CATW Prompt Rewrite

Individuals in Groups

Something happens to individuals when they are in a group. They think and act differently than they would on their own. Most people, if they observe some disaster or danger on their own—a woman being stabbed, a pedestrian slammed by a hit-and-run driver—will at least call for help; many will even risk their own safety to intervene. But if they are in a group observing the same danger, they hold back. The reason has more to do with the nature of groups than the nature of individuals.

In one experiment in behavioral psychology, students were seated in a room, either alone or in groups of three, as a staged emergency occurred: Smoke began pouring through the vents. Students who were on their own usually hesitated a minute, got up, checked the vents and then went out to report what certainly seemed like a fire. But the students who were sitting in groups of three did not move. They sat there for six minutes, with smoke so thick they could barely see, rubbing their eyes and coughing.

In another experiment, psychologists staged a situation in which people overheard a loud crash, a scream and a woman in pain, moaning that her ankle was broken. Seventy percent of those who were alone when the “accident” occurred went to her aid, compared with only 40 percent of those who heard her in the presence of another person.

Psychologists call this “diffusion of responsibility” or “social loafing.” The more people in a group, the lazier each individual in it becomes. Often, observers think nothing needs to be done because someone else has already taken care of it, and the more observers there are, the less likely any one person is to call for help.

Adapted from “In Groups We Shrink” by Carol Tavris. Originally published in the Los Angeles Times, 1991.

Sample Essay Response

People are not the same when they are in a group. A person is smart, responsible, reasonable, and hardworking. A person cares for others and knows his or her moral standing. People are unintelligent, scared, lazy and onlooking. People seem to think that its always some elses problem All they can do is watch so thats what they will do. Yes, a person is less likely to act if no one else is acting. Even if it is the moral or professional duty of a person to help or act, they may fail if they feel out numbered.

Carol Tavris says from her “In Groups We Shrink” that, in groups, people have, what Psychologist call, “diffusion of responsibility” or “social loafing.”

Experiments show that students, in a room filling with smoke, would be more likely to call for help if they were alone. This is contrary to the test with multiple students who would sit there and allow the smoke to fill the room. In a real life situation the people who do not act upon smoke is not likely to survive.

This behavior is not restricted to young college or high school students which have little life experience. In a surveillance video of a parking lot, a man was stabbed and then mugged. The assailant escape leaving the man bleeding. The man gathered enough strenght to stumble in front of the traffic going though the parking lot. He might have thought to himself that this would be a fast way to get help. The drivers proved him wrong. Cars would drive around him to avoid him. Perhaps these people did not want to hold up traffic. Each minute wasted is more blood drained. Even a school bus carefully tried to avoid him. The man, knelt down hold his arms up with blood on them Finally a lone man got out of his car and assisted the man to the hospital. It took almost an hour for someone to decide to help and it was during a gap where the savior was alone with no traffic behind him and no passenger.

At the hospital one could be treated for whatever ailments one may have. That is why the stab victim wanted to go so badly. But even at the hospital there is no guarantee. At one New York City hospital, a elderly woman collapsed due to a heart condition in the lobby. All the people waiting watched as she hit the floor. However they returned to whatever they were doing. Minutes go by and activity around her remained normal. Doctors were seen walking passed and then disappearing past the camera. Almost an hour passes and finally a guard is seen feeling her pulse. After ten minutes a stretcher comes to take her away. What took so long? Whatever the case may be the assured thought was that some else must be handling it.

There are cases of individuals who would help despite other people. But the general masses are always onlookers. As seen, students seem to disregard their own life from laziness. Even adults and professionals are guilty of this. This is the nature of people. That is why there are heroes in the world. There needs to be balance.

Post 11 Response to prompt from 11/5

                In the passage “Imitation of Film: Here’s Smoking for You Kid” the author Nicholas Balakar expresses how much movies influence and expose young children to smoke. He mentions in studies how percentages increase on children who begin smoking by imitation because of the rated R movies they have seen. To lower the percentage of children smoking at a younger age, more parents need to become stricter on what their children watch.

                Dr. James D. Sargent stated, “Rated R movies contain twice as much smoking” and “studies show that kids begin watching rated R movies usually in the fourth or fifth grade.”  Though rated R movies are not specifically meant for younger children, parents are becoming more careless. So now with the permission from parents or lack of carelessness their children become a target for underage smoking without them realizing what they are doing.

                As parents, it is our job to filter what our children watch as much as possible. For example, most 10-14 year old boys cannot resist watching the X-men movies. One of the main characters in the movie is Wolverine. Parents pay no mind to the fact he is constantly smoking a cigar, but only because he is perceived to be a hero in the production.  Another example is some movie theaters. I recently went to the movies to watch “Bad Grandpa” which was rated R film with plenty of profanity, nudity, and of course smoking. I could not believe the amount of under aged kids that were there with an adult present in the theater.

                By watching a specific character or movie because of its level of humor, these young kids are subconsciously being exposed and influenced to smoke. The study also says “the child who has the greatest amount of exposure to smoking  in movies were more than two and a half times more likely to smoke as to those who had the least exposure.”

                Since children are so easily influenced by what they see, they don’t believe smoking is bad. Our job as adults and parents is to do more filtering on what our kids watch so we can prevent that. I believe if this is done more often; the percentage of under aged smoking will decrease drastically.