This article argues that an iconic event in the history of helping research -- the story of the 38 witnesses who remained inactive during the murder of Kitty Genovese -- is not supported by the available evidence. Using archive material, the authors show that there is no evidence for the presence of 38 witnesses, or that witnesses observed the murder, or that witnesses remained inactive. Drawing a distinction between the robust bystander research tradition and the story of the 38 witnesses, the authors explore the consequences of the story for the discipline of psychology. They argue that the story itself plays a key role in psychology textbooks. They also suggest that the story marks a new way of conceptualizing the dangers of immersion in social groups. Finally, they suggest that the story itself has become a modern parable, the telling of which has served to limit the scope of inquiry into emergency helping.
Using insights from a review of recent research on social identity approaches to helping, the Chapter sets out four key elements of a social identity approach to helping in emergencies: the salience of social identity, the boundaries of social identity, the contents of social identity, and the strategic interests of social identity. Evidence that illustrates the impact of social identity processes on group size and helping, which has traditionally focused on the inhibition of helping in the presence of others, is then reviewed. Finally, recent developments in the literature on intergroup emotions are considered, and their impact on a social identity approach to helping in emergencies is explored, highlighting the relatively neglected social identity relationship between bystanders and perpetrators. The review concludes by considering the current state of knowledge of a social identity approach to helping in emergencies, and identifies important questions that remain to be addressed.In their influential book The social psychology of prosocial behavior, Dovidio, Piliavin, Schroeder, and Penner (2006) pointed out how helping research has long been dominated by a focus on interpersonal-level factors and attempts to identify the underlying motives of helping in largely dyadic encounters. They suggest that, while there have been significant new developments in the area of prosocial behaviour in general, "there is not much new on the traditional topic of spontaneous interpersonal helping -or bystander intervention" (2006, p ix). They suggest that the reason for this absence is not empirical neglect but rather Correspondence should be addressed to Mark ) highlight how much of this research has focused on the motivations of individuals in dyadic encounters and, moreover, point to the utility of taking a "multilevel" perspective to the study of prosocial behaviour, as a means through which questions from different disciplines might be integrated and new avenues of inquiry generated.In this Chapter we will draw from this notion of the importance of interrogating different levels of analysis to show that advances in the social psychology of identity processes, particularly Social Identity Theory (Tajfel, 1978(Tajfel, , 1982 and Self Categorisation Theory (Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987), have facilitated the development of new ways of thinking about bystander intervention. Using the theoretical framework offered by the social identity approach, we will illustrate how collective identity processes are of importance to the theorisation and investigation of intervention in emergencies. We argue that this framework provides useful tools with which to address the challenge of understanding the complex, dynamic range of phenomena that characterise helping in emergencies.We will go on to suggest that a group-level approach brings additional, novel insight to some of the central assumptions of traditional thinking about bystander intervention. We propose that the enduring failure to translate traditional social psyc...
Development and implementation of effective, sustainable, and scalable interventions that advance equity could be propelled by innovative and inclusive partnerships. Readied catalytic frameworks that foster communication, collaboration, a shared vision, and transformative translational research across scientific and non-scientific divides are needed to foster rapid generation of novel solutions to address and ultimately eliminate disparities. To achieve this, we transformed and expanded a community-academic board into a translational science board with members from public, academic and private sectors. Rooted in team science, diverse board experts formed topic-specific “accelerators”, tasked with collaborating to rapidly generate new ideas, questions, approaches, and projects comprising patients, advocates, clinicians, researchers, funders, public health and industry leaders. We began with four accelerators—digital health, big data, genomics and environmental health—and were rapidly able to respond to funding opportunities, transform new ideas into clinical and community programs, generate new, accessible, actionable data, and more efficiently and effectively conduct research. This innovative model has the power to maximize research quality and efficiency, improve patient care and engagement, optimize data democratization and dissemination among target populations, contribute to policy, and lead to systems changes needed to address the root causes of disparities.
Social psychologists have become increasingly concerned with examining the ways in which social practices are interrelated with their location. Critical perspectives have highlighted the traditional lack of attention given to both the collective aspects of spatial identities, together with the discursive practices that construct the relationships between people and places. In this article, we draw together the developing discursive work on place with work on children's geographies, in order to examine young people's accounts of spatial regulation. Adopting a discursive approach to the analysis of focus group discussion, we illustrate a variety of concerns managed in relation to spatial practices by 41 young people living in a large city in the South of England. Our findings suggest that everyday use of public space by young people is constructed at a nexus of competing concerns around childhood/adulthood, freedom, and citizenship, and illustrate the dynamic nature of place, and its regulation, as a resource for constructing identities.
Despite the current high-profile concern over paedophiles and paedophilic activity, there is no easily accessible or widely accepted multi-disciplinary definition of paedophilia. Commentators have pointed to a general contemporary misunderstanding surrounding the subject of paedophilia, and to the tensions between strong beliefs and facts in both societal and correctional contexts. We suggest that the current situation — societal, clinical and legal — can be problematic for both offenders and practitioners who are currently charged with, and involved in the risk treatment and/or management of paedophiles. This article attempts to begin to address these issues by looking at conceptions of paedophilia from a multi-disciplinary viewpoint. We examine understandings from clinical and legal sources, and present this analysis in a historical and cultural context. In drawing these divergent conceptions together, we highlight various contradictions and discrepancies. We suggest that these inconsistencies present significant problems in terms of professional engagement with paedophilia and paedophiles, and as a result illustrate the need to engage in more detailed debate regarding what constitutes ‘the problem’.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.