China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Social Psychology
Published in Mohamed Ahmed Abd El-Hay, Understanding Psychology for Medicine and Nursing, 2019
There is no absolute way to increase helping behavior, but a lot of steps derived from the theories explaining this behavior may pave this way, these include:Increase models of helpfulness e.g., positive models in the media.Reduce ambiguity and make the need for help more obvious.Reduce concerns about competence to help, and reduce uncertainties of obstacles.Teach moral inclusion: reduce the distinction of people as inside/outside our bounds of moral or ethical concern.Educate about bystander indifference: this could reduce pluralistic ignorance and audience inhibitions, and increase personal responsibility and reduce diffusion of responsibility, e.g., reduce anonymity.
Psychology and Human Development EMIs
Published in Michael Reilly, Bangaru Raju, Extended Matching Items for the MRCPsych Part 1, 2018
Arousal–cost–reward model.Biological altruism.Diffusion of responsibility.Empathy-altruism hypothesis.Genuine ambiguity.Negative-state relief model.Pluralistic ignorance.Psychological altruism.Reciprocity norm.Universal egoism.
Paper 2: Answers
Published in Sabina Burza, Beata Mougey, Srinivas Perecherla, Nakul Talwar, Practice Examination Papers for the MRCPsych Part 1, 2018
Sabina Burza, Beata Mougey, Srinivas Perecherla, Nakul Talwar
True. Pluralistic ignorance is the misconception shared by bystanders that the situation is ‘safe’, due to everyone trying to conceal signs of anxiety. It is a form of inhibition produced by the presence of others. (1: p.435)
Pluralistic Ignorance of Physical Attractiveness in the Gay Male Community
Published in Journal of Homosexuality, 2019
Daniel E. Flave-Novak, Jill M. Coleman
Pluralistic ignorance is a phenomenon in which a majority of individuals privately reject a social norm but assume incorrectly that most others accept it (Katz & Allport, 1931). More simply, as Krech and Crutchfield (1948) stated, it is a situation in which “no one believes, but everyone thinks that everyone believes” (p. 389). Evidence for the existence of pluralistic ignorance as a common social psychological phenomenon has been robust. Katz and Allport (1931) noticed a tendency among students to privately accept allowing minorities into previously segregated housing, while concurrently believing that their peers would not approve of such a change in policy. Latané and Darley (1968) found that individuals in an emergency situation were less likely to report the emergency if others around them did not react. The individuals privately feared that an emergency was occurring, but they assumed that the others around them had no fear, so they remained inactive. Klofas and Toch (1982) found that prison guards overestimated the cynicism of their fellow corrections officers and underestimated their coworkers’ professionalism, even though the actual incidence of cynical and unprofessional guards represented a minority. Several studies (Hines, Saris, & Throckmorton-Belzer, 2002; Prentice & Miller, 1993) found that a majority of college students believed they were more uncomfortable with campus drinking than were their fellow students. Bowen and Bourgeois (2001) reported that a majority of college students believed that others had attitudes that were more intolerant toward lesbian, gay, and bisexual students than their own.
Why are There STILL No Gay Professional Association Football Players in Men’s Major Leagues? Revisiting the Views of Football Fans in the United Kingdom
Published in Journal of Homosexuality, 2023
Ellis Cashmore, Kevin Dixon, Jamie Cleland
It is tempting to redesign Floyd Allport’s concept pluralistic ignorance in a way that helps us understand psychological process at work in football crowds. Allport advanced the term in the 1920s, his effort being to explain how members of a group can privately hold beliefs and attitudes at variance with what they regard as prevailing norms. They adopt behavior that enables them to fit in. In the same way, as crowds collectively agreed to admire the Emperor’s New Clothes, even though they saw only the naked potentate, people keep their private thoughts to themselves (see Bjerring, Hansen, & Pedersen, 2014).
The escalation dating abuse workshop for college students: Results of an efficacy RCT
Published in Journal of American College Health, 2018
Emily F. Rothman, Jennifer Paruk, Victoria Banyard
The Escalation workshop is designed to educate participants about DA and promote bystander intervention. “Bystander intervention” is not defined as getting directly involved when one sees or overhears an altercation between a dating couple, but as taking any action that in some way undermines community acceptance of violence, bolsters communal, shared responsibility for public safety (i.e., social responsibility), and protects and supports victims.11,31-37 Generally, bystander intervention programs are based on the theory of the Diffusion of Innovation38 and seek to motivate members of a community to act together to make a social norms change. Bystander interventions have been demonstrated to be effective at preventing sexual violence, stalking, and bullying through more than a dozen studies.34,35,39-50 Positive effects on bystander behavior related to sexual violence have been found up to one year post-intervention.51 Why and how bystander intervention works on college campuses has been the topic of numerous journal articles.11-13,15,52,53 In brief, it draws upon five principles as described by Coker et al. (2011) and based on the original situational model of bystander behavior by Latane and Darley.54 First, individuals are less likely to act in crises when they are with other people because each person assumes someone else is doing it (i.e., diffusion of responsibility). Second, individuals are often afraid they will look foolish if they intervene in crises (i.e. evaluation apprehension). Third, individuals often look to those around them for clues about whether to react in situations, so what the group is doing will influence the individual (i.e., pluralistic ignorance). Fourth, individuals are more likely to intervene when they feel that they have something effective to offer and have confidence in their skills to help (i.e., confidence in skills). Fifth, people are more likely to intervene or help if they have previously seen someone else doing the same (i.e., modeling).