Index Bystander intervention in school bullying situations compared 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 this is possible? that a human being watches another human being suffer at the hands of a bully and does nothing to intervene? In 1968, John Darley and his collaborators developed the famous theory of “bystander intervention,” which remains relevant today. In Darley's original article, titled 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 colleagues 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 others 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 scared to intervene or thinks that others are already doing something to resolve the situation and any interference on their part would be redundant. On the other hand, if bullying happens in front of only one person, then it is his responsibility to come to the victim's aid, but when bullying happens in front of a group of people, the responsibility is divided 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 modern situation of high school bullying? And how would Paul Gomberg, the author of “The Fallacy of Philanthropy” view the situation? Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay Robert Thornberg and his team conducted a study in two schools in the United States to develop a conceptual framework of bystander motivation to intervene in bullying situations, based on Darley's theory of bystander intervention. According to Thornberg's study, “bullying” can be defined as repetitive aggression or harassment directed toward another person, who is often helpless against 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 usually play three types of roles; reinforcements, outsiders and defenders. Reinforcers are those who support the bully's actions by directly supporting him or indirectly by doing nothing to dissuade his actions. While outsiders are those who remain uninvolved in the situation and defenders support the victim and try to dissuade or stop the bully, these are often the kids with the most empathy. There are many factors that influence bystander involvement in bullying cases. and emotional reactions are one of the main factors: according to some students, bullying could evoke different emotional reactions from bystanders, and these emotional reactions (empathy, fear of being victimized, public arousal) seemed to influence their decision-making process to intervene or not 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 whenWe know that 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 whether or not to intervene is his or her interpretation of the harm in the bullying situation. “Some students described times when bystanders chose not to intervene because the bullying was believed to cause limited harm and did not require action.” (Thornberg, 249) This suggests that before a student decides to intervene in a situation, they will weigh the pros and cons and consequences of doing so. In other words, whether or not the act of intervention is worth the risk of him also being bullied. Furthermore, social evaluation also plays an important role in determining a student's action. “While a close relationship with the victim was associated as a reason for helping, a close relationship with the bully and no relationship with the victim were discussed as a reason for not helping the victim.” (Thornberg, 250) This reflects how children often value friendship above ethical values. “It depends a bit on the person [the victim]. For example, if they don't like that person, they might laugh. But if they are their friends, then they try to help them or whatever. (Thornberg, 249) Many students choose not to help a person they don't like, even when the bullies are clearly in the wrong, because their thinking process is not yet advanced enough to evaluate whether a distorted situation is right or wrong. Let's move on to Paul Gomberg's The Fallacy of Philanthropy. According to Gomberg, philanthropy involves the combination and application of the problems considered, from disaster to our duty to help victims. This assimilation is wrong and infers the fallacy of philanthropy. The source of the philanthropists' argument can be considered wrong. The philanthropist's argument is based on the assumption that we have a duty to care about the plight of the poor. The obligation can be called philanthropic logic. The philanthropist argues that moral duty is implicit in already accepted morality. According to Peter Singer, no one should deny their obligation to help a drowning child. Singer suggests that “if it is in our power to prevent something very bad from happening, without sacrificing something of similar moral significance, we should do so.” (Gomberg, 31) Using Gomberg's drowning child analogy, the argument makes it socially unacceptable for a professor to walk past a drowning child without offering any help, so that he can avoid wetting his clothes or arriving late for class. Most people would help a drowning child because they feel obligated to help and not doing so would be morally flawed. They would save a drowning child because of the assumption and conclusion that the child's life is in danger and by simply saving the child, the threat that endangers the child's life is averted. Therefore, only when people can clearly see that there is a considerable threat to a person's life will they take appropriate action to help. However, if people do not experience a perceived threat to a person's life, they may not take appropriate steps to help, even in situations that actually require intervention such as poverty and bullying. During emergency situations, people are more compelled and obligated to help than in non-emergency situations. For example, actions to save a drowning child might be due to the fact that people are generally more likely to act in emergencies: they find emergency situations exciting. A person who finds a drowning child can take actionexcited because he finds the situation fascinating and unusual. As regards situations that seem to arouse surprise, such as cases of bullying in schools, the obligation to act disappears. This reflects the moral deficiency present in most people. Helping institutions may be misguided and may not originate from genuine reasons. The ethical culture in our society encourages us to assimilate the consequences of some problems and calamities, and if they turn out to be relevant, people are more obliged to help. It is believed that a drowning child needs concrete help. Therefore, most people are strongly forced to help. On the contrary, bullying in schools can be considered an irrelevant problem. Therefore, people are more reluctant to take action to prevent the situation from becoming more serious. According to Thornberg, the motivation for bystanders to intervene in bullying circumstances is based on how bystanders evaluate and define the situation, their action, and the social context in which the situation occurs. The extent to which bystanders perceive bullying as a threat to the life of the bullied person plays a role in influencing their intervention and helping actions. Circumstances in which bullying is believed to cause significant and harmful effects generally receive greater intervention than those considered less harmful. During the study, one student said, "I mean, if it gets out of hand, someone might go and tell the teacher, but if it's something like really nothing, then no one's going to tell anyone." No one will snitch about something small, but if it's something big, you'll say so.'' (Thornberg, 249) The research findings are very consistent with Gomberg's perspectives on the fallacy of philanthropy. In the case of a drowning child, people are forced to take action to avert the threat. However, for a child who is being bullied, people may not be as compelled to act. This is because most bystanders evaluate and perceive the situation as less harmful to the victim. It is also possible that bystanders who have not taken action see bullying as a routine phenomenon that usually does not cause significant harm. Therefore, what motivates people to act in a certain situation depends largely on their assessment of how harmful that particular situation is. As previously mentioned, the decision made by bystanders to intervene or not 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. Furthermore, bystanders' feelings of empathy can make them feel sorry for the victim and, therefore, decide to act. This argument is also shown in Thornberg's study: “My friends and I usually defend that person even if we don't like them very much. . . because I really feel sorry 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 in situations that require help. This contrasting difference in people's reactions to bullying situations and the case of the drowning child shows that truly humanity is influenced by many factors, most of which arise from the assimilation of the consequences of human problems and suffering. Gomberg's view on philanthropy, when applied to the phenomena of bystander intervention in the case of bullying, implies that the fallacy of philanthropy predominates in people's attitudes towards humanity. The action of humanity is not intrinsic because people must evaluate and consider many.