Social Psychology Essay Example for Free

Social Psychology Essay The external validity of all of these studies has come under attack in recent years. The research may show that under experimental conditions, subjects fall into the categories of intervener or non-intervene fairly easily, but there is no evidence to suggest that these results can be generalised. Huston, Ruggiero, Conner and Geis (1981) address these issues. They also refer to the murder of Kitty Genovese but criticise previous studies for a lack of external validity. Specifically, they cite four major concerns over the extent to which the findings can be generalised. Firstly, Huston et al comment that ethical guidelines prevent experimenters from reproducing realistic experimental environments. Thus, the research is based on simulated events, usually using a group of students. Secondly, no research has ever investigated the situation whereby the bystander becomes an involved participant in the violent incident. According to Huston et al this avoids the issue of how the bystander can actually change the course of events. Thirdly, there has been a lack of focus on the effects of violent and criminal emergencies (understandably perhaps) and this means that the research does not correlate with real life situations. Huston et al (1981) argue that previous research has explored the role of personality traits in the potential to intervene. Huston et als study attempts to rectify these limitations and provide a more comprehensive account of real life acts of heroism. In doing so they provide a completely different framework through which to analyse bystanders at crime scenes. They measured three different areas which may account for intervention; exposure to crimes and emergencies,[relevant] competencies and skills,inclination to intervene. (1981, p. 15). Therefore, instead of using emotional, almost Freudian cues as were used in previous research, Huston et al choose cognitive cues and appear to view the individual as a rational and practical decision-maker. Huston et al reported that several factors increased the probability that any individual would intervene to help a stranger, Exposure to crime in the past was a significant factor, but more so, was the individuals perceived competence to intervene. Also those who intervened tended to be heavier and taller than the non-interveners. This suggests that a key factor in the decision making process of the individual is whether they perceive themselves as being capable of making a difference. Interestingly, Huston et al found no significant difference in the personality traits of the two groups of those who intervened and those who did not. They do however, suggest that further studies could include groups of subjects that are matched for their exposure to crime. They also comment that their sample and the samples of other similar studies may not be representative because those who do not intervene, for reasons of social desirability to not come forward in order for their experience to be examined and accounted for. This study goes some way in accounting for real life acts of heroism. It presents a naturalistic setting, which the previous studies neglected to provide, and suggests some plausible accounts for bystander intervention and acts of heroism. However, the majority of studies do not seem to account for cases of extreme altruism that take place in real life. Many go some way to explaining why many people do not intervene to help others. Self-interest appears to dominate all explanations. As Batson (1994) comments, the main assumption in most research into bystander intervention is that all human action is ultimately directed toward self-interest. (p. 603), and yet we still persist in volunteering, contributing and rescuing. Altruism is a paradox which defies biological explanation. Laboratory research into bystander intervention goes some way to accounting for acts of heroism but still fails to explain the point in our evolution where we began to perform acts of complete selflessness. References Batson, C.D. (1994). Why act for the public good? Four Answers. In Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, pp. 603-610Â  Brown, R. (1986) Social Psychology: The Second Edition. Free Press. Â  Darley, J.M. and Batson, C.D. (1973). From Jerusalem to Jericho : A study of situational and dispositional variables in helping behaviour. In Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 27, pp. 100-108.