Sociocultural Perspective And Cognitive Analysis
Nicksa also used the sociocultural perspective and cognitive perspective approach. An example of the sociocultural approach in Nicksa’s (2014) article would be the type of crime that was witnessed. What type of crime would most likely prompt a bystander into a helping behavior? The results of the study, as previously mentioned, determined that if the crime was physical assault (punching someone in the face) it was more likely to yield a response. On the other hand, if it was sexual assault the chances of the helping behavior become slim. The topic of sexual assault in our sociocultural perspective also leads into our cognitive perspective, as mentioned above, sexual assault is seldom reported because of knowledge of how law enforcement handles such cases.
…show more content…
They also allow us to investigate the thought process of the bystanders. For example, the results indicated that those who knew the offender and had some sort of relationship with them were more likely to remain silent. Allport (1954) refers to two terms known and ingroup and outgroup, as part of human prejudice. The ingroup is made up of individuals that are similar, friends or family; the outgroup is made up of individuals who are not similar. The ingroup is known to favor the ingroup and even protect them, but does not show the same favoritism to those in the outgroup. How does this relate to the study? If knowing the offender diminishes the chances of a bystander reporting their crime, yet not knowing the offender increased the chances of a bystander reporting their crime, then this is an example of the Allport’s (1954) ingroup/outgroup (Brewer,
They also allow us to investigate the thought process of the bystanders. For example, the results indicated that those who knew the offender and had some sort of relationship with them were more likely to remain silent. Allport (1954) refers to two terms known and ingroup and outgroup, as part of human prejudice. The ingroup is made up of individuals that are similar, friends or family; the outgroup is made up of individuals who are not similar. The ingroup is known to favor the ingroup and even protect them, but does not show the same favoritism to those in the outgroup. How does this relate to the study? If knowing the offender diminishes the chances of a bystander reporting their crime, yet not knowing the offender increased the chances of a bystander reporting their crime, then this is an example of the Allport’s (1954) ingroup/outgroup (Brewer,