Talk:Bystander effect
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archived talk:
To November 2005
Contents |
[edit] antonym
I removed the factoid that alleged that the antonym to the bystander effect is civil courage. I think the term "bystander intervention" would be a more accurate antonym. Besides, the article on civil courage is a mess; among other problems, the article on civil courage confuses civil courage with the more general concept of courage itself. -- Minaker
[edit] Should be noted
- It should be noted that bystander effect experiments do not demonstrate that people, when in a group, are less likely to respond to an incident. Say, when alone, someone has an 80% chance of responding to the incident. Now, with one other person that they know is witnessing the incident, they have a 60% chance of being the one to respond. There is still an 84% chance that one of the two people listening will respond. There is a 36% chance that both will respond, and a 16% chance neither will respond. However, the odds that someone will respond have increased, despite the bystander effect. In the Kitty Genovese case, there might have been only a 20% chance any individual person would respond, regardless of the severity of the crime, simply because it was a large perceived group of people. This would make it a .02% chance that no one would respond, and it just happened to occur.
[edit] Feature article status
| The path to a Featured Article |
|---|
Hello, anyone who watches this page, or happens to come along, or even sees the edit summary on recent changes.
I'd like to try to make this a feature article, there is a lot that can be said on this topic. Anyone interested?
brenneman(t)(c) 01:01, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Guy walking past a fire?
- Is this really the same effect? It seems more like a conscious decision than some base part of the human psyche to me. Sophistifunk 09:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Awareness
"There is controversy over whether any of the alleged witnesses were in fact aware of the seriousness of the attack on Ms. Genovese. The claim that they were is traceable to newspaper coverage at the time of the attack which does not quote those witnesses, and many of them deny having been aware of any of the events at the time." This "minor edit" changes the meaning of the sentence...Were the witnesses aware of the incident or not? --Phelan 23:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
