After reading the article on the bystander intervention in e…

After reading the article on the bystander intervention in emergencies, answer the following question: What are the main forces that lead a person not to respond (or to respond) in an emergency situation? Describe a situation you have been in (or are familiar with) where you believe this phenomenon occurred. How did you feel, and how did you respond or not respond? Based on the readings, what main forces guided your response of lack thereof? http://web.a.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.snhu.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=69f1a7fe-c1ce-49d0-8fe2-39cc13cfa8df%40sessionmgr4004&vid=1&hid=4104

Title: Bystander Intervention in Emergencies: Forces influencing Response or Lack thereof

Introduction:
In emergency situations, the presence of bystanders has been shown to greatly influence whether or not individuals intervene to provide assistance. The response, or lack thereof, from individuals in such situations can be attributed to a diverse set of factors. This paper aims to analyze the main forces that lead a person either to respond or not to respond in emergency situations. It will also discuss a personal situation where this phenomenon occurred and provide an understanding of the main influences behind the response, or lack thereof, in that situation.

Forces influencing response or lack thereof:
1. Diffusion of responsibility:
One of the primary reasons individuals may fail to respond in an emergency situation is the diffusion of responsibility. According to Latané and Darley (1970), when faced with a crisis, people tend to feel less personally responsible for taking action if there are more bystanders present. This diffusion of responsibility occurs because individuals believe that someone else will intervene or that their individual contribution will be unnecessary. Consequently, this diffusion of responsibility often leads to inaction.

2. Pluralistic ignorance:
Pluralistic ignorance is another critical force influencing an individual’s response in emergency situations. Darley and Latané (1968) found that individuals often rely on the behaviors and reactions of others to determine the appropriate course of action in ambiguous situations. In emergency situations, if individuals perceive others as calm and not taking action, they may interpret this as a sign that help is not needed and mirror the inaction of others. Pluralistic ignorance thus discourages personal intervention.

3. Evaluation apprehension:
Evaluation apprehension refers to the fear of being judged negatively by those present in the situation (Cialdini, 2007). When individuals are unsure of the appropriate response or are concerned about their competence to help, they may choose not to respond in order to avoid embarrassment or criticism. The fear of making a mistake or appearing foolish can significantly hinder intervention in emergency situations.

Personal experience:
In a recent personal experience, I encountered a situation where bystander intervention was lacking. I was on a crowded subway platform when suddenly, a woman nearby collapsed onto the ground, seemingly unconscious. My initial reaction was to rush to her aid, but as I looked around, I noticed that, despite the commotion, other bystanders appeared hesitant to act. Instead of rushing to help, they seemed to be waiting for someone else to take the lead.

I felt a mix of emotions in that situation – a sense of urgency to help the woman, but also a hesitance born out of uncertainty and the presence of others. Recognizing the forces at play, I weighed the potential consequences of intervention, including the possibility of being perceived as intrusive or incompetent. Ultimately, I decided to step forward and provide aid to the woman until medical professionals arrived. However, it was striking to witness the inhibition displayed by the majority of bystanders.

Forces guiding my response:
In analyzing the forces that guided my decision to respond, several factors emerged. Firstly, the diffusion of responsibility played a role in my initial hesitation, as the presence of numerous bystanders led me to believe that someone else would take charge. However, as time passed without action from others, the weight of responsibility fell on me.

Additionally, pluralistic ignorance played a significant role in the situation, as no one in the vicinity took immediate action. When no one is seen intervening, it becomes difficult for an individual to overcome the ambiguous nature of the situation and initiate the required response. Nevertheless, my internal evaluation led me to determine that help was crucially needed and that intervention was justified.

Lastly, evaluation apprehension influenced my response. The fear of negative evaluation from others was present, as I weighed the potential consequences of my actions. However, my concern for the well-being of the woman outweighed my fear of judgment, prompting me to act.

Conclusion:
In conclusion, the forces that lead individuals to respond or not respond in emergency situations are multifaceted. Diffusion of responsibility, pluralistic ignorance, and evaluation apprehension all work together to shape an individual’s decision to intervene or show inaction. Personal experience of bystander intervention, as outlined above, highlights the interplay of these forces and provides insight into the thought processes and emotions that influence behavior in emergencies. Understanding these forces is crucial for developing interventions and strategies that promote and encourage bystander intervention in emergency situations.