Table of Contents Bystander Intervention in School Bullying Situations school In relation to the drowning child analogy There are many factors that influence bystander involvement in bullying cases and emotional reactions is one of the main factors: Bystander intervention in Bullying Situations at School Compared to the Drowning Child Analogy Have you ever wondered why it is possible for a human being to watch another human being suffer at the hands of a bully without doing anything to intervene? In 1968, John Darley and his associates developed the famous theory of “bystander intervention,” which remains relevant to this day. In Darley's original article, entitled Bystander Intervention In Emergencies: Diffusion of Responsibility, he describes how the bystander effect occurs when the presence of others discourages an individual from intervening in an emergency situation. Darley and his peers attributed this phenomenon to perceived diffusion of responsibility (bystanders are more likely to intervene if there are few or no other witnesses) and social influence (bystanders observe and evaluate the behavior of other people around them to determine how to act). The more bystanders there are, the less likely it is that any of them will intervene in the situation. This happens because each individual is too afraid to intervene or thinks that others are already doing something to remedy the situation and that any interference on their part would be redundant. On the other hand, if the harassment occurs in front of one person, it is their responsibility to help the victim, but when the harassment occurs in front of a group of people, the responsibility is shared equally among them. Bystander intervention theory is undoubtedly one of the monumental concepts in the field of psychology, but how does it apply to the current situation of bullying in secondary schools? And what would be the view of Paul Gomberg, the author of “The Fallacy of Philanthropy,” on the situation? Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why violent video games should not be banned”?Get the original essay Robert Thornberg and his team conducted a study in two schools in the United States to propose a conceptual framework for motivating bystanders to intervene in harassment situations, based on Darley's theory of bystander intervention. According to Thornberg's article, "bullying" can be referred to as repetitive assault or harassment directed at another person, who is often helpless in the face of the bullies. When bullying occurs, there are many factors and variables in the environment that encourage or discourage the bully. (247-248) In schools, where bullying is common, bystanders typically play three types of roles: reinforcers, outsiders, and defenders. Reinforcers are those who support the bully's actions, either directly by supporting them or indirectly by doing nothing to deter their actions. While outsiders are those not involved in the situation and advocates support the victim and attempt to dissuade or stop the bully, it is often children who show the most empathy. Many factors influence bystander involvement in bullying. and emotional reactions are one of the main factors: according to some students, bullying could elicit different emotional reactions from spectators, and these reactionsEmotional emotions (empathy, fear of being a victim, public enthusiasm) seemed to influence their decision-making process to intervene or not to intervene. - intervene (Thornberg, 249). This statement shows a flaw in human ethics, how we always wait for the signal to act based on external factors, even when we know intervening is the right thing to do. This also supports Darley's theory of social influence. Another important external factor that influences a student's decision to intervene is their own interpretation of the harm caused by the bullying situation. “Some students described times when bystanders chose not to intervene because it was believed that bullying caused limited harm and did not require action.” (Thornberg, 249) This suggests that before a student decides to intervene in a situation, he or she would weigh the pros and cons as well as the consequences of their action. In other words, whether or not the act of intervention would be worth the risk of being intimidated as well. Additionally, social evaluation also plays an important role in determining a student's action. “While a close relationship with the victim was associated as a motive for helping, a close relationship with the bully and no relationship with the victim were considered motives for not helping the victim.” (Thornberg, 250) This reflects how children often value friendship above ethical values. “It depends a little on the person [the victim]. For example, if they don't like the person, they might laugh. But if they're friends with them, then they're trying to help them or whatever. (Thornberg, 249) Many students choose not to help someone they don't like, even when the bullies are clearly in the wrong, because their thought process is not yet advanced enough to the point of evaluating the good or bad of a biased situation. Now let's move on to The Fallacy of Philanthropy by Paul Gomberg. According to Gomberg, philanthropy involves the combination and application of issues considered from a calamity to our duty to help victims. Such an assimilation is erroneous and implies the fallacious nature of philanthropy. The source of the philanthropists' argument can be considered erroneous. The philanthropist's argument rests on the proposition that we have a duty to care for the plight of the poor. This obligation can be described as philanthropic logic. The philanthropist argues that moral duty is implicit in already accepted morality. According to Peter Singer, no one should deny the obligation to help a drowning child. Singer suggests that "if it is in our power to prevent something very bad from happening, without sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we should do it." (Gomberg, 31) Using Gomberg's analogy of the drowning child, the argument makes it socially unacceptable for a teacher to walk past a drowning child without offering any help, so that he can avoid soaking your clothes or being late for class. Most people would help a drowning child because they feel obligated to help and not doing so would result in a moral failing. They would save a drowning child because they assume and conclude that the child's life is in danger and that by simply saving the child the life-threatening threat is averted. So, only when people clearly see that there is a significant threat to a person's life will they take appropriate action to help. However, if people do not perceive a threat to their lives, they may not take appropriate action to protect them.help, even in situations that actually require some intervention, like poverty and bullying. In emergency situations, people are more obligated to help than in non-emergency situations. For example, actions to save a drowning child could be because people are generally more likely to act in emergencies – they find emergencies exciting. A person who discovers a child drowning may act excited because they find the situation fascinating and unusual. As for situations that seem to arouse astonishment, such as cases of school bullying, the obligation to act fades. This reflects the moral deficit present in most people. The institutions that are supposed to help may be misguided and have no real reasons. The ethical culture of our society encourages us to assimilate the consequences of certain problems and calamities, and if they prove relevant, people are more obliged to help. A drowning child is considered to really need help. So, most people have a strong obligation to help. On the other hand, school bullying can be considered a problem without consequences. People are therefore more reluctant to act to prevent the situation from getting worse. According to Thornberg, bystanders' motivation to intervene in bullying circumstances depends on how they evaluate and define the situation, their capacity for action, and the social context in which the situation fits. The extent to which bystanders perceive bullying as a threat to the lives of those being bullied plays a role in influencing their intervention and assistance actions. Circumstances in which bullying is perceived to cause significant and harmful effects generally receive more intervention than those considered to cause less harm. During the study, one student mentioned, "I mean, if it's out of control, someone could go tell the teacher, but if it's really nothing, then no one will tell anyone." No one will be a snitch for something small, but if it's something big, you'll say so. » (Thornberg, 249) The research results are entirely consistent with Gomberg's perspectives on philanthropic error. For a drowning child, people are forced to act to avert the threat. However, in the case of a child being bullied, people may not be as compelled to act. Indeed, most spectators evaluate and perceive the situation as being less harmful to the victim. It is also possible that bystanders who have not taken action see harassment as a common phenomenon that does not usually cause significant harm. Therefore, what motivates people to act in a certain situation depends largely on their assessment of how dangerous that particular situation is. As mentioned previously, the decision by bystanders whether or not to intervene in bullying situations was largely influenced by their emotional reactions to the event. According to Gomberg, emotional arousal strongly influenced bystanders to intervene in the drowning situation. Additionally, bystanders' feelings of empathy may lead them to feel sorry for the victim and, therefore, decide to take action. This argument is also demonstrated in Thornberg's study: “My friends and I usually defend this person even if we don't like them very much. . . because I feel really bad for them. » (Thornberg, 249). Therefore, it can be said that emotional reactions, rather than ethical or moral intuitions, motivate people to act in different ways..