their room, which was equipped with a TV in front of a table and two chairs for them to watch and evaluate the social interaction sequence.
In the participants’ room, the participants were given written instructions together with the social interaction questionnaire. Participants learned that they would secretly observe three interactions between three different randomly chosen pairs of subjects who did not know each other. The camera in the target room would transmit the cross-gender interaction live onto the TV-screen in the participants’ room. The participants were supposed to observe the three subsequent interactions between the two opposite sex individuals and to thoroughly evaluate the interaction afterwards.The questionnaire involved 11 items measuring how attracted the individuals were to each other. After having read the instructions, the subject was left alone and the experiment began by randomly showing the videotape either with low or high potentially negative consequences in the third interaction sequence.
” At the end of this study, they found that 37 percent of the people tried to help the victim. They also found that the sex and/or age of both the participants and the bystander had no effect of whether they helped or chose against it.In my opinion, I think that more people should respond to low emergency situations. More people could be helped and not so many hurt if people would jump in and help.
In high emergency situations, I don’t really think you should help that much, because you could easily get really hurt and it would turn out worse than it would if you would not have gotten involved in the first place. But, don’t just stand there. I think that you should go get some help, and put an end to it.
