Bystander Behavior And Discourse Analysis

Two major approaches when studying bystander behaviour are discourse analysis and experimental method. Latané & Darley and Levine have contributed to psychological study into this matter, using these different methods of experimentation to reach conclusions regarding the bystander effect. This essay will begin by describing the different uses of evidence in both methods. Furthermore, it will discuss what these methods have in common, for they equally attempt to understand why bystander behaviour occurs, and the reasons that they differ. It will examine why each method is a useful way of analysing human behaviour, and the similarities in the limited demographics used by these particular psychologists.

The bystander effect is an effect whereby,

Both Latané and Darley 's use of the experimental method and Levine 's use of discourse analysis aim to gain insight as to why the bystander phenomenon occurs, and are interested in why humans seemingly go against their better nature and choose not to help others. (The Open University, 2015a) Latané and Darley 's(1970) cited in Byford, (2014, p.229) experiment consisted of a lab-controlled test and used their quantitative results in order to understand the bystander effect and concluded that people are significantly less likely to respond when in the “passive confederate condition” and most likely to respond when in the “alone condition.” Levine 's (1999) cited in Byford (2014, p.236) viewing of qualitative evidence meant that he was able to determine factors he felt led to the explanation of this effect, such as the examination of the Bulger case and others ' feeling as though they should not become involved in family matters. Both of these experiments were conducted in order to more clearly understand Bystander behaviour and the reasons

Another similarity between these two approaches is the selection of evidence or participants that is used. Latané and Darley 's(1970) cited in Byford, (2014, p.229) involved doing experiments on mostly psychology undergraduates. Levine (1999) cited in Byford (2014, p.235) used those who had been witness to the James Bulger case. In each of these approaches, the participants could arguably have not been a large enough demographic to gain adequate insight into the larger public and it 's behaviour. They certainly could have all been similar types of people. Psychology graduates all have an interest in the same field of study, and a number of the witnesses to the Bulger case could have been from a similar area. Both of these studies were relatively small studies only including a small number and potentially type of person. Thus, they can only begin to start answering these questions, however they are equally adequate starting points to ask questions and receive enough evidence for larger