Final powerpoint soc 205 socialize this


Published on

Published in: Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Our project is titled “Would you Intervene?” Essentially we wanted to observe how Oxy students would react to direct violations of social rules We were interested in this topic because… -It is a way to challenge Oxy’s morals and ethics -This is important and applicable to all students in that many students leave their belongings unattended and trust the student body -This can further be expanded to observe humanities trust in their peers
  • The Kitty Genoveses story is popularly refereed to as an example of diffusion of responsibility -The event took place in New York City in 1964  -The incident occurred when a man attacked Kitty in front of her apartment -Kitty screamed repeatedly for help as her killer had stalked her for more than half an hour and stabbed her in three separate attacks on the street in front of her apartment. -38 neighbors heard her scream, yet nobody came to Kitty's rescue. -No one even called the police. -The big question that resulted was “How do you explain the fact that no one helped her?” ….We will come back to this question later, as it relates to the experiments we enacted
  • For this project our objectives were… To observe if being by yourself versus being in a group influences your ability to help another person in a given situation To understand how diffusion of responsibility plays into everyday life To record if peoples responses were different as a result of the apparent social class of the “criminal” as seen by their clothing
  • Some of the Theories and themes that came up during our experiment were -Bystander Effect -Diffusion of Responsibility -Profiling -Social Rules And -Group Dynamics
  • -Bystander Effect- has been cited as an explanation for why no one helped kitty. According to Darley and Latane, nobody helped because they knew so many other people were watching. Specifically the bystander effect is "The idea that individuals are more likely to help when alone than when in the company of others" -Diffusion of Responsibility: states that when faced with helping someone out, a subject is more likely to help if they are alone than if they are with other people. For example, what happens when a schoolmate mistakenly drops his or her books in front of an individual vs a large group of students. The theory states that when faced with helping someone out, the subject is more likely to help retrieve the books if they are alone as opposed to with a group because the blame would not fall on a single person if they are in a group -Profiling is t he analysis of a person's specific characteristics, so as to assess or predict their capabilities in a certain sphere or to assists in identifying a particular group of people. Specifically we looked at profiling based on classism which is prejudice and/or discrimination on the basis of social class.  Includes individuals attitudes, behaviors, and appearance that contribute to valuing people based on their judged socio-economic class. -Social Rules, or social morays, are norms we all adhere to as a society. Our society has applied a series of punishments or consequences for breaking these rules. Social rules govern our daily life and are even the foundation of the laws we follow.  -Group Effect: is the influential actions, processes, and changes that occur within groups and between groups. -
  • -Essentially we set up an experiment in which on person ask a peer of group of peers to watch their belongings, including a laptop and iPod, while they leave for a moment. Another person then walks up a few minutes later and pretends to steal the belongings. We then record the responses of those who had been assigned to watch the belongings. -In doing the experiment we Purposefully attempted to have the “thief” and belongings in the view of the subjects and for the “thief” to make some attempt to be clumsy and noisy to gain the subjects’ attention. The experiment concluded when either the thief was compelled to return the objects or once the subjects began to seek help or pursue the thief. At this point we informed subjects of the experiment we were doing. -The experiments took place during daytime throughout Occidental’s campus. We did the experiments in the marketplace, the green been, the cooler, and the library. W had to use various locations to prevent surrounding people from observing the experiment and then potentially being the subjects in following experiments
  • Our independent variables were… -Asking a Group vs. Individual (with a group being define as more than 1 person) AND -The thief’s attire being defined as well dressed vs. casual -Well dressed was khakis and a polo and casual dress was sweats, a wife beater, and a baseball cap
  • This table describes our results which were split into 4 categories -The categories are: -no reaction-subject(s) did nothing -limited reaction-subject(s) looked distressed or concerned but did not intervene in any way -verbal reaction-subject(s) told the thief to stop or return objects AND -physical reaction-subject(s) pursued the thief
  • These pie charts again depict and summarize the results of our experiment by showing the reactions of the subjects to the thief stealing the objects. -Graphs one and two show that there were more stronger reactions when subjects were in a group. This difference, though, is not significant so there was no strong correlation between the individual and groups as subjects. -Graphs 3 and 4 show that there was more likely to be the strongest reactions when the thief was dressed “casually.” This is seen by the fact that there were 2 physical reaction to the casual thief (out of 4 experiments) and no physical reactions to the well dressed thief (out of 4 experiments) Graph 1 Graph 2 Graph 3 Graph 4
  • Now we would like to explain the relationship between the previously defined social theories and our experiment -Bystander Effect- In our experiment the person in distress was the person whose belonging were being stolen-the owner. The Bystander effect took place in our experiment but was not consistently the effect because ¾ of the groups intervened -Diffusion of Responsibility: when the owner asked a specific individual to watch his laptop and ipod there was no diffusion of responsibility because for that brief moment, that subject was singly responsible for the belongings. On the other hand, when the owner approached a group of individuals, addressing them as a whole, the theory states that they are less likely to react to the stealing because no one individual is temporarily responsible for all the belongings or could be pinpointed for blame.  -Profiling which took place in our experiment in that when the thief was dressed as what society labels a "thug" or "ghetto“, subjects were more likely to react strongly and intervene -Group Effect: There are 4 types of group, we used a social group which was a small groups of moderate duration and permeability characterized by moderate levels of interaction among the members over an extended period of time. For example coworkers, classmates, fraternities, sports teams. In our experiments, often one “leader” emerged to try and deter the broken norm (theft) which was in progress. If one person spoke up, then others usually joined in as they were “influenced”. On one occasion, no “leader” emerged and therefore people were “influenced” to be quiet. Usually the most vocal, dominate person is the one who speaks up. All of this was realized through “observation”.
  • Some of the reason subject gave for intervening were: -"I felt like it was my responsibility to say something because stealing is just not cool.." -"I live in a dorm where there has been a lot of theft recently so I felt I had to question him..." -"Since I was in a group I thought it was easier to speak up" -"I was confused and concerned, and I was ready to call campus security..." -"I spoke up because I was in a crowded public space so the chances of getting hurt would have been slim...“ AND -"I wouldn't want my laptop and Ipod to be stolen..."
  • Analysis and Explanation of Results -Essentially the number of experiments we did was not large enough to definitely explain how most people and groups would reacte but based on our experiments…. subjects reacted more when in a group-Some reasons for this are: -people feel safer in a group -group members or friends hold you more accountable -you could all speak up at once, not just as an individual, so have “back up” Also our experiment showed that.. 2.People are more likely to respond if the thief is dressed casually or in a way that our society characterizes as lower class, therefore showing the sad prejudice people have against lower class people, this being that they are more likely to be criminals.
  • Final powerpoint soc 205 socialize this

    1. 1. Socialize This Would You Intervene ?
    2. 2. Kitty Genoveses' Story
    3. 3. Objectives <ul><ul><li>To observe if being by yourself versus being in a group influences your ability to help another person in a given situation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>To understand how diffusion of responsibility plays into everyday life </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>To record if peoples responses were different as a result of the apparent social class of the “criminal” as seen by their clothing </li></ul></ul>
    4. 4. <ul><li>Some of theories and themes that came up during our experiment were... </li></ul><ul><li>Bystander Effect  </li></ul><ul><li>         Diffusion of Responsibility  </li></ul><ul><li>                  Profiling </li></ul><ul><li>                           Social Rules </li></ul><ul><li>Group Dynamics </li></ul>
    5. 6. Our Experiments
    6. 7. Variables
    7. 8. Results X Group 4 (casual) X Group 3 (casual) X Group 2 X Group 1 X Alone 4 (casual) X Alone 3 (casual) X Alone 2 X Alone 1 No Reaction Limited Reaction Verbal Reaction Physical Reaction
    8. 9. Graph 2 Graph 3 Graph 1 Graph 4
    9. 10. The relationship between the social theories and our experiment
    10. 11. Why the subjects intervened...
    11. 12. Analysis/Explanation of Results
    12. 13. Notes <ul><li>Chekroun, P., & Brauer, M. (2002). The bystander effect and social control behavior: </li></ul><ul><li>the effect of the presence of others on people’s reactions to norm violations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 853–867. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.126 </li></ul><ul><li>Cherry, K. (n.d.). The Bystander Effect: What is the Bystander Effect? Retrieved from </li></ul><ul><li>Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License </li></ul><ul><li>Forsyth, Donelson R. 2010. Group Dynamics: Fifth Edition. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning. </li></ul>