Session 3 - The first mathematical model
1 Overview
| Topic | Duration | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Finalize VAST displays in group | 20 | |
| Present and discuss solutions | 60 | |
| First formalization: Mathematical Models 1 | 120 | Slides, Steps 1 & 2 |
| Homework 1: Create new version of VAST |
2 Homework (in groups)
- We extend the VAST displays with an additional theoretical explanation by Fischer et al., concerning the phenomenon that dangerous situations reduce the bystander effect. Hence, the explanatory target is (a) the “classical” bystander effect and (b) the reduction of the bystander effect in dangerous situations (i.e., the dangerousness of situation is a moderator of the bystander main effect).
- At the same time we reduce the VAST display by cutting all elements that are not relevant for this specific explanation.
- We cut the “Five-step process model”
- From the three potential processes we only keep diffusion of responsibility (and ignore pluralistic ignorance and evaluation apprehension).
In other words, we try to build a minimal model that explains our explanatory target.
The additional theoretical explanation can be found in Fischer et al., p. 520-521. These are the relevant paragraphs:
“[…] the most noteworthy tendency in recent research is that the bystander effect often does not occur when the emergency is a dangerous one or when the bystanders are highly competent. The classic bystander research regarded present bystanders as”something negative,” which reduces the probability of prosocial intervention. On the basis of the review of the more recent literature, we suspect that this perspective is not always correct. Bystanders can act as a positive source of physical support in case a focal person is in the process of deciding whether to intervene in a critical situation (especially when they are perceived as competent bystanders). The present meta-analysis allows us to systematically examine the possibility of a non-inhibiting (non-negative) bystander effect. In the following, we further explore this theoretical idea. We explain why we expect that dangerous emergencies are associated with a reduced magnitude of the bystander effect.”
If one is to intervene in a dangerous emergency, one may have to fear negative physical consequences. A perpetrator may not only attack the victim but also the intervener. In that case, additional bystanders may provide support in defeating a potential perpetrator. […] To conclude, we expect that high-danger emergencies increase the focal bystander’s fear that he or she will be attacked or injured in case of intervention. However, if other bystanders are present, they are recognized as a source of physical support, which mitigates against the traditional bystander effect. Note that we do not expect a complete disappearance of the bystander effect in dangerous emergencies. Instead, we expect that it substantially declines because of the fact that many dangerous emergency situations can only be resolved by a group.
Thus, we expect that it is mainly increased danger to the focal bystander that reduces the bystander effect, but not increased danger to the victim (which can be completely distinct from danger of intervention). […] In other words, if bystanders experience increased danger to themselves in case of intervention, they look for other bystanders to help them to intervene (e,g,, to overpower a fierce perpetrator), which should finally reduce diffusion of responsibility and thus also attenuate the magnitude of the bystander effect (because bystanders acknowledge that they can only resolve the dangerous situation by cooperation in a group).
Deliverable: Create a new draw.io VAST display with the extended and reduced theory. Push the file to the homework repository in the folder Bystander_effect.