According to research by Latane and Darley, why did witnesses fail to intervene and help Kitty Genovese before she was murdered?
Correct answer: E. a, b and d
- A. Ignorance about how others interpreted the situation
- B. Diffusion of responsibility made individuals feel less responsible
- C. There were no authority figures present
- D. Fear of feeling embarrassed by acting inappropriately in front of others
- E. a, b and d
Explanation
Latane and Darley identified pluralistic ignorance, diffusion of responsibility and fear of social embarrassment as barriers to intervention. These correspond to statements a, b and d, making the combined option correct.
Report an error
The more specific you are, the faster it gets fixed. A source beats an opinion.
Prefer email? [email protected]
Practise Social Psychology
289 free Social Psychology MCQs from Psychology, each with the correct answer and an explanation. Unlimited attempts, no account needed.
Discussion
Stuck on an option, or know a faster way to get there? Ask or explain it here.
No comments yet. Be the first to explain this one.
Exams that ask Psychology questions like this
Psychology is on this paper prepared for on TestUstad, and all of them draw the same bank, so this question is worth knowing for it.
More Social Psychology questions
The widely murder of Kitty Genovese in New York in 1964, in which 38 people admitted witnessing the murder but not a single person went to her aid, was an example of which social-psychological phenomenon?
According to Zajonc's social facilitation model, what factor facilitates the expression or inhibition of dominant responses?
Which of the following is true of Milgram's (1963) study of obedience? The study found that:
Social facilitation refers to an increase in dominant responses in the presence of others of the same species, leading to:
Who defined 'culture trait' as a repeatedly irreducible unit of learned behaviour pattern or material product there of?
Who became one of the most influential theorists through the development of a 'historical materialist' analysis?