Dropping Books in front of individuals and groupsA Story by Sachi Ruaya A psychology report of mine of an experiment I managed. Some information is deleted to keep the anonymity and confidentiality of others. Table of Contents ABSTRACT ...................................................................2 Objective................................................................. 2 Design .............................................................2 Setting 2 Participants 2 Major discovery 2 Practical implication. 2 INTRODUCTION 3 Predicted Outcomes and Alternate Hypotheses 4 Method 5 Pre-experiment considerations and preparations; 5 Day of experiment// First Experiment- Target Population 6 Day of experiment// Second Experiment- no target population 6 MATERIALS. 6 Quantitative Data Results 7 TABLE 1 7 TABLE 2 7 Qualitative Data Results 8 Explanatory Discussion 9 Test 1 9 Test 2 10 Test 3 11 Test 4 12 Test 5 12 Test 6 13 Test 7 14 References 16
Books dropped in Front of Individuals, Groups and the number of people who helped Lead Researcher & Report Author: Sachi Ruaya Principal Investigator: Hayley Dev…
Assistant in Research: Brian K… and Vijay Assistant in Investigation: Fletcher Paw…ki and Tisha Sh..a
Objective: Our aim was to investigate and observe how does the Bystander Effect occur under certain circumstances (i.e. the number of bystanders, type of book determined by thickness, the number of books) and if the bystanders are to help even if they are occupied. And also, if it discourages or encourages a group -or individual- from helping the distressed.
Design: The experiment will be separated into two main tests ( there are seven tests in total). Each test involved the participants (actors) to drop books in front of a variety of groups and individuals. The first one has the target population of the Year 9 students, particularly the Year Nine students during their ten-minute ‘morning reading session’ in the Year 9 Area. The second test was done around the school in non-specific areas -without any target population- during school break times (i.e. lunch and recess)
Setting: Victoria Australia
Participants: 65 reported bystanders and 3 voluntary actors/participants.
Major discovery: 23.08% of the 65 reported bystanders helped the participants.
Practical implication: The collected and analysed data from this experiment contributes to more statistics to use for further bystander effect reports such as meta-analytical studies.
*Below the Reference List there is a copy of both the Informed Consent and the Application for Psychological Research
One of the most vital factors that will affect the results of the experiment is the bystander effect. The bystander effect states that the more people observing the distressed person, the longer it will take for the distressed person to receive help or the less likely for the distressed person to receive help since the amount of time taken for the distressed person to get help depends on the number of determined bystanders observing. This happens for the following possible reasons. Foremost, the bystander effect is also known as the phenomenon; Diffusion of Responsibility. It is when the sense of responsibility is diffused or distributed supposedly amongst the bystanders or, in other words, reduce the sense of responsibility of each bystander (if there are more than one) so it is easier for them to pass by. This may be because the bystander will feel less pressured to help and less guilty when they pass by. Additionally, the more people observing, the more likely there will be more people who do not know the victim. If they do so, they are more likely to expect someone else to take action. On the occasion where no one knows the victim, most bystanders are highly likely to conform to each other, ultimately sustaining the bystander effect. This takes us to the second factor, conformity. Conformity is the human instinct of the human brain to feel the same by being socially influenced by a majority (i.e. conformity is inflicted by majority influence). This explains why people will conform to each other in the situation stated above.
Ø The statistics of the bystander effect shares similarity with the cost-reward effect (i.e. when “someone will only choose to act if the potential reward is greater than the known risk.”- Brandon Gaille)
Ø Bystanders tend to evaluate each other instead of evaluating the situation. This could be the elementary reason why this phoneme continues because if the bystanders tend to evaluate each other, this increases the chance of people conforming to each other
Ø People who have greater feelings of social responsibility tend to help even when there are others bystanders present
Ø There is a greater chance that someone will choose to act if people do not look for social cues in the duration of an ‘emergency’ situation
Ø If the situation presents more danger to a perceived situation, such as having the offender present, the bystander effect is diminished
Ø “When people personally know who is involved in an emergency, they are more likely to act. When family or friends are involved, people are also more likely to act when compared to people who are just acquaintances are involved.”- Brandon Gaille
Reasons why people conform- Normative Conformity and Informational Conformity according to Deutsch and Gerrard (1955)
Normative Conformity:
Informational Conformity:
*The results of this experiment will compare the number of bystanders to the number of people who helped, a description of their actions and their tangible and/or intangible position in the experiment.
a) It is expected that the more books that the participant will carry out and drop, the higher the likelihood that the bystander(s) will help and the faster the participant will receive help.
b) An individual may be more likely to help rather than a group since the Diffusion of Responsibility may only be distributed to themselves. And that testing this experiment on only one bystander will make the likelihood of the person (individual) helping higher.
c) However, an individual would encourage themselves to help when it comes to the number of books being dropped. This is because they may think that if the participant drops a less number of books or if the books seem thin, they think that the distressed person can handle the situation by themselves since the severity of the situation is low.
d) Our research will not only contain one psychology phenome, the bystander effect, but as well as conformity.
e) One may hesitate at first when helping others, but when another decides to help they follow up their actions, they would help, knowing that it is safe to do so (conformity)
f) It was expected that around 40% of the reported bystanders to help (in each test and overall)
g) It was also expected that the test with the most number of bystanders will take the longest amount of time for the participant to receive help
h) The amount of time for the participant to receive help will be longer "in relation to unoccupied bystanders- if the bystanders are occupied The descriptive research method that was used for this experiment is a participant observational study. Our reason for choosing this method is because it is focused on the observing the process of behaviour and studies a phenomenon (in our case, the bystander effect) including the data that represent it. In which, conveniently suits our aim; to observe how does the Bystander Effect occur under certain circumstances. The selection criteria for the participants (the actors)
The method for recruiting the participants/actors involved us specifically visiting their classes and briefly stating that they are selected to partake as an actor to drop books for a psychological experiment. Once they are interested, they are presented with the Informed Consent. Method for maintenance and preservation of subject anonymity and confidentiality;
Operationalising Definitions The method for recording data is inclusive of writing field notes (the data are written on paper) whilst the tests are being undertaken.
The decision to stop data collection is determined by the time when the actor meets up with the researchers OR when the books are placed in a stationary location as the participant leaves the scene.
i. The variables of the experiment (in our experiment, this was inclusive of how many people helped, the number of books etc.) are finalised
ii. Considered how to minimise the number of extraneous variables such as minimising the suspicion of the bystanders (i.e. how will you record the data etc.)
iii. Wrote the Ethics Application and Informed Consent for the actors/participants
iv. Gathered appropriate participants/actors with their signed Informed Consent
v. Scout possible areas that would be appropriate to undertake the tests. E.g. For the first experiment, we scouted the place where the specified event is at (Year 9 Area)
vi. Gave clear detailed instructions to the participants, the motive of this experiment and made sure they agreed with keeping the experiment classified.
Day of experiment// First Experiment- Target Population: Year 9 Alamanda College Students [Chronological order]
1) Gathered around 12-19 novels at least 5-10 minutes before 9:00 am (when the experiment was undertaking) and reviewed "with the participant- the instructions
2) Undertake test. Recording the reactions of the bystanders and the statistics to the variables.
3) Finalise data
1) We undertook this experiment during Alamanda Middle School’s student break times [recess (11:00 am " 11:30 am) and lunch (1:30 pm " 2:15 pm)]
2) Record data for each test taken
MATERIALS- materials listed below are the required equipment for this experiment.
• A variety of thick and thin novels that are of non-fiction and/or young teen-young adult. • Laptop • Pencil and paper to record-live-data • Actors · Application for Psychological Research · Informed Consent for voluntary participants · Ethics Application · Calculator
*Table 1 shows the relationship between the total number of determined bystanders and number of people who helped. As shown above (leftmost column), each test was given a specific number and a specific number of books to experiment with. Ultimately, 15 out of the 65 bystanders, in total, helped the participants, meaning 23.08% of all of the reported bystanders helped the participants. Note that the total number of determined bystanders is inclusive of the number of people who helped.
*Table 2 represents, firstly, the approximate location where the test was undertaken, then the percentage of the people who helped out of the total percentage of bystanders. The last two columns show the ratio of female and male helpers enclosed by the percentage and number of helpers. The last row, TOTAL, indicates that there was one more male helper than female helpers in this experiment.
In test number one, it was observed that the bystanders were hesitant on helping. Most of the bystanders reacted (i.e. flinched) to the fact that the participant dropped the books, although none of them stood up. The inference would be that they were waiting for someone else to help. It seemed that the Year 9 students were suspicious and/or confused.
Test number 2: the participant dropped the books in front of a group of girls sitting just beside the location where the books were dropped. The first bystander to take action was a female within the group of girls that the participant dropped the books in front of. She showed no sign of hesitation. Then, another two girls "also within the same social group" conformed with the first person to take action. The male helper "who was right in front of where the test took place" first laughed at the participant then later helped after the three girls started taking action
Test number three shows that, after the participant started to get help from the three helpers, a couple of bystanders fled the scene even if they were aware of the participant in distress. Note: even if the quantitative data results show that there were seven bystanders, the participant attracted a lot of attention (surrounding people either glanced or reacted to the sound of the books dropping). The bystanders in this test are determined by the number of people who deliberately surrounded the participant. The female helpers consisted of one student and one teacher.
In test number 4, the three male helpers were occupied (playing basketball). When the participant dropped the books, it took 3 seconds to notice the person in distress unincluive if theofration for the boys run over and help. But as they ran, they appeared to split up as if they were suspicious. As quoted from one of the helpers, “Don’t you think it’s weird for you to drop books over here?” is evidence of this.
It took circa 10 seconds for the participant to receive help in test number five. The experiment was done in front of a group of girls. The group of girls first discussed whether or not to help. Quote from an anonymous bystander; “Let’s do it?” just before the participant received help. {write in discussion the girls reaction and what does it show}
In test six, hesitation played the main role in this test. The participant dropped the books in front of a Grade 7 boy, who was occupied with his laptop, whilst sitting on a couch. Once the participant dropped the books, he said, “Bruh”. It took him around six seconds until he decided to take action. Not long after that, another boy helped, and it seems that he was conforming to the first helper.
In the seventh test, the individual first passed the participant when the participant dropped the books. It took just over 2 seconds for him to take action (he turned back to help the participant).
At the end of test seven, a Year 8 girl offered to help carry the books. *The participant was able to improvise a scenario to minimise the number of extraneous variables.
v Generally, the results of this experiment does not support the Quantitative Alternate Hypothesis which was that at least 40% of the bystanders in the whole test would help.
v The common methodological problems and limitations that were encountered in these tests were that the researchers had trouble collecting accurate and reliable data due to some extraneous variables and disorganisation within the Pre-Experiment Preparations and Considerations section.
v To improve this experiment further is to increase the range/area of observational space and to give a specific determinant on whether a person nearby would be classified as a bystander or not.
v Further direction for research is inclusive of whether there is a certain definition of a bystander in different situations.
v The finding of this experiment can be generalised to people living in areas with highly concentrated populations.
The results of this test did support predicted outcome letter C because it was expected that the more books the participant dropped, the more likely that it would take less time for the bystanders to help. This is not the case for this test because of other factors such as the number of people "this test had the highest number of bystanders in relation to the other tests" affects this variable. Also, the results of this test did not support the hypothesis letter G (i.e. It was also expected that the test with the most number of bystanders will take the longest amount of time for the participant to receive help).
But, the qualitative results have been supported by hypothesis letter E; “One may hesitate at first” since most of them hesitated and flinched but no one stood up. The number of bystanders affected their actions and they conformed with each other resulting in none of them helping.
Possible reasons of why no one helped the participant is because, firstly, there were so many bystanders in relation to the distressed person. This is because the bystander effect states that the more people observing the victim, the longer it will take for the victim to receive help since the amount of time taken for the distressed person to get help is determined by the number of bystanders. Ultimately, the participant did not get help because the responsibility of the bystanders was diffused to more of them. Another possible reason why the percentage of bystanders who helped is 0% could be for the same reason why Kitty Genovese was murdered outside her home despite having 38 bystanders (witnesses); “witnesses may have thought that if others do not react, then there must not be a real emergency, and therefore they do not have to react.” " Adam Gilbert
The methodological problems and limitations of this test were inclusive of the bystanders being suspicious of the participant’s actions or realising that the actor’s actions were deliberate. This was a methodological problem because the researchers’ communication with the participant was not concise and clear resulting in a few minor sceptical representations. Additionally, confidentiality between the researchers’ supervisors has not met the desired standard. This also serves as another extraneous variable. The reactions of those who knew about the experiment (whilst the experiment has been undertaken) may have influenced the actions of the bystanders leading to "possibly" an inaccurate description in both the Qualitative Data Results and the Quantitative Data Results section.
Recording of data and observations were highly limited. Since there were only two researchers collecting data and that the number of bystanders was high in relation to the researchers, the researchers were not able to write a full, accurate description of at least most of the bystanders. Ultimately, the number of people and the number of sub-dependent variables in relation to the researchers made it difficult for them to record efficiently in the amount of time given.
Methods on how this test can be improved is by increasing the number of investigators to collect sufficient data, to give clear instructions and suggestions to the actor (e.g. “Keep walking after picking up the books to minimise suspicion” or “tilt the books so it will drop to the side to make it less obvious that it was deliberate”) and to have a larger Selective Criteria to select the participants/actors (i.e. skills in acting and attitudes to the psychological testing etc.).
Test number two did not fulfil hypothesis letter E because when it was expected that the bystanders would at least hesitate or pause before helping. As stated in the Qualitative Data Results section of this test, the first person to take action showed no sign of hesitation. This may be because of extraneous variables such as the helper’s past experiences or her relationship with the voluntary actor (i.e. people who have greater feelings of social responsibility tend to help even when there are others bystanders present). But this may show that the Qualitative Results support predicted outcome letter H because the group of girls did not indicate of being occupied, causing the amount time for the participant to receive help kept to a minimum.
Possible reasons why the other two girls conformed to the first bystander to take action may be because the first bystander to take action is inferenced (i.e. appeared) to be the social-centre of the group. Because of this, the two girls may have felt the need to conform because they will risk being rejected later on or either want to fit in their social group.
Flaws in the Operationalising Definitions represent a methodological limitation. Evidence of this is that researchers were not definite whether the male helper was occupied or not. Fundamentally, the field of investigation was highly limited in this test.
Action for methodological improvements in this test incorporates of increasing the range of observational space to be investigated. This would involve positioning the researchers in specific spaces before the experiment was undertaken to benefit the perspective of where the data was collected, ultimately collecting more quality data.
The number of books in relation to the number of bystanders would be classified as high (six more books in relation to the reported bystanders), especially in relation to Test Number One. This expresses the maintenance of Predicted Outcome letter A. Also, Alternate Hypothesis Letter F has been supported because 42.85% of the bystanders helped (Alternate Hypothesis Letter F states that at least 40% of the bystanders in a test would help).
The possible reason why a couple of the bystanders fled the scene is that they may have noticed that there are enough people helping but still felt guilty. The inference would be that they tried to minimise their sense of guilt by going away from the accident.
It seems that, when both investigators and researchers were at the scene, the participant dropped the books just barely in sight. Alternatively, the investigators and researchers were too far from the desired observational area to take the most accurate data. Ultimately the data collected from this test was highly limited. The Operationalising Definitions should have included factors such as the maximum distance from the incidental area (i.e. from where the voluntary participant dropped the books) to further improve this experiment. E.g. investigators and researchers should stay within a maximum range of 10 meters from where the participant dropped the books.
Investigators struggled with calculating and determining the number of bystanders accurately since many of the bystanders moved away from the scene and that there were no bystander specifications in this test (determining whether a person was a bystander or not). To further improve this experiment, the pre-experiment preparations and considerations should have included specifications to determine whether a nearby person would be classified as bystanders or not.
In this test, 1 in 5 people helped since 3 out of the 15 determined bystanders helped. Predicted Outcome Letter G and H were not supported in accordance with the Qualitative Data Results. In Predicted Outcome Letter G "which states that the more bystanders observing, the less likely that the participant will receive help. Or if the participants do receive help, they will do so long in relation to a scenario with fewer bystanders. The Qualitative Data of this experiment does not support Predicted Outcome Letter G because 15 bystanders would be determined as “a large number of bystanders” in comparison to the other tests. As for Alternate Hypothesis Letter H, the three helpers showed no hesitation to act, despite being occupied (i.e. basketball), resulting in the participant to receive help immediately.
Possible reasons why the three bystanders helped (despite a large number of other bystanders) is that each of the three participants did not look for social cues within their group. Alternatively, we can assume that these three helpers know each other since they are playing basketball together, ultimately increasing the likelihood of them evaluating each other first. As this may be because in this social group (i.e., the person with the status as the social centre of the group may have a strong sense of social responsibility, indicated to the other bystanders to help (it is inferenced that the other two people conformed with their social centre).
Complications in this test are inclusive of not including specifications to determine whether a person would be classified as a bystander or not. To improve this experiment furthermore, researchers and investigators should have considered this in the Pre-Experiment Preparations and Considerations section of this report.
Another limitation that may have impacted the results is that the bystanders might have been suspicious of the participant because it is not considered usual to drop books on the basketball court. The evidence of this is that, as the three boys ran up, they appeared to be diverging as they were running to the participant then started to converge as they approached the participant. This may be a social cue (i.e. the distance between the bystanders and the participant). Also, one of the male helpers stated that he thought it was unusual to drop the books on the basketball court (as the quote stated from him supports this). Also, the quote stated from the helper could be incorrect. The quote used in the Qualitative Data Results section of this test was passed from participant to investigator. This represents an extraneous variable.
Test five has represented a group of bystanders verbally discussing whether they should help the participant or not. This shows us that the bystanders were first evaluated the ‘emergency’ situation and then evaluated the other bystanders resulting in a higher chance that the participant would receive helper faster. Since that the bystanders evaluated the situation first, the less likely that the bystanders would conform to people who are not helping.
Another reason that the bystanders discussed whether or not to help the participant was "since that there was another student psychologist doing similar experiments that involved dropping books around the same area" they have become suspicious and dubious. This represents another extraneous variable that can be a substitute for a limitation in this experiment.
This test has supported the general Alternate Hypothesis mostly in relation to the other test. It has supported ALL the facts stated in the introduction by demonstrating the properties of the bystander effect.
There is no methodological flaws, limitations and problems that are listed in this test.
1 in 5 people in this test helped the participant since, out of the 10 determined bystanders, only two of them helped. By this, it is indicated that this test strongly supports Predicted Outcome Letter G. Also, Predicted Outcome Letter H is supported since, as stated in the Qualitative Data Results Section, the Year 7 boy "who hesitated in the (estimated) duration of 6 seconds" was occupied with his laptop.
It was expected that the duration, in which the participant will receive help, will be longer in relation to tests in which the bystanders are deemed unoccupied (i.e. Predicted Outcome Letter H). This is because there are more factors and components that will influence the bystanders as the participant drops the books. For instance, it may take longer for the bystanders to notice the situation that the distressed person is in and that they may hesitate for longer since they are deciding whether the situation of the distressed person is more important than the pursuit that they are undertaking (at the time of testing) or not.
The second example stated above (i.e. they may hesitate for longer since they are deciding whether the situation of the distressed person is more important than the pursuit that they are undertaking -at the time of testing- or not), shares similarity with the first dot point of facts in the introduction (i.e. The statistics of the bystander effect shares similarity with the cost-reward effect (when “someone will only choose to act if the potential reward is greater than the known risk.”- Brandon Gaille). As for further explanation, the bystanders "who could potentially help the distressed person" are most likely to be deciding whether or not helping the distressed person will be worth doing so (e.g. if it will benefit them and if it is safe to do so) and considering their priorities at the time of incidence.
This test could be improved by also considering a determinant for bystanders and by using a stopwatch to measure the duration of the incidence and when help is received. This is because this leads to a limitation which is that the duration between the time of incidence and when the participant received help was estimated by both the investigators and the participants (by majority agreement). This is a limitation because the data was estimated, meaning that it is not measured accurately. This limitation may affect the standard of this explanatory discussion.
Test 7 is based on only one individual bystander with no other determined nearby bystanders. As for this reason, it is predicted that in this test the duration between the time of incidence (i.e. when the participant drops the books) and when the participant receives help from the surrounding determined bystanders will be generally shorter in correspondence to tests with more than one bystanders. Since the individual bystander helped the participant in an instant with no sign of hesitation, as stated in the Qualitative Data Results Section of this test, this prediction is supported by the results. This is so for the following reasons;
Foremost, the responsibility amongst the bystanders is diffused or distributed supposedly ‘equally’ or -in other words- reduce the sense of responsibility so it is easier for them to pass by the distression of an incidence. Since there is only one determined bystander in this test, the sense of responsibility of that bystander cannot be distributed to anyone else, meaning the lone bystander does not have anyone to ‘share the guilt’ with. This results in him or her feeling the most guilt in relation to other tests with the bystanders associated with a situation in which there are many of them.
Additionally, bystanders tend to evaluate each other instead of evaluating the situation. This could be the elementary reason why this phoneme continues because if the bystanders tend to evaluate each other, this increases the chance of people conforming to each other. As for this reason, having only one determined bystander in this test rejects the purpose of this reason on why the bystander effect continues (i.e. the lone bystander does not have any other bystanders to evaluate) ultimately diminishing the bystander effect.
*Note from the author: Limitations, methodological flaws, problems and further improvements as for this test are inclusive of ALL the limitations, methodological flaws, problems and further improvements that are already listed in the previous tests’ explanatory discussion to the results.
As stated towards the end of the Qualitative Results Section, a Year 8 female student offered to help carry the books, ultimately avoiding further incidence. There are many factors and scenarios that may have influenced this event to occur. For instance; the relationship between the participant and the bystander, the sense of strong social responsibility of the bystander and the practical reason why the bystander decides to help the participant (e.g. a possible reason why the ‘bystander’ helped could be that the person likes books etc). Summary Conclusion
A total of seven tests in this experiment took place "which involved the voluntary participant(s) to drop books near bystanders" to investigate and observe how does the bystander effect occur under certain circumstances (i.e. variables), if the bystanders are to react even if they are occupied and/or is the only determined bystander present. It is found; out of all the reported bystanders, only 23.08% of them helped and that there is no straightforward or final answer to whether or not the specified circumstances/variables discourages or encourages a bystander to help the distressed person(s). Also, the likelihood that a bystander will help a distressed person even if they are occupied is highly dependant on the bystander effect. The generalised observations that were investigated were that; the bystanders hesitated before helping the distressed person, the bystanders fled or pass-by the scene by either conforming with the other bystanders that are present or by underestimating the extremity of the situation due to other factors, the scene involved an lead bystander who decided to take action first (either instantly or with hestitation) resulting in other bystanders to conform and that there was negotiation "within the bystander social group at the time of experimentation" before taking action [this scenario happened both verbally and non-verbally (through non-verbal social cues such as body language)].
In the closure of this experiment, it is found that the way the bystanders react to the incidence is influenced by different factors such as their social background, relationship with the distressed person/people and the total of bystanders present.
It is recommended that investigators and researchers consider establishing a way of determining whether a nearby person would be considered as a bystander. It is recommended that a nearby person would be considered as a bystander for the following suggested reasons:
§ The nearby person is directly engaged (i.e. observing) the situation and surrounding people
§ A passer-by does so five meters from the point of incidence since the person may have chosen to ignore the situation
§ The nearby person seems emotionally affected by the distressed person(s) situation.
*The illustration shown above is considered as a good example of what bystanders may be thinking during similar situations stated throughout this report.
References 4evercrispin (Writer). (2016). The Milgram Experiment 1962 Full Documentary [Motion Picture]. Anderson, C. (2010, October 11). Presenting and Evaluating Qualitative Research. Retrieved 2017, from American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education : https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2987281/ Bryson, N. (2017). Psychological Research. Retrieved 2017, from Alamanda Psychology: http://alamandapsychology.weebly.com/psychological-research.html Bryson, N. (2017). Social Psychology. Retrieved 2017, from Alamanda Psychology: http://alamandapsychology.weebly.com/social-psychology.html bte97 (Producer), bte97 (Writer), & bte97 (Director). (2014). Psychology book dropping experiment [Motion Picture]. Carew, S. (Producer), Carew, S. (Writer), & HHS (Director). (2012). Book Dropping Experiment HHS [Motion Picture]. Cherry, K. (2017, July 5). The Bystander Effect-Why Bystanders Sometimes Fail to Help. Retrieved from verywell: https://www.verywell.com/the-bystander-effect-2795899 Cherry, K. (2017, May 13). What Is Diffusion of Responsibility? Why being part of a group may reduce our sense of responsibility. Retrieved from verywell: https://www.verywell.com/what-is-diffusion-of-responsibility-2795095 Davies, F. (n.d.). Neurology Research- You are just left to get on with it’: qualitative study of patient and carer experiences of the transition to secondary progressive multiple sclerosis. Retrieved 2017, from BMJ Journals OPEN: http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/7/e007674?utm_source=TrendMD&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=BMJOp_TrendMD-0 Drotar, D. (2009, May 1). Editorial: How to Write an Effective Results and Discussion for the Journal of Pediatric Psychology. Retrieved 2017, from Oxford Acedemic- Journal of Pediatric Psychology: https://academic.oup.com/jpepsy/article/34/4/339/1078796/Editorial-How-to-Write-an-Effective-Results-and Dubai British School. (2012, May 2). Psych: implications / applications and the real world. Retrieved 2017, from DBS Psychology: https://dbspsychology.wordpress.com/2012/05/02/psych-implications-applications-and-the-real-world/ Gaille, B. (2017, May 21). 17 Exceptional Bystander Effect Statistics. Retrieved 2017, from Brandon Gaille Marketing Expert & Blogmaster: https://brandongaille.com/16-exceptional-bystander-effect-statistics/ Get Revising . (2012, May 14). What's a practical implication? Retrieved 2017, from Get Revising part of The Student Room : https://getrevising.co.uk/forums/topics/whats_a_practical_implication Gilbert, A. (2011, October 21). The limitations of practical implications concerning the bystander effect. Retrieved 2017, from ADAMJAMESGILBERT: https://adamjamesgilbert.wordpress.com/2011/10/21/the-limitations-of-practical-implications-concerning-the-bystander-effect/ Helen Noble, J. S. (n.d.). Qualitative data analysis: a practical example. Retrieved 2017, from BMJ Journals: http://ebn.bmj.com/content/17/1/2 LSE Media and Communications UK. (2010, June 2). FAQ 35: How do I report my qualitative data? Retrieved from LSE Media and Communications: http://www.lse.ac.uk/media@lse/research/EUKidsOnline/BestPracticeGuide/FAQ35.aspx McLeod, S. (2007). Social Psychology. Retrieved 2017, from Simply Psychology: https://www.simplypsychology.org/social-psychology.html McLeod, S. (2008). Research Variables. Retrieved from Simply Psychology: https://www.simplypsychology.org/variables.html McLeod, S. (2011). How to Write a Lab Report. Retrieved 2017, from Simply Psychology: https://www.simplypsychology.org/research-report.html McLeod, S. (2014). Aims and Hypotheses. Retrieved 2017, from Simply Psychology: https://www.simplypsychology.org/aims-hypotheses.html McLeod, S. (2016). What is Conformity? Retrieved from Simply Psychology : https://www.simplypsychology.org/conformity.html Prudential (Producer), & Prudential (Writer). (2013). Prudential: Everybody's Doing It [Motion Picture]. Ross, P. (Writer), & Ross, P. (Director). (2014). Brain Games- Conformity and Social Proof Retrived from Youtube [Motion Picture]. Ross, P. (Writer), & Ross, P. (Director). (2017). Brain Games - Conformity (Waiting Room) Retrived from Youtube [Motion Picture]. Schafer, M. S. (n.d.). Writing the Discussion. (Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License) Retrieved from Writing in Psychoogy: http://users.clas.ufl.edu/msscha/psych/report_discussion.html Schafer, M. S. (n.d.). Writing the Discussion. Retrieved from Writing in Psychology: http://users.clas.ufl.edu/msscha/psych/report_discussion.html Spark Notes. (n.d.). Research Methods in Psychology . Retrieved from Spark Notes: http://www.sparknotes.com/psychology/psych101/researchmethods/section3.rhtml sydney.edu. (n.d.). DISCUSSION: Background 1. Retrieved from Writing a Short report in Biochemistry: http://sydney.edu.au/science/molecular_bioscience/report/BCHM2/discussion/background/disc_bgrnd_inf1.html The University of Sydney. (2015, November 9). REPORT STRUCTURE - RULES AND COMMON MISTAKES. (S. o. Authorised by: Head of School, Producer) Retrieved 2017, from The University of Sydney-The School of Psychology: http://sydney.edu.au/science/psychology/current_students/writing_guides/reportD.shtml The University of Sydney. (2015, November 9). REPORT STRUCTURE - RULES AND COMMON MISTAKES . Retrieved 2017, from The University of Sydney- School of Psychology: http://sydney.edu.au/science/psychology/current_students/writing_guides/reportD.shtml University of Melbourne. (2010, December 12). Writing an abstract - Understanding and developing abstracts . Retrieved from Services University of Melbourne: https://services.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/471274/Writing_an_Abstract_Update_051112.pdf
© 2022 Sachi RuayaAuthor's Note
Featured Review
Reviews
|
Stats
2246 Views
2 Reviews  Last Updated on January 22, 2022 Tags: psychology, dropping, books, bystander, effect, experiment, report, schooling, observations, quantitative, qualitative, results Author
Sachi RuayaVictoria, AustraliaAboutSachi is an observant art lover who takes pride in her strong verbal and written communication skills as she regards her love for learning. She highly values collaboration and efforts to create innova.. more..Writing
|
![[send message]](https://www.writerscafe.org/images/mail.png){kind=small}
![[befriend]](https://www.writerscafe.org/images/friend.png){kind=small}
Share This
Email
Facebook
Twitter
Read Request
My Library
Flag Writing
