Activities to enhance learning Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

Activities to enhance learning - Essay Example Technology can be used to enhance learning and education. Traditional classrooms are increasingly being replaced by virtual classrooms in the globalized education system. Some of the systems that can be used in the promotion of online learning include the use of the audience response systems and clickers. At the same time, advanced institutions are using simulation in the laboratories to prepare the students from the professional market experiences. Distance learning happens when the learner is separated from the teacher geographically and time-wise. According to instructional technology, distance learning is the process of extending resource sharing opportunities to other classrooms through the use of video and multimedia communications. This essay aims at having a creative look into the online activities that enhance student learning, assessment and engagement through critical thinking. These analytical suggestions can greatly improve the learning outcomes of the N534 course. The I nternet is one of the most important media when it comes to online learning environment and technology. Online learning especially in nursing is known to reduce time and space barriers in the process of learning. Online learning can be entirely electronic or a hybrid of learning environments. Hybrid learning tends to combine virtual learning strategies with face-to-face learning. The Internet is known to have introduced the concept of pluralisation of place. This means that persons and participate in multiple environments using a virtual atmosphere. In the case of online learning, the instructor is responsible for moderating and mentoring students. However, the students are expected to have a strong self-drive. The e-learning atmosphere is known to provide a platform for students’ discussions across the continents (Allen, 2007). Students in a nursing class can access online resources, share important documents through online applications and submit examination in the online c lassroom (Bonk & Zhang, 2008). Technology has allowed online students to interact with faculties and mentors. In the online learning environment, materials are presented through videotaping, audio taping, and links to websites. There are interactive websites designed to host online learning environments (Bonk & Zhang, 2008). In the case of learning environments, the interaction can be real-time, which is also known as synchronous, or asynchronous. Synchronous online interactions entail the use of chat room in the process of teaching (Allen, 2007). This involves typing. Asynchronous communication means leaving messages that others can read in their convenience (Shea-Schultz & Fogarty, 2002). In the online learning strategy, the entire programs and group courses are offered online. Online learners can attend virtual universities like California Virtual University. There are unique materials that serve as a means of promoting online learning and teaching. Successful learning must be as sessed on a regular basis. The method of learning has a great impact in the process of learning (Bonk & Zhang, 2008). The entire process and assessment of learning require substantial institutional and financial investment. Institutions must invest in faculty development, infrastructure, and equipment. Technology aided teaching strategies dramatically affect the way teaching and learning occurs. This challenges the traditional relationship between academic institutions and students. Students must be encouraged to participate in the learning process. This entails inviting them to speak in the classroom (Shea-Schultz & Fogarty, 2002). This learning strategy can have a profound effect if the teacher creates a safe environment for the students to learn. The teacher is expected to summarize discussion from time to time. This helps in highlighting key points and allows students to follow on the discussion (Allen, 2007). Th

What Mary Didn’t Know Essay Example for Free

What Mary Didn’t Know Essay The knowledge argument aims to refute physicalism, the belief that the world is entirely physical. Physicalism, also known as materialism, is the view that an individual’s experiences are subjective as it follows the strain of the conscious mind. It plays with the idea that an individual’s understanding of the world could be fulfilled through physical means. In the text What Mary Didnt Know, Jackson relays the hypothetical story of a scientist named Mary who was said to have developed a grasping knowledge about every physical aspect of the world. She was also kept away from being exposed to colors and only sees and learns things in black and white. When it was decided that she should be released her from her self-contained room, she was able to see a myriad of colors for the first time (Jackson, 1986). Out of this scenario, Jackson posits a question that challenges the principles of physicalism: If Mary has knowledge of all physical facts about the world and has learned something new once outside, it must be something that is not physical, and therefore it would dispute that everything in reality can be explained through physical means (Jackson, 1986). The central statement of the argument flows in this manner: P1: Prior to Mary’s release, it is a known fact that she is knowledgeable about the physical aspect about the world and other people. P2 After releasing Mary from her confined space and out into the world of color, Mary realizes that she does not know everything there is to know about other people and the world as she has obtained additional information about them. Therefore, it is postulated that Mary has not exhausted all physical information regarding other people and the world as she has learned something new outside her confinement. Clearly, this conclusion states that the notions about physicalism are false since there are certain truths that are not encompassed in the physicalist aspect of things (Jackson, 1986). The main conviction against physicalism is said to be the idea of qualia. According to Jackson, Qualia is said to be something that which is felt from experience. It is the notion that connects experiences to an idea or knowledge of a subject in a distinct way. Not everyone’s experience is the same as individuals are inherently different so one could denote that there are different ways to experience and interpret qualia. Neverthelss, Qualia poses problems of its own such as the assimilation of consciousness, introspection, comprehension and familiarity. However, the thought that will be focused on here is the existing conflict between qualia and physicalism (Jackson, 1986). If a physicalist claims that Mary knows what it’s like to see colors while confined in her room, the physicalist must be able to explain why Mary appears to acquire that knowledge when she leaves. The physicalist may deny the claim of knowledge intuition but then it would have to disregard the postulates that follow it (Jackson, 1986). There are many possible responses to support Jackson’s argument. One of which is the ability hypothesis from Ryle (1949) which illustrates a definite distinction between the proposed knowledge-that and knowledge-how. Knowledge-that is simply information which clarifies a statement based on the knowledge that has been obtained. Knowledge-how refers to a statement or information that is concerned with the process of how one obtains new knowledge. The knowledge argument only reinforces that Mary gains knowledge-how. On the other hand, the second postulate in the knowledge argument would only be true if Mary gained propositional knowledge (O’Hear, 2003). Secondly, there is the notion of metaphysically necessary truths. A metaphysical necessary truth is something that which could have failed to be the case. Logical truths could provide clear examples of this. For instance, an argument which states that a hippopotamus cannot fly like birds is a necessary truth. However, if laws the laws of nature were different then a hippopotamus would be able to fly like birds in a metaphysical sense (O’Hear, 2003). A metaphysically necessary truth is a truth that is narrowed down to the basics which does not simply rely on the existing nature of laws. Saul Kripke (1972) was notable for his argument regarding metaphysically necessary truths that disregards pure logic. For example, his view, that water is H2O is metaphysically necessary but he also recognizes that there are substances that resemble water or shares similar superficial qualities like its taste and visual appearance. However, he argues that such substances are not really water because it has a different molecular composition (O’Hear, 2003). In connection with the metaphysical necessary truths argument, a third approach introduces the distinction between a priori and a posteriori physicalism. It assumes that if physicalism is true then the complete truth about a subject matter is a priori that is extracted from the complete physical truth (O’Hear, 2003). A Priori is the initial statement taken out of the context of the complete physical truth, which is the posteriori. As was mentioned, the crucial claim of a posteriori physicalism is that it asserts that in order to be aware of the knowledge or change, one must be able to experience it. However, it is argued that Mary does not have relevant experience with regard to human color vision therefore she does not know. This argument would only be valid if the posteriori is not physically conceivable (O’Hear, 2003). A fourth draws from the conceivability argument of Descartes. The main argument emphasizes the dual properties of the mind and body. Descartes believes that if an individual can clearly and definitively visualize his or her mind without the body and his or her body without the mind, then both can exist without each other, which emphasizes the dichotomy between the two. Contemporary versions of this argument is said to carry out the inversion of qualia wherein one’s view of a subject matter may be different to the view of another (O’Hear, 2003). The fifth anti-physicalist argument is derived from the explanatory thought. The contention begins with the premise that physicalist descriptions of consciousness justify only the structure of the thought and function or role of the experience, which is not enough to explain the consciousness at work. For instance, if an individual learns about the Eiffel tower from a book, he or she envisions it through the descriptions in the book that describes its history and structure and its impact on the society. The knowledge the individual acquires from the book is limited since the actual experience of being in Paris to witness the structure has not been experienced (O’Hear, 2003). The sixth and final argument asserts the distinction of various conceptions of the physical. The argument stresses that the properties which define information by the conception of physical theory differs from the attributes that define those which rely on the conception of objects. It suggests that the first premise is open to either of the two interpretations. The notions about inverted qualia definitely support this argument since it makes use of the special attributes that is missing in observations that is purely physical (O’Hear, 2003). Conclusion The knowledge argument of Jackson assess that there is a difference in the type of fact being presented and that it may not be entirely physical. The succeeding anti-physicalist arguments and its derivative all question the essential assertions of physicalism that creates an abstract notion of reality. Jackson’s efforts in creating a stir on the drawbacks of physicalism have contributed a great deal of knowledge into exploring the depths of the subconscious mind. The arguments presented in the paper were long and confusing but it was very interesting to see different sides of the anti-physicalists streams of thought since collectively, the main premise of Jackson made much more sense. However, it seems that supporters of physicalists are coming up with their own responses to such arguments which create a much more complex understanding of just how a human’s consciousness works to define the physical world. References Jackson, F. (1986). What Mary Didn’t Know. The Journal of Philosophy, 83(5), 291-295. Retrieved March 11, 2009 from JSTOR database. O’Hear, A. (2003). Minds and persons. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Stakeholder Influence in Strategy Decisions

Stakeholder Influence in Strategy Decisions Devising a strategy should be a product of logical and external analysis, yet often appears to be a product of the power of stakeholders. Discuss using recent business examples. Johnson and Scholes (2002) p10 define strategy as â€Å"the direction and scope of an organisation over the long term, which achieves advantage for the organisation through its configuration of resources within a changing environment and to fulfil stakeholder expectations.† A strategic plan is therefore large scale future oriented activities that allow interaction with the competitive environment in order to achieve company objectives. It follows that strategic management is the process whereby a strategy is formulated, evaluated, and continuously improved. Strategic planning flows from the definition of an organisation’s vision, mission and objectives and subsequent environmental scanning, to understand the organisation’s strategic position with respect to the macro external environment, its industry, competitors, internal resources, competencies and expectations and influence of stakeholders. (Stoner, Freeman and Gilbert, 1995) This initial process establishes a basis for strategic choice by means of a match of identified strengths to opportunities. The translation of strategic choice into action is then implemented across all levels of the organisation through programmes, resources, technologies, and performance management structures. (Johnson and Scholes, 2002 and Davis, 2005) This essay focuses on the strategic position of the organisation in the context of its environment, its strategic capability, and stakeholder expectations. The purpose of an environmental scan is to develop a list of diverse variables from an uncertain and complex world to offer actionable responses and in so doing allow a structured framework for defensive or offensive actions. There are a variety of available analysis tools such as a PESTEL framework from a macro-environmental level, Porter’s Five Forces framework at an industry level, strategic groupings within an industry and individual market analysis. The results can then be applied in a SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats) analysis to determine strategic choice. (Johnson and Scholes, 2002) PESTEL is an acronym representing the key forces that exist or are emerging in the external environment and suggests how they will, or might impact on future strategy and resources.   These comprise Political, Economic, Sociocultural, Technological, Environmental and Legal factors. (Johnson and Scholes, 2002) Changes in these forces and their interaction affect the types of products and services offered and impact on suppliers and distributors to the organisation. An example of political and legal forces in setting the climate for business, are the tax harmonisation processes in the European Union (EU) which have caused many multinational firms, including John Deere and Cargill, to relocate their head offices to Switzerland, a non EU member to avoid tax costs. Consequentially, the global competitive ratings for the Netherlands, Germany and other home countries of these firms plunged whilst the rating for Switzerland has surged. (Davis, 2005) The use of PESTEL in isolation and a mer e listing of possible influences without an understanding of the combined impact of a number of these forces could lead to inaction with respect to countering threats or pursuing opportunities to the detriment of the business. The combined effect of the factors can be understood by identifying structural drivers of change that affect the structure of an industry sector or market. These include an increasing convergence of markets as customer needs and wants become similar (eg standardisation of strategy textbooks across international higher education institutions), maximising cost advantages achieved through economies of scale by centralised production in low cost, labour efficient countries such as India and China, or the differential impact of the factors dependant on industry type. (eg Pharmaceutical sales to an aging population in a first world country) (Johnson and Scholes, 2002) This reinforces the need to regard strategy formulation as an interactive multidisciplinary process requiring creative thinking. Porter suggests that industry selection and analysis is a vital component of strategic planning. An industry is â€Å"a group of firms producing products that are close substitutes for one another.† (Johnson and Scholes, 2002, p110) Competitive forces within an industry can be analysed in the contexts of the sources of competition, the dynamics of that competition and strategic groupings. Although criticised as being too generic in nature, Porter’s Five Forces framework is useful in addressing key interacting forces affecting a strategic business unit with a distinct market for goods or services within an industry. Porter referred to these forces as the microenvironment so as to contrast it with the more general term, macro environment. They consist of those forces close to an organisation that affect its ability to serve its customers and make a profit. A change in any of the forces normally requires a company to re-assess the marketplace. (Porter, 1996) An example is that of the mobile phone network industry where the barrier to entry by new competitors is the huge entry cost associated with 3G broadband licenses. The purchasing power of buyers is high with a significant range of choices between networks and the power of suppliers increasing through alliances such as that of Casio and Hitachi in 2003. (Davis, 2005) The threat of substitute products is increasing as Personal Digital Assistance (PDA) convergence with phones and voice-over-internet technology emerges with the potential to bypass the network operators. Competitive rivalry between firms with similar products is high with a broad range of products on offer to the consumer. (Johnson and Scholes, 2002) The concept of strategic grouping addresses the criticism of Porter’s model where an industry is considered to be too generic to provide a basis for understanding the competitive environment by applying the Five Forces framework. Johnson and Scholes, 2002, p122 define strategic groups as â€Å"organisations within an industry with similar strategic characteristics following similar strategies or competing on similar bases.† These firms are not homogeneous within the industry and follow strategies common to the group, but different to firms in other groups in the same industry. An example is a pharmaceutical manufacturer with a unique medication product protected by patent serving a common market using a similar strategy. (Davis, 2005) Understanding the competitive environment together with current and potential customer needs and wants will determine the success or failure of an organisation. Porter suggests that there are two generic strategies: cost or differentiation. Marketing segmentation identifies similarities and differences between individual and customer groups based on geographic, demographic lifestyle and benefit segmentation. An appreciation of customer values in a market segment and matching needs against the organisation’s capacity to meet those needs, is a critical aspect of determining strategic capability. (Pitt, 1997) The emergence of global firms suggests that traditional models are limited in application and that there is a need for the development of a broader integrative international strategic business model framework. (Ricart et al, 2004) Strategic capability involves the identification and evaluation of an organisation’s strengths and weaknesses in the functional areas of the business in the context of the external environment analyses. It is typically recorded in a SWOT framework. It represents an understanding of customer’s perceptions of value, the critical success factors through which that value is realised and unique competencies, processes, and technology to achieve competitive advantage. (Hussey, 2002.) The core competencies of the organisation are the unique capabilities that are critical success factors in achieving competitive advantage and hence key to the delivery of customer value. They form the foundation for differentiation and for increasing perceived customer benefits. Competencies must evolve as the needs and wants of customers change and a focus on developing critical competencies that affect market position, share and power is key. (Hamel and Prahalad, 1994) A useful model to analyse an organisation’s core competencies that underpin its competitive advantage is Porter’s Value Chain Analysis. This attempts an understanding of how the organisation creates customer value by examining the contributions of various activities within the business to that value. An organisation’s value chain is normally part of a broader value system that represents a set of inter-organisational linkages and relationships to create the product or service. It separates prima ry and support activities through which that value is generated. (Johnson and Scholes, 2002) Porter argues that competitive strategy is about being different, and focussing on those activities that deliver a unique mix of value and doing them better than competitors. (Porter, 1996) The structured and systematic process of analysing the external and internal environment described thus far is carried out by a consultative process with stakeholders and should present a sound basis for establishing the foundation for the organisation’s strategy formulation. However, the impact of stakeholders and the complex role that people play from a political and cultural perspective should be taken into account. (Johnson and Scholes, 2002) Davis, 2005, suggests that stakeholders are individuals or groups with an interest in the success of an organisation to deliver intended results and on whom the organisation itself depends. Donaldson and Preston, 1995, p64, argue that this general statement is too wide should be qualified to â€Å"be those persons or groups with a legitimate interest in procedure and / or substantive aspects of corporate activity.† Walsh, 2005, suggests that too broad a definition creates a situation whereby managers function in order benefit a stakeholder group or act as a continuous conduit to stakeholders. Stakeholders may include employees, unions, customers, financial institutions, suppliers, shareholders etc depending on the accepted definition. The definition of stakeholder is therefore important to the organisation because it impacts on the strategic plan formulation. The relationship between stakeholders and the organisation encompasses the field of stakeholder management that ranges in complexity from stakeholder mapping through to stakeholder collaboration and social capital. The corporate governance structure of the organisation and the regulatory framework within which it operates should determine who the organisation serves and how the purpose and direction of the organisation is determined. This includes the management of the capacity of a stakeholder to influence the organisation as well as accountability issues in the formal structure. This is typically structured through a separation of ownership and management at main board level, balanced by non-executive directors and a non executive chairperson. Internal or organisational stakeholders may blur this line through the inappropriate use of power and politics. Society in turn creates expectations of the organisation in terms of ethics and within a cultural context that need to be congruen t with that of the organisation. (Donald and Preston, 1995) The organisational field approach suggests that networks of related organisations develop which share common assumptions, values, and processes that may incorporate common organisational views on stakeholders. Under this scenario, relationship with stakeholders are taken for granted leading to legitimised strategies shaped by expectations being accepted without a structured strategic planning process occurring. (Walsh, 2005) A stakeholder map is a tool that inventories and categorises a companys stakeholders, shows their inter-relationships, expectations, and power. It illustrates the approaches that the organisation can follow to achieve its business objectives while winning support from its stakeholders. It raises the dilemma of ethics in that stakeholder management through such a strategy can be subverted to the detriment of the organisation. (Johnson and Scholes, 2002) The Enron debacle is manifestation of both this dilemma and the organisational field phenomenon which allowed the failure of corporate governance structures when unethical conduct was accepted in the areas of finance and management by organisational stakeholders. The Enron case was one of the largest bankruptcy cases in US history. In 2001, it was the fifth largest company on the Fortune 500 with revenues of USD 100 billion, 19,000 employees, and rated the â€Å"most admired company† six years in a row by Fortune magazine. (Culp an and Trussell, 2005) The basic premise of Enron’s strategy was to create markets for goods and services traditionally transacted through complex distribution channels. It leveraged off its competitive advantage of delivering services efficiently and stretching it’s competency through added risk management features. The high growth phase of the organisation during the 1990’s and changed business strategy and corporate culture of Enron was driven by top management. In the process, Enron appeared innovative and profitable to the extent that the traditional agency relationship underpinning the firm as a nexus of contracts between the shareholders (principals) and the management as agents were left unchecked, which in turn impacted negatively on the broader spectrum of stakeholders. (Donald and Preston, 1995 and Culpan and Trussell, 2005) An ostensibly well structured, high profile corporation within the highly regulated environment of a security exchange, audited by a major audit firm was bought down by unethical conduct of its senior executive team with possible collusion by external stakeholders. The ultimate test of how well a strategy has been thought out is at implementation level and the controls around that implementation. Unless a strategy can be executed effectively with appropriate checks and balances then it will almost certainly fall short in achieving objectives. This means that strategy has to be linked to the organisation’s objectives, mission, operations, and measurable outcomes within a corporate governance framework that meets the needs of the stakeholders. The evolution of the Kaplan and Norton’s Balanced Scorecard to incorporate financial, customer, learning and growth, and internal process metrics evaluated against the vision and strategic objectives of the organisation provide one such strategic management control methodology across the organisation. (Kaplan and Norton, 1996 and Kaplan and Norton, 2001) In conclusion, this essay has examined the formal process of strategy development and given examples of tools from the literature to systematically evaluate the external and internal environments of the organisation. It has sought to demonstrate that organisations are facing dynamic and rapidly evolving forces that influence its strategic direction. This is especially true with the emergence of globalisation and intensively competitive world markets. The eventual choice of a strategic direction for an organisation is a function of the values and expectations of a broad range of stakeholders which influence strategic decision making through political power over the organisation within a cultural and ethical context. It is the control through governance structures, and ongoing measurement of the strategic implementation process that will determine the successful outcome of the strategy and concomitant success of the organisation. References Cuplan, R. and Trussel, J. (2005) â€Å"Applying the Agency and Stakeholder Theories to the Enron Debacle.† Business and Society Review. Volume 110, 1. Davis, F. R. (2005) Strategic Management: Concepts and Cases. New Jersey, Pearson Prentice Hall. Donaldson, T. and Preston, L. E. (1995) â€Å"The Stakeholder Theory of the Corporation: Concepts, Evidence and Implications.† Academy of Management Review. Volume 20, 1. Hamel, G. and Prahalad, C. K. (1994) Competing for the Future. Boston, Harvard Business School Press. Hussey, D. (Jan–Feb 2002) â€Å"Company Analysis: Determining Strategic Capability.† Strategic Change. Johnson, G. and Scholes, K. (2002) Exploring Corporate Strategy Sixth Edition. London, Prentice Hall. Kaplan, R. S. and Norton, D. P. (1996) The Balanced Scorecard. Boston, Harvard Business School Press. Kaplan, R. S. and Norton, D. P. (2001) â€Å"Transforming the Balanced Scorecard from Performance Management to Strategic Management.† Accounting Horizons. Volume 15, 1. Pitt, L. (1997) Marketing for Managers: A Practical Approach. Cape Town, Juta Ltd. Porter, M. (November – December 1996) â€Å"What is Strategy?† Harvard Business Review. Ricart, E. J. et al. (2004) â€Å"New Frontiers in International Strategy.† Journal of International Business Studies. Volume 35, 3. Stoner, J. Freeman, E. and Gilbert, D. (1995) Management Sixth Edition. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, Prentice Hall. Walsh, J. P. (2005) â€Å"Taking Stock of Stakeholder Management.† Academy of Management Review. Volume 30, 2.

The Importance Of Literacy :: Literacy Essays

Rita Mae Brown describes literacy as, "a social contract, an agreed upon representation of certain symbols" (420). If the symbol's (letters) meanings are not agreed upon by those attempting to communicate, then interpreting one another becomes difficult. Simply stated, literacy is very important. Society has proven time and time again, it will reward those individuals who are competent and impede those who are not, whether expressed in terms of employment opportunities (job success) or just on a social level.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  One need look no further than their everyday activities in order to realize how important literary skills are. Without adequate literary skills one may not be able to identify on a label the correct amount of medicine to give a child, or read and interpret a sign giving instructions on what to do in case of a fire. These two examples bring perspective to literacy's importance. Nevertheless, recent surveys have indicated that, "4.5 million Canadians, representing 24 percent of the eighteen-and-over group, can be considered illiterate" ("Adult Illiteracy" 5). Illiteracy is truly a problem within Canada. Although many groups are working to render the problem of illiteracy, much work still lies ahead.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  As our society moves on into the next century literacy is proving vital to economic performance. Without basic literary skills in one's possession they will become lost in our rapidly changing society. The modern worker must be able to adapt to the changing job-scene. This often means gathering new skills and knowledge from printed material, whether instruction manuals, computer programs, or classroom training (text books). It is quite commonly the case that highly skilled jobs require a high level of literacy. Therefore, literary skill level is an important factor in predicting an individual's economic success. It will affect an individual's income, their employment stability and whether they even receive employment opportunities.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Presently, our world revolves around literacy. Simply being literate allows one to continuously upgrade one's literary skills to a higher level. It allows one to stay informed of happenings in and around the world through mediums such as newspapers and magazines. Knowing current news about what is going on in this ever changing world of ours is the key to staying ahead. Another thought to ponder is this, we rely on those with high literacy levels to record and document findings and happenings for future generations to reflect on. These writings would most likely be dull and inaccurate or would not exist at all without our current levels of literacy.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  When viewed from a social standpoint, literacy remains just as important as when viewed from the economic standpoint. Linda Macleod of the National Associations Active in Criminal Justice, points out that, "65 percent of people

Analyzing Psychological Disorders Essay

Schizophrenia is a mental illness that is chronic and severe. It can be a disabling illness that affects men and women with the same ratio or frequency. This term is from a Greek word that means having a â€Å"split mind†. Though this usage in medical terms is not accurate. The Western perception of this illness is their belief that the term is equal to a disorder of split personality. They have been found to be very distinct mental disorders. People afflicted with schizophrenia do not manifest split personalities. Schizophrenia is an illness hat affects the mind and is characterized by the disability of perceptions and manifestations of reality. Schizophrenia has five classifications. The first is the paranoid type where hallucinations and delusions are present but there is absence of disorganized behavior, thought disorder and active flattening. The disorganized type of schizophrenia occurs when active flattening and thought disorder are both present. Catatonic schizophrenia occurs when there is evidence of psychomotor disturbances. There is the presence of psychotic symptoms in the undifferentiated type but there is also absence of criteria for the other types of schizophrenia. The residual type is wherein all the symptoms of the mental disorder is present at low level of intensity. Signs and symptoms for people with schizophrenia suffer from delusions and false faith in their personal convictions despite the presentation of evidence disproving the matter. This symptom is not explained by a person’s cultural background and orientation. Those afflicted also suffer from hallucinatory perceptions that can manifest when there is a lack of external diversion. The most common type of hallucination is the hearing of voices and other sounds. There is also the manifestation of disorganized attitude, behavior and thoughts. Speech is also incoherent and disorganized. The person suffering from this type of mental disorder display catatonic behavior wherein the person’s body may become rigid and unresponsive. The causes of schizophrenia are unknown. There are a lot of factors that are said to be involved with the formation of this illness. There is an interaction between genetics, biology, psychology and the environment that leads to the mental disorder. Medical science does not have a full understanding of all the causes and other concerns related to the mental disorder. Recent research and medical studies is slowly but surely shows improvement and progress that would help define the causes of schizophrenia and their explanation. An increase in the dopaminergic activity that is inside the mesolimbic pathway of the brain is a constant and significant finding (Bentall 2005). Data gathered from a PET study shows suggestions that the lesser frequency the frontal lobes are activated during a task that involves a working memory there is a greater increase in the abnormality of dopamine activity in the striatum that is though to be related to deficits in neurocognition in schizophrenia. While the credibility of the diagnosis has introduced many difficulties in the measurement of the relative effect of genes and the factor of environment, more and more evidence have suggested that environmental and genetic factors can combine and create a reaction that would lead to the mental disorder of schizophrenia. Suggestions have also been made regarding the diagnosis of schizophrenia had an important genetic composition but that is influenced by the stressors or factors relating to the environment. The concept of a vulnerability that can be inherited from by some people can be destroyed by psychological, biological and environmental stressors. This is known as the stress-diathesis model. The idea that psychological, biological and social factors is more significant is called the biopsychosocial model in analyzing the causes of schizophrenia (Goldner, Hsu 2002). The approximate degree and frequency of hereditary causes in schizophrenia has a tendency to vary because of the difficulty in the separation of the effects of the environment and genetics. Twin studies have both suggested that there is a high rate of cases involving schizophrenia caused by genetic factors. It is possible that schizophrenia is a mental condition that is complicated in hereditary nature with many genes likely interacting to increase the risk of schizophrenia or the separate parts that can also occur that will lead to its diagnosis. Studies in genetics have implied that genes that increase the risk for the development of schizophrenia are not specific and may also increase the risk of development of other psychotic disorders. A breakthrough in recent research also suggested that very rare copies or omissions of small DNA sequences within the genes that are known as copy number variants were also related to the increased rate of risk for the development of schizophrenia (Noll 2006). It has also been thought that factors that cause schizophrenia can combine in the early development of the human brain during pregnancy. This would later increase the risk of developing schizophrenia. One finding that raised a great amount of curiosity is that people who were diagnosed with the mental illness is said to have been more possibly born in spring or winter in those living in the northern hemisphere of the planet. There is current evidence that exposure to infections during the prenatal stage can increase the risk of the development of schizophrenia in the age of maturity. This finding provides additional proof that linked the utero-developmental pathology with the risk of developing the mental disorder. Social conditions also help the increased risk of schizophrenia. People who are living in a highly urbanized environment have been found out to be exposed to great risk of being afflicted with the mental disorder. Poverty, poor living conditions and social status has also been found to contribute to the risk factor. Migration of people that is related to social problems like racial discrimination, unemployment and people coming from broken families also become factors of developing schizophrenia. There has been an implication made regarding the risk factor of childhood abuse and trauma that can cause schizophrenia later on in life. Lack of support and family dysfunctions also increase the risk but not directly connected to parenting. Substance use have also been found to increase the risk of schizophrenia but the relationship of this link is found to be complex. There has been some difficulty in distinguishing a clear relationship of substance use and the mental disorder. There is also solid evidence that the usage of certain illegal substances can start the onset or relapse of the mental illness in some people. These people who were diagnosed with schizophrenia use these substances to overcome negative emotions that comes with the intake of anti-psychotic medication and the mental condition itself. Negative feelings of paranoia and anhedonia were considered to be primary characteristics. The ingestion of amphetamines can trigger the brain to release dopamine that would increase dopamine activity. It is this excessive increase in activity that it is known to be partially responsible for the manifestation of psychotic symptoms of the mental disorder. This is partially supported by the idea that amphetamines can worsen the symptoms present in schizophrenia. This type of mental disorder can be triggered by heavy usage of stimulants and hallucinogens. One study has suggested the that the use of cannabis contributes to the occurrence of psychosis though some researchers suspect that the use of this substance was only a small part of the many factors of schizophrenia (Green 2002). There is also a number of psychological reasons that have been implicated in the development and sustainability of schizophrenia. A number of cognitive biases have been named in those that have been diagnosed and those that are at risk especially when there is the application of stress or in a state of confusion overly increased attention to potential threats, arriving at conclusions and impaired reasoning. There is also the manifestation of difficulty in differentiating from inner speech mechanism to one coming from an external entity and difficulty in retaining concentration. Case Studies: Anxiety Tom is an engineer, he is happily married, and he is the father of three bright, healthy children. By all appearances, his life is stable and satisfying. Tom, however, suffers from continual worry that he has a difficult time turning off. His anxiety may center on anything from his perceived health problems (he has recently been to his doctor for a physical, but no health issues were discovered) to money and job responsibilities. At times his anxiety peaks to the point that it interferes with his ability to function on the job. Physical symptoms include muscle tension, headaches, and hot flashes that often accompany Tom’s anxiety. Tom often feels nauseated, and he becomes easily fatigued. When he feels anxious, Tom has difficulty concentrating, he becomes irritable, and he has difficulty falling asleep at night. All of these symptoms have been present for the last 6 months. Tom has tried to talk himself out of his anxiety, but this has not worked for him. Toms wife is supportive, but she does not know what to do for her husband (Hauser, 2005). Neural circuitry involving the amygdala and hippocampus is thought to underlie anxiety. When confronted with unpleasant and potentially harmful stimuli such as foul odors or tastes, PET-scans show increased bloodflow in the amygdala. Possible mechanism is malfunction in the parabrachial nucleus, a structure in the brain, that among other functions, coordinates signals from the amygdala with input concerning balance. The amygdala is involved in the emotion of fear. Biochemical factors come into play. Low levels of GABA, a neurotransmitter that reduces overactivity in the central nervous system, contributes to anxiety. A number of anxiolytics achieve their effect by modulating the GABA receptors.

Bystander Intervention

Bystander Intervention 1—-Social Psychology Eye Skip to contentHomeAboutDisclaimerFeatured JournalsNews Editors Bystanders†¦ just standing by. When do people help and when do they not? Posted on March 13, 2011 by ezaiser| 1 Comment By Erica Zaiser Understanding when and why people intervene to help others, or when they don’t, is at the heart of social psychology. All students of psychology study the famous case of Kitty Genovese, whose screams while being attacked failed to elicit help from the nearly 40 bystanders. Most research on bystander intervention has found that the size of the group greatly impacts the likelihood of intervention. Too big of a group and everybody shifts responsibility assuming that someone else will help but the more people the less likely that any individual will help. It seems hard to imagine that people would not help when someone is in trouble, wounded, or in danger, yet it happens all the time. Recently I myself stumbled upon a scene of bystander non-intervention which I have since struggled to understand. The other day while walking home I came upon a man running up and down the street with no shoes or coat holding a phone out shouting at the people on the street and stopping cars banging on the windows. I took a second to survey the scene and it was clear this man was trying to get something from those around him. However nobody was answering him and none of the cars even rolled down their windows to listen. I heard his questions loud and clear, albeit in broken English, â€Å"How to call an ambulance? † Still nobody was saying anything. I shouted to him that he needed to call 999 and he came over profusely grateful for my help and I helped him make his emergency call and assisted him and his family until paramedics could arrive. His mother had fallen unconscious in their flat and he had run into the street esperate to know how to call emergency services in this country. I learned that he and all his family was from eastern Europe and they knew very little English. He also told me that he had been trying to get the number for quite some time but nobody had been willing to help. Having read work on bystander behaviour I shouldn’t have been that surprised that nobody hel ped but the situation just didn’t fit the common notion that with greater numbers people are less likely to help. Most of the famous incidents involving non-helping behaviour has been within large crowds. There were maybe 7 or 10 people on the street when I arrived. Most were just standing and watching. I don’t have a great answer for why people didn’t help, maybe they couldn’t understand his question†¦ but it seemed quite clear to me. Maybe they feared that it was some type of scam.. but certainly it can’t hurt to tell someone a phone number. Even more frustrating than not understanding the lack of help was the sneaking suspicion that had he been British, white, or at least a native English speaker, maybe someone would have helped. Research by Levine and colleagues suggests that there might be an element of truth to that. In a study of non-intervention, their research suggests that bystanders are much more likely to help people when they feel that the person seeking assistance is part of their ingroup. This effect holds true even when controlling for the severity of the situation and the emotional arousal felt by bystanders. In other words, no matter how bad the situation or how badly the bystanders felt, they were still less likely to help when the victim was an outgroup member. ————————————————- This all makes sense from a social psychological perspective and lines up with other research. People tend to behave better to people in their own group in general. But seeing it play out†¦ was still a little depressing. 2-Masculinity inhibits helping in emergencies: Personality does predict the bystander effect. By Tice, Dianne M. ; Baumeister, Roy F. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol 49(2), Aug 1985, 420-428. Abstract Tested 4 competing hypotheses (masculinity as enhancer, femininity as enhancer, interactive, masculinity as inhibitor) regarding the potential effects of dispositional sex-role orientation on bystander intervention in emergencies. 0 undergraduates, classified on the Bem Sex-Role Inventory, participated in a simulated group discussion via headphones. One member of the group apparently had a choking fit and called for help. Highly masculine Ss were less likely to take action to help the victim than were other Ss. Femininity and actual gender had no effect on likelihood of helping. Results are interpreted according to past research evidence th at highly masculine Ss fear potential embarrassment and loss of poise, so they may be reluctant to intervene in emergencies. (27 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved) ___________________________________________________________ _____________________- 3-HELP NOW CONSENT Confidential Reporting HOME How to HELP What is †¦? Substance Use and Sexual Assault Parents Faculty – Staff Community Commitment Education Opportunities F A Qs Police Services and Legal Issues Bystanders Can Help A bystander is someone in a crowd who sees a potentially dangerous situation and makes a choice to assist or not to assist. A bystander can protect the values of safety, trust, and honor that are central to our community. The Good Samaritan – Less common than you might think. In 1968 researchers Darley & Latane conducted an experiment in which a student pretended to have a seizure and the experimenters recorded how often others stopped to help. When only one bystander was watching the scene, the student was helped 85% of the time. However, if there were five bystanders, the student was only helped 31% of the time. Does this make sense? Shouldn't having more people present increase the chances that someone will get help? Amazingly, this is not the case. We all take cues from those around us about how to act in different situations. In emergency situations, many things prohibit bystanders from intervening:  ¦If no one else is acting, it is hard to go against the crowd.  ¦People may feel that they are risking embarrassment. (What if I'm wrong and they don't need help? )  ¦They may think there is someone else in the group who is more qualified to help.  ¦They may think that the situation does not call for help since no one else is doing anything. With each person taking cues from people around them, a common result is that no action is taken. What can we do about this problem? As members of the WSU community we all have a responsibility to help each other. Avoid being a bystander! Intervene regardless of what others are doing and don't be worried about being wrong; it is better to be wrong than to have done nothing at all. 1. I am a bystander. What can I do? Be on the look-out for potentially dangerous situations. – Learn how to recognize indications of potentially dangerous situations. Here are some examples of â€Å"red flag† behaviors related to sexual assault:  ¦Inappropriate touching  ¦Suggestive remarks  ¦Testing boundaries  ¦Disregarding set boundaries Inappropriate intimacy  ¦Attempts to isolate someone  ¦Pressuring someone to drink  ¦Violent behaviors  ¦Targeting someone who is visibly impaired 2. If I were in this situation, would I want someone to help me?  ¦If a situation makes us uncomfortable, we may try to dismiss it as not being a problem. You may tell yourself that the other person will be fine, that he or s he is not as intoxicated as you think, or that the person is able to defend him/herself. This is not a solution! The person may need your help more than you think!  ¦When in doubt, TRUST YOUR GUT. Instincts are there for a reason. When a situation makes us feel uncomfortable, it is a generally a good indicator that something is not right.  ¦It is better to be wrong about the situation than do nothing. Many people feel reluctant to intervene in a situation because they are afraid of making a scene or feel as though a person would ask for help if it were needed. 3. You have the responsibility to intervene. You may be thinking:  ¦No one else is helping; it must not be a problem  ¦People who are sober don't think this is a problem, maybe I'm wrong?  ¦Jim's really responsible and he's not intervening†¦ why should I? Many people do not intervene in a potentially dangerous situation because they are looking to others for cues on how to act or they believe someone else will intervene. But IT IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY to act – as a Cougar, as a friend to all other students, and as a member of WSU’s community of trust and safety. 4. You have the skills to act!  ¦Learn effective intervention techniques!  ¦Watch out for other members of the WSU community!  ¦Come up with a plan beforehand!  ¦Talk to your friends about how they would want you to intervene if they are in an uncomfortable situation. Choose the intervention strategy that is best for the situation.  ¦Take a breath and make your move! References Berkowitz, A. Understanding the role of bystander behavior. US Department of Education's 20th Annual National Meeting on Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse and Violence Prevention in Higher Education, Arlington, VA Darley, J. M. , ; Latane, B. (1968). Bystander intervention in emergenci es: Diffusion of responsibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8, 377-383. Cialdini, R. B. (2001) Influence: Science and Practice. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn ; Bacon ————————————————- Counseling Services, PO Box 641065, Washington State University, Pullman WA 99164- 4-New York News ; Views Interactive Reporting from CUNY Graduate School of Journalism site Skip to contentHomeAboutWhat Would You Do? NYC Robbery Bystanders Fail to Help Posted on October 8, 2010 by Brendaliss Gonzalez Courtesy NYPD CompStat Unit You think you’re the only one, and then you remember, you live in New York- you’re never the only one. According to New York City Police Department reports, by September this year, 66,691 people had been victims of robbery, including assault, burglary and grand larceny. It’s amazing how many people can tell you their story of being mugged in the city, even more surprising are the stories that occurred in broad daylight, with witnesses who seemed to have pulled a disappearing act during the occurrence. Two weeks ago, a pair of robberies at ATM’s in Columbus Circle and West 23rd occurred in broad daylight, shocking each of the victims who believed they were playing it safe by going out at early hours. The report fails to mention anyone around them stopping to help. A pregnant woman was also robbed and attacked in Gramercy Park when coming home from a doctor’s appointment- any witnesses? Who knows? And let’s not forget the story in April when a homeless man lay dead for hours after being knifed to death in a heroic attempt to save a woman being robbed- witnesses and passerby’s caught on camera walking past the dead body without even calling for help. The excuse? Most assumed another already called the police. You would think that with so many people having experienced being mugged, most would readily lend a hand or just dial 911 when seeing someone else be mugged. Yet most of the time, no one even flinches. In a busy, dog-eat-dog city like New York, the attitude seems to be more of â€Å"each man for himself. † ————————————————- So, this poses a question that will require you to look deep down and really be honest. Would you stop to help someone being robbed or assaulted? Or would you leave them to fight their own fight? Besides, you don’t want to have to relive that kind of experience, putting yourself in danger – that would just be stupid, right? 5-The Bystander Effect Carol Hensell Program Manager ADHS SVPEP Phoenix, AZ October 2009 If you work in the field of violence prevention, you are probably familiar with the story of Kitty Genovese. In New York, 1964 Kitty Genovese was murdered on the street while 38 witnesses watched from their apartments and failed to intervene. Her story has become influential to the field of social psychology and has promoted the development of ideas around the psychology of helping or â€Å"bystander effect† (Latane ; Darley, 1970). The bystander effect is described as the idea that individuals are more likely to help when alone than when in the company of others (Latane ; Darley, 1970). There is a large amount of literature examining helping behaviors and trying to understand under what conditions do people decide to help others and models of the bystander effect have developed over time. The literature includes studies that examine individual and situational factors that promote or hinder pro-social bystander intervention (Banyard, Moynihan, ; Plante, 2007). Factors that have been found to affect helping behavior are group size, which accounts for the diffusion of responsibility or the idea that someone else will intervene. Perceptions and reactions to situations are negatively affected by the presence of other people. These perceptions can be either real or imagined. Other studies have found that if a group is cohesive and communication occurs, a consensus to help develops and they are more likely to intervene (Banyard, Moynihan, ; Plante, 2007). Living in a rural environment may increase the likelihood of someone intervening (Banyard, Moynihan, ; Plante, 2007). Interpersonal factors that affect if a person intervenes includes: mood, individual perceptions of the event, mood, nature of relationship to the person in need of help, and perceptions that will be able to actually help the person (Banyard, Moynihan, ; Plante, 2007). There appears to be ambiguity around intervening in several situations, especially those that are violent. Norms about what is appropriate and inappropriate behavior in particular social contexts are found in most aspects of individual’s daily lives and they also exist in the area of helping behaviors (Hart ; Miethe, 2008). Understanding these norms can facilitate a greater understanding of bystander behaviors and contribute to creation effective programs for increasing bystander awareness and behaviors in the area of sexual violence prevention. Exploring the bystander effect is important because bystander actions and reactions may affect both the risks of violence and consequences of violence for a victim. A witness or bystander may deter a crime from occurring or their intervention may help a victim if a violent attack is in progress (Hart ; Miethe, 2008). Many people believe that violent crimes occur in secluded places out of the site of others. However, many crimes are committed in the presence of a social audience (Hart ; Miethe, 2008). According to a National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) completed in the 1990’s, bystanders were present in approximately 70% of assaults, 52% of robberies, and 29% of rapes and sexual assault (Planty, 2002 as cited in Hart ; Miethe, 2008). ————————————————- When faced with a potentially dangerous situation, bystanders have choices. They can choose to do nothing, provide indirect support (calling police or others to help), or directly intervene. 6 ————————————————- RemNot So Innocent Bystanders ———————————————— By Sara on March 11, 2010 3:38 PM | 1 Comment | 0 TrackBacks Should bystanders of crime be convicted? There is almost always something t hat a bystander can do to help stop crime against another human. If the criminal is waving a weapon around, it is understandable that not many bystanders would step up to the plate. However, there have been many cases lately that have shown how little bystanders do to help a person in need, when they are fully able to. Some of these bystanders actually JOIN the perpetrator. The links I have posted here show video of a woman being beaten in a subway, with subway officers there. The officers say that it is not their job to step in, and they called for reinforcement. Whoever said that stepping in is not permitting was obviously not there, and did not see how important it is that they DO step in. The second video is a news report of a high school girl who was gang raped outside of her homecoming dance. People watched and jeered, and some who had just been walking by joined in to rape her. Some even recorded the event on their cell-phone cameras. But no one helped these victims. Last semester I took Social Psychology and learned about the Kitty Genovese case. This woman was killed outside of her apartment complex as her neighbors watched and listened. They were given ample time to go out and help her or call for police after the killer had left. No one did anything. This is known as the bystander effect, which is sometimes caused by diffusion of responsibility. Bystanders think, â€Å"Someone else will surely help, someone else has probably already done something, yea, I don't have to do anything. † But often no one helps! This cannot be used as an excuse. These people are almost as guilty as the perpetrator and should be convicted too. Tags:Bystander,bystander effect,diffusion of responsibilty,Kitty Genovese,Social PsychologyNo TrackBacksember, when people intervene for the good of others, it creates a safer community. 7- Don't Just Stand There – Do Something A community where people intervene for the good of others is a safer community. â€Å"The Bystander Effect† Forty years ago, Kitty Genovese was attacked and murdered outside her New York City apartment building. Thirty-eight people heard her calls for help s they watched from behind their apartment windows. The attack lasted more than half an hour. After it was over, someone called the police, who arrived within two minutes. That 1964 incident became a textbook case. Why did so many witnesses fail to act? Phoning the police would involve no risk, and likely would have saved Ms. Genovese's life. Social psychologists Latane and Darley 1 suggested reasons such as diffusion of responsibility or failure to recognize the true significance of the incident. They concluded that the more people witness an event, the less likely each individual is to intervene. This became known as the Bystander Effect. When a violent incident or emergency occurs, the Bystander Effect is not a mere academic concept. In an unpublicized case last summer, seven young men robbed and knifed the 16-year old nephew of a Canada Safety Council staff member, who happened to be walking through a downtown park in a major Canadian city. No one helped the victim or called the police. If the attackers had been caught, they could have faced criminal charges instead of likely going on to commit more crimes. Someone in the crowd must have had a cell phone. Why didn't anyone at least call the police? Numerous incidents like this happen in communities across Canada. Police estimate that only one out of every 10 swarmings is reported. The victims, often teenagers, are left scarred and traumatized for life. Such attacks lead many Canadians to fear their communities are unsafe. This fear only makes matters worse by creating abandoned, dangerous streets. It's not that Canadians don't act when they see an urgent situation. There are countless examples of successful intervention, including people who have risked their life to save a stranger. Nonetheless, police and community safety leaders would like to see more bystander involvement. Simply by reporting an urgent situation, a witness can prevent it from becoming more serious. Everyone Can Help How can the power of bystanders be harnessed in the interest of public safety? Several factors can encourage people to help strangers in distress. When a victim makes it very clear help is needed, people are more likely to intervene. Don't expect bystanders to figure out you're in trouble. Make sure they know. For example, look directly at someone in the crowd and ask for help. Perceived ability to help and perceived risk also determine whether or not a bystander will help. For example, the ubiquitous cell phone empowers users to call for help from almost anywhere, immediately and with little or no risk. Close to six million emergency calls are placed from mobile phones in Canada each year – about half of all calls to emergency numbers. Every day, thousands of Canadians use mobile phones to call for help when they see a crash, a crime in progress or a life-threatening medical emergency. Police urge witnesses of crimes to be observant and to call 9-1-1 as quickly as possible. Give a good description of the perpetrators, where they came from and where they go after the incident. In 1993, two-year-old James Bulger was murdered in the UK by two older children. Ironically, 38 witnesses saw the toddler being led away against his will by two older boys. UK researchers looked at the role of bystanders in the tragedy. Dr. Mark Levine2 found that they did not intervene because they thought the three boys were brothers and considered â€Å"family† a private space. After examining other instances of bystander intervention and non-intervention, Dr. Levine concluded that members of a group take responsibility for the safety of others they see as belonging to the same group — and that the sense of group membership can be broadened. All Canadians must do their part to ensure we continue to live in a safe and civilized society. When you see someone in trouble just think — if you were that person, what would you want passers-by to do? 9-1-1 Tips for Mobile Phone Users Calls to 9-1-1 are free of charge. Do not preprogram 9-1-1 into your phone's speed-dial function. Dial 9-1-1 only when the safety of people or property is at risk (e. . a fire, crime in progress or medical emergency). Provide your 10-digit phone number so the operator can call you back. Give your precise location or the location of the emergency. Describe the emergency clearly. Stay on the line until the operator tells you to hang up. Then, leave your phone turned on in case the operator calls back. 1 Latane, Bibb ; Darley, John M. (1968). Group inhibitio n of bystander intervention in emergencies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 10(3), 215-221. 2Levine, Mark (2002). Walk On By? Relational Justice Bulletin (Issue 16, Nov 2002) Safety Canada January 2004 Safety Canada January 2004 ————————————————- Canada's Silent Tragedy 8- AP PSYCHOLOGY NILAND Chapter 13 – Social Psychology Page 1 of 5 When Will People Help in a Crisis? John M. Darley and Bibb Latane Most of America lives in cities, and it is one of the major tragedies of these times that our cities are in deep trouble. In small towns throughout the country, people still leave their houses unlocked and the keys in their cars when they park. No one living in a rural community would dream of stealing from someone else, because everyone knows everyone. Who wants to steal from people he knows? And if you stole a friends car, where could you drive it in a small community that it wouldn't instantly be recognized? When everyone knows everyone, complex social systems are not needed to help alleviate those disasters that strike-the fire and police departments are staffed chiefly by volunteers (who never go on strike), and the welfare department consists of charitable neighbors rather than squads o f social workers. Cities are supposed to be collections of small towns, but in at least one important sense, they are not: in a rural community, everyone sees the (often rather crude) machinery of government and feels that it is available to him. In large cities, this machinery is mostly invisible, hidden away in inaccessible Kafkaesque corners. Involvement in local affairs is almost forced on the small-town citizen; the apartment dweller in New York withdraws into his own little world not so much because he wants to as because he has no ready means o f participating actively in the life o f his city even if he wants to. And, as John M. Darley and Bibb Latane point out, withdrawal from and lack of concern about one's fellow citizens can become a terrible habit. Kitty Genovese is set upon by a maniac as she returns home from work at 3 A. m. Thirty-eight of her neighbors in Kew Gardens come to their windows when she cries out in terror; none comes to her assistance even though her stalker takes over half an hour to murder her. No one even so much as calls the police. She dies. Andrew Mormille is stabbed in the stomach as he rides the A train home to Manhattan. Eleven other riders watch the seventeen-year-old boy as he bleeds to death; none comes to his assistance even though his attackers have left the car. He dies. An eighteen-year-old switchboard operator, alone in her office is the Bronx, is raped and beaten. Escaping momentarily, she runs naked and bleeding to the street, screaming for help. A crowd of forty passerby gathers and watches as, in broad daylight, the rapist tries to drag her lack upstairs; no one interferes. Finally two policemen happen by and arrest her assailant. Eleanor Bradley trips and breaks her leg while shopping on Fifth Avenue. Dazed and in shock, she calls for help, but the hurrying stream of executives and shoppers simply parts and flows past. After forty minutes a taxi driver helps her to a doctor. The shocking thing about these cases is that so many people failed to respond. If only one or two had ignored the victim, we might be able to understand their inaction. But when thirty-eight people, or eleven people, or hundreds of people fail to help, we become disturbed. Actually, this fact that shocks us so much is itself the clue to understanding these cases. Although it seems obvious that the more people who watch a victim in distress, the more likely someone will help, what really happens is exactly the opposite. If each member of a group of bystanders is aware that other people are also present, he will be less likely to notice the emergency, less likely to decide that it is an emergency, and less likely to act even if he thinks there is an emergency. This is a surprising assertion-what we are saying is that the victim may actually be less likely to get help, the more people who watch his distress and are available to help. We shall discuss in detail the process through which an individual bystander must go in order to intervene, and we shall present the results of some experiments designed to show the effects of the number of onlookers on the likelihood of intervention. Since we started research on bystander responses to emergencies, we have heard many explanations for the lack of intervention. â€Å"I would assign this to the effect of the megapolis in which we live, which makes closeness very difficult and leads to the alienation of the individual from the group,† contributed a psychoanalyst. A disaster syndrome,† explained a sociologist, â€Å"that shook the sense of safety and sureness of the individuals involved and caused psychological withdrawal from the event by ignoring it. † â€Å"Apathy,† claimed others. â€Å"Indifference. † â€Å"The gratification of unconscious sadistic impulses. † â€Å"Lack of concern for our fellow men. † â€Å"The Cold Society. † All of these analyses of the person who fails to help share one characteristic; they set the indifferent witness apart from the rest of us as a different kind of person. Certainly not one of us who reads about these incidents in horror is apathetic, alienated, or depersonalized. Certainly not AP PSYCHOLOGY NILAND Chapter 13 – Social Psychology Page 2 of 5 one of us enjoys gratifying his sadistic impulses by watching others suffer. These terrifying cases in which people fail to help others certainly have no personal implications for us. That is, we might decide not to ride subways anymore, or that New York isn't even â€Å"a nice place to visit,† or â€Å"there ought to be a law† against apathy, but we need not feel guilty, or reexamine ourselves. Looking more closely at published descriptions of the behavior of witnesses to these incidents, the people involved begin to look a little less inhuman and a lot more like the rest of us. Although it is unquestionably true that the witnesses in the incidents above did nothing to save the victims, apathy, indifference, and unconcern are not entirely accurate descriptions of their reactions. The thirty-eight witnesses of Kitty Genovese's murder did not merely look at the scene once and then ignore it. They continued to stare out of their windows at what was going on. Caught, fascinated, distressed, unwilling to act but unable to turn away, their behavior was neither helpful nor heroic; but it was not indifferent or apathetic. Actually, it was like crowd behavior in many other emergency situations. Car accidents, drownings, fires, and attempted suicides all attract substantial numbers of people who watch the drama in helpless fascination without getting directly involved in the action. Are these people alienated and indifferent? Are the rest of us? Obviously not. Why, then, don't we act? The bystander to an emergency has to make a series of decisions about what is happening and what he will do about it. The consequences of these decisions will determine his actions. There are three things he must do if he is to intervene: notice that something is happening, interpret that event as an emergency, and decide that he has personal responsibility for intervention. If he fails to notice the event, if he decides that it is not an emergency, or if he concludes that he is not personally responsible for acting, he will leave the victim unhelped. This state of affairs is shown graphically as a â€Å"decision tree. Only one path through this decision tree leads to intervention; all others lead to a failure to help. As we shall show, at each fork of the path in the decision tree, the presence of other bystanders may lead a person down the branch of not helping. Noticing: The First Step Suppose that an emergency is actually taking place; a middle-aged man has a heart attack. He st ops short, clutches his chest, and staggers to the nearest building wall, where he slowly slumps to the sidewalk in a sitting position. What is the likelihood that a passerby will come to his assistance? First, the bystander has to notice that something is happening. The external event has to break into his thinking and intrude itself on his conscious mind. He must tear himself away from his private thoughts and pay attention to this unusual event. But Americans consider it bad manners to look too closely at other people in public. We are taught to respect the privacy of others, and when among strangers, we do this by closing our ears and avoiding staring at others-we are embarrassed if caught doing otherwise. In a crowd, then, each person is less likely to notice the first sign of a potential emergency than when alone. Experimental evidence corroborates this everyday observation. Darley and Latane asked college students to an interview about their reactions to urban living. As the students waited to see the interviewer, either by themselves or with two other students, they filled out a preliminary questionnaire. Solitary students often glanced idly about the room while filling out their questionnaires; those in groups, to avoid seeming rudely inquisitive, kept their eyes on their own papers. As part of the study, we staged an emergency: smoke was released into the waiting room through a vent. Twothirds of the subjects who were alone when the smoke appeared noticed it immediately, but only a quarter of the subjects waiting in groups saw it as quickly. Even after the room had completely filled with smoke one subject from a group of three finally looked up and exclaimed, â€Å"God! I must be smoking too much† Although eventually all the subjects did become aware of the smoke, this study indicates that the more people present, the slower an individual may be to perceive that an emergency does exist and the more likely he is not to see it at all. Once an event is noticed, an onlooker must decide whether or not it is truly an emergency. Emergencies are not always clearly labeled as such; smoke pouring from a building or into a waiting room may be caused by a fire, or it may merely indicate a leak in a steam pipe. Screams -in the street may signal an assault or a family quarrel. A man lying in a doorway may be having a coronary, suffering from diabetic coma, or he may simply be sleeping off a drunken night. And in any unusual situation, Candid Camera may be watching. A person trying to decide whether or not a given situation is an emergency often refers to the reactions of those around him; he looks at them to see how he should react himself. If everyone else is calm and indifferent, he will tend to remain calm and indifferent; if everyone else is reacting strongly, he will become aroused. This tendency is not merely slavish conformity; ordinarily we derive much valuable information about new situations from how others around us behave. It's a rare traveler who, in picking a roadside restaurant, chooses to stop at one with no cars in the parking lot. AP PSYCHOLOGY NILAND Chapter 13 – Social Psychology Page 3 of 5 But occasionally the reactions of others provide false information. The studied nonchalance of patients in a dentist's waiting room is a poor indication of the pain awaiting them. In general, it is considered embarrassing to look overly concerned, to seem flustered, to â€Å"lose your cool† in public. When we are not alone, most of us try to seem less anxious than we really are. In a potentially dangerous situation, then, everyone present will appear more unconcerned than he is in fact. Looking at the apparent impassivity and lack of reaction of the others, each person is led to believe that nothing really is wrong. Meanwhile the danger may be mounting, to the point where a single person, uninfluenced by the seeming calm of others, would react. A crowd can thus force inaction on its members by implying, through its passivity and apparent indifference, that an event is not an emergency. Any individual in such a crowd is uncomfortably aware that he'll look like a fool if he behaves as though it were-and in these circumstances, until someone acts, no one acts. In the smoke-filled-room study, the smoke trickling from the wall constituted an ambiguous but potentially dangerous situation. How did the presence of other people affect a person's response to the situation? Typically, those who were in the waiting room by themselves noticed the smoke at once, gave a slight startle reaction, hesitated, got up and went over to investigate the smoke, hesitated again, and then left the room to find somebody to tell about the smoke. No one showed any signs of panic, but over three-quarters of these people were concerned enough to report the smoke. Others went through an identical experience but in groups of three strangers. Their behavior was radically different. Typically, once someone noticed the smoke, he would look at the other people, see them doing nothing, shrug his shoulders, and then go back to his questionnaire, casting covert glances first at the smoke and then at the others. From these three-person groups, only three out of twenty-four people reported the smoke. The inhibiting effect of the group was so strong that the other twenty-one were willing to sit in a room filled with smoke rather than make themselves conspicuous by reacting with alarm and concern-this despite the fact that after three or four minutes the tmosphere in the waiting room grew most unpleasant. Even though they coughed, rubbed their eyes, tried to wave the smoke away, and opened the window, they apparently were unable to bring themselves to leave. These dramatic differences between the behavior of people alone and those in a group indicate that the group imposed a definition of the situation upon its members that inhibited action. â€Å"A leak in the air cond itioning,† said one person when we asked him what he thought caused the smoke. â€Å"Must be chemistry labs in the building. † â€Å"Steam pipes. â€Å"Truth gas to make us give true answers on the questionnaire,† reported the more imaginative. There were many explanations for the smoke, but they all had one thing in common: they did not mention the word fire. In defining the situation as a non-emergency, people explained to themselves why the other observers did not leave the room; they also removed any reason for action themselves. The other members of the group acted as non-responsive models for each person-and as an audience for any â€Å"inappropriate† action he might consider. In such a situation it is all too easy to do nothing. The results of this study clearly and strongly support the predictions. But are they general? Would the same effect show up with other emergencies, or is it limited to situations like the smoke study involving danger to the self as well as to others-or to situations in which there's no clearly defined â€Å"victim†? It may be that our college-age male subjects played â€Å"chicken† with one another to see who would lose face by first fleeing the room. It may be that groups were less likely to respond because no particular person was in danger. To see how generalize these results were, Latane and Judith Rodin set up a second experiment, in which the emergency would cause no danger-for the bystander, and in which a specific person was in trouble. Subjects were paid $50 to participate in a survey of game and puzzle preferences conducted at Columbia by the Consumer Testing Bureau (CTB). An attractive young woman, the market-research representative, met them at the door and took them to the testing room. On the way, they passed the CTB office and through its open door they could see filing cabinets and a desk nd bookcases piled high with papers. They entered the adjacent testing room, which contained a table and chairs and a variety of games, where they were given a preliminary background information and game preference questionnaire to fill out. The representative told subjects that she would be working next door in her office for about ten minutes while they completed the questionnaires, and left by opening the collapsible cu rtain that divided the two rooms. She made sure the subjects knew that the Curtain was unlocked, easily opened, and a means of entry to her office. The representative stayed in her office, shuffling papers, opening drawers, and making enough noise to remind the subjects of her presence. Four minutes after leaving the testing area, she turned on a high-fidelity stereophonic tape recorder. AP PSYCHOLOGY NILAND Chapter 13 – Social Psychology Page 4 of 5 If the subject listened carefully, he heard the representative climb up on a chair to reach for a stack of papers on the bookcase. Even if he were not listening carefully, he heard a loud crash and a scream as the chair collapsed and she fell to the floor. â€Å"Oh, my God, my foot . . . I . . . I . . . can't move it. Oh . . . my ankle,† the representative moaned. â€Å"I . . . can't get this . . . thing . . . off me. † She cried and moaned for about a minute longer, but the cries gradually got more subdued and controlled. Finally she muttered something about getting outside, knocked over the chair as she pulled herself up, and thumped to the door, closing it be hind her as she left. This drama lasted about two minutes. Some people were alone in the waiting room when the â€Å"accident† occurred. Some 70 percent of them offered to help the victim before she left the room. Many came through the curtain to offer their assistance, others simply called out to offer their help. Others faced the emergency in pairs. Only 20 percent of this group eight out of forty offered to help the victim. The other thirty-two remained unresponsive to her cries of distress. Again, the presence of other bystanders inhibited action. And again, the non-interveners seemed to have decided the event was not an emergency. They were unsure what had happened, but whatever it was, it was not too serious. â€Å"A mild sprain,† some said. I didn't want to embarrass her. † In a â€Å"real† emergency, they assured us, they would be among the first to help the victim. Perhaps they would be, but in this situation they did not help, because for them the event was not defined as an emergency. Again, solitary people exposed to a potential emergency reacted more frequently than those exposed in groups. We found that the action-inhibiting effects of other bystanders works i n two different situations, one of which involves risking danger to oneself and the other of which involves helping an injured woman. The result seems sufficiently general so that we may assume it operates to inhibit helping in real-life emergencies. Diffused Responsibility Even if a person has noticed an event and defined it as an emergency, the fact that he knows that other bystanders also witnessed it may still make him less likely to intervene. Others may inhibit intervention because they make a person feel that his responsibility is diffused and diluted. Each soldier in a firing squad feels less personally responsible for killing a man than he would if he alone pulled the trigger. Likewise, any person in a crowd of onlookers may feel less responsibility for saving a life than if he alone witnesses the emergency. If your car breaks down on a busy highway, hundreds of drivers whiz by without anyone's stopping to help; if you are stuck on a nearly deserted country road, whoever passes you first is apt to stop. The personal responsibility that a passerby feels makes the difference. A driver on a lonely road knows that if he doesn't stop to help, the person will not get help; the same individual on the crowded highway feels he personally is no more responsible than any of a hundred other drivers. So even though an event clearly is an emergency, any person in a group who sees an emergency may feel less responsible, simply because any other bystander is equally responsible for helping. This diffusion of responsibility might have occurred in the famous Kitty Genovese case, in which the observers were walled off from each other in separate apartments. From the silhouettes against windows, all that could be told was that others were also watching. . To test this line of thought, Darley and Latane simulated an emergency in a setting designed to resemble Kitty Genovese's murder. People overheard a victim calling for help. Some knew they were the only one to hear the victim's cries, the rest believed other people were aware of the victim's distress. As with the Genovese witnesses, subjects could not see each other or know what others were doing. The kind of direct group inhibition found in the smoke and fallen-woman studies could not operate. For the simulation, we recruited male and female students at New York University to participate in a group discussion. Each student was put in an individual room equipped with a set of headphones and a microphone and told to listen for instructions over the headphones. The instructions informed the participant that the discussion was to consider personal problems of the normal college student in a high-pressure urban university. It was explained that, because participants might feel embarrassed about discussing personal problems publicly, several precautions had been taken to, ensure their anonymity: they would not meet the other people face to face, and the experimenter would not listen to the initial discussion but would only ask for their reactions later. Each person was to talk in turn. The first to talk reported that he found it difficult to adjust to New York and his studies. Then, very hesitantly and with obvious embarrassment, he mentioned that he was prone to nervous seizures, similar to but not really the same as epilepsy. These occurred particularly when he was under the stresses of studying and being graded. Other people then discussed their own problems in turn. The number of other people in the discussion varied. But whatever the perceived size of the group two, three, or six people-only the subject was actually present; the others, as well as the instructions and the speeches of the victim-to-be, were present only on a prerecorded tape. When it again was the first person's turn to talk, after a few comments he launched into the following AP PSYCHOLOGY NILAND Chapter 13 – Social Psychology Page 5 of 5 performance, getting increasingly louder with increasing speech difficulties: I can see a lot of er of er how other people's problems are similar to mine ecause er er I mean er it's er I mean some of the er same er kinds of things that I have and an er I'm sure that every everybody has and er er I mean er they're not er e-easy to handle sometimes and er I er er be upsetting like er er and er I er um I think I I need er if if could er er somebody er er er er er give me give me a little er give me a little help here because er I er I'm er h-h-having a a a a a real problem er right now and I er if somebody could help me out it would it would er er s-s-sure be sure be good be . . because er there er er a cause I er uh I've got a a one of the er seiz-er er things coming on and and and I c-could really er use er some h-help s-so if somebody would er give me a little h-help uh er-er-er-er-er c-could somebody er er help er uh uh uh [choking sounds] . . . I'm gonna die er er I'm . . . gonna . . .. die er help er er seizure er er . . . [chokes, then quiet]. While this was going on, the experimenter waited outside the student's door to see how soon he would emerge to cope with the emergency. Rather to our surprise, some people sat through the entire fit without helping; a disproportionately large percentage of these non-responders were from the largest-size group. Some 85 percent of the people who believed themselves to be alone with the victim came out of their rooms to help, while 62 percent of the people who believed there was one other bystander did so. Of those who believed there were four other bystanders, only 31 percent reported the fit before the tape ended. The responsibility-diluting effect of other people was so strong that single individuals were more than twice as likely to report the emergency as those who thought other people also knew about it. The Moral Dilemma Felt by Those Who Do Not Respond People who failed to report the emergency showed few signs of apathy and indifference thought to characterize â€Å"unresponsive bystanders. † When the experimenter entered the room to end the situation, the subject often asked if the victim was â€Å"all right. † Many of these people showed physical signs of nervousness; they often had trembling hands and sweating palms. If anything, they seemed more emotionally aroused than did those who reported the emergency. Their emotional arousal was in sharp contrast to the behavior of the non-responding subjects in the smoke and fallen-woman studies. Those subjects were calm and unconcerned when their experiments were over. Having interpreted the events as non-emergencies, there was no reason for them to be otherwise. It was only the subjects who did not respond in the face of the clear emergency represented by the fit who felt the moral dilemma. Why, then, didn't they respond? It is our impression that non-intervening subjects had not decided not to respond. Rather, they were still in a state of indecision and conflict concerning whether to respond or not. The emotional behavior of these non-responding subjects was a sign of their continuing conflict; a conflict that other people resolved by responding. The distinction seems an academic one for the victim, since he gets no help in either case, but it is an extremely important one for understanding why bystanders fail to help. The evidence is clear, then, that the presence of other bystanders and the various ways these other bystanders affect our decision processes make a difference in how likely we are to give help in an emergency. The presence of strangers may keep us from noticing an emergency at all; group behavior may lead us to define the situation as one that does not require action; and when other people are there to share the burden of responsibility, we may feel less obligated to do something when action is required. Therefore, it will often be the case that the more people who witness his distress, the less likely it is that the victim of an emergency will get help. Thus, the stereotype of the unconcerned, depersonalized homo urbanis, blandly watching the misfortunes of others, proves inaccurate. Instead, we find a bystander to an emergency is an anguished individual in genuine doubt, concerned to do the right thing but compelled to make complex decisions under pressure of stress and fear. His reactions are shaped by the actions of others and all too frequently by their inaction. And we are that bystander. Caught up by the apparent indifference of others, we may pass by an emergency without helping or even realizing that help is needed. Aware of the influence of those around us, however, we can resist it. We can choose to see distress and step forward to relieve it.