Buradasınız

Anasayfa » Content

GÖRGÜ TANIKLARININ ETKİSİ: SOSYAL BİR İKİLEM DURUMU ÜZERİNE OYUN TEORİSİ YAKLAŞIMI

THE BYSTANDERS’ EFFECT: A GAME THEORETIC APPROACH TO ONE SOCIAL DILEMMA SITUATION

Journal Name:

  • Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi

Publication Year:

  • 2013

Key Words:

Keywords (Original Language):

Author NameUniversity of AuthorFaculty of Author
Abstract (2. Language): 
In social psychology, the bystander effect, defined as a social dilemma, is related to the probability of help to a victim by the mere presence of others. This dilemma has been generally assumed, by game theoreticians and experimental economists, to represent the same social phenomenon as the volunteer’s dilemma. In this paper, we analyze these two different social dilemmas and the main question of the article is whether these two different social dilemmas represent the same social state. We first provide a broad literature review, and discuss the game theoretical foundation of the volunteer’s dilemma. Then, we provide an alternative theoretical explanation for the bystander effect and discuss the differences between these two social states.
Bookmark/Search this post with
Abstract (Original Language): 
Sosyal psikolojide “görgü tanıklarının etkisi” olarak ifade edilen sosyal ikilem, herhangi bir durumda mağdur konumundaki bir kişiye etrafındaki diğer kişilerin yardım etme ihtimalleri ile ilgilidir. Oyun teorisyenleri ve deneysel iktisatçılar tarafından bu sosyal ikilemin genel olarak gönüllülerin ikilemi ile aynı sosyal olguyu ifade ettiği varsayılmıştır. Bu makalenin amacı, farklı isimlerle anılan ancak aynı sosyal olguyu ifade ettiği tartışılan bu iki farklı ikilemi incelemektir. Makalenin temel sorusu “acaba bu iki sosyal ikilem, aynı sosyal olguyu mu temsil etmektedir?” şeklindedir. Çalışma öncelikle geniş bir literatür taraması verecek, ardından oyun teorik bir yaklaşım ile gönüllülerin ikileminin çözümünü ortaya koyacak ve son olarak görgü tanıklarının etkisi için alternatif bir teorik yaklaşım sunarak bu iki durumun benzer ve farklı yönlerini tartışacaktır.
FULL TEXT (PDF): 
PDF icon arastirmax-gorgu-taniklarinin-etkisi-sosyal-bir-ikilem-durumu-uzerine-oyun-teorisi-yaklasimi.pdf
  • 4
649
662
  • Turkish

REFERENCES

References: 

Batson, C. D., Van Lange, P. A. M., Ahmad, N. ve Lishner, D. A. (2003).
Altruism and helping behavior. M. A. Hogg ve J. Cooper (Ed.) The Sage handbook
of social psychology: İçinde 279-295. Londra: Sage.
Bickman, L. (1971). The effect of another bystander’s ability to help on
bystander intervention in an emergency. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 7 (3): 367-379.
Chekroun, P. ve Brauer, M. (2002). The bystander effect and social control
behavior: the effect of the presence of others on people’s reactions to norm
violations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 32 (6): 853-867.
Cramer, R. E., McMaster, M. R., Bartel, P. A. ve Dragna, M. (1988).
Subject competence and minimization of the bystander effect. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, 18 (13): 1133-1148.
Darley, J. M. ve Latane, B. (1968a). Bystander intervention in
emergencies: diffusion of responsibility. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 8 (4): 377-383.
Darley, J. M. ve Latane, B. (1968b). Group inhibition of Bystander
intervention in emergencies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 10 (3):
215-221.
Diekmann, A. (1985). Volunteer’s dilemma. The Journal of Conflict
Resolution, 29 (4): 605-610.
Küçükşenel, S., Urhan, Ü. B. DEÜ SBE Dergisi, Cilt: 15, Sayı: 4
662
Fehr, E. ve Schmidt, K. (1999). A theory of fairness, competition and
cooperation. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114 (3): 817-868.
Franzen, A. (1995). Group size and one-shot collective action. Rationality
and Society, 7 (2): 183-200.
Gansberg, M. (27.03.1964). Thirty-eight who saw murder didn't call the
police. New York Times.
Gilovich, T., Keltner, D. ve Nisbett, R. E. (2006). Social psychology. New
York: W.W. Norton & Company Inc.
Goeree, J. K., Holt, C. A. ve Moore, A. K. (2005). An experimental
examination of the volunteer’s dilemma. İnternet çalışma tebliği.
http://people.virginia.edu/~cah2k/vg_paper.pdf, (01.02.2014).
Hewstone, M., Stroebe, W. ve Klaus, J. (2008), Introduction to social
psychology - A European perspective. Londra: Blackwell Publishing.
Hogg, M. A. (2004). SAGE benchmarks in social psychology, Volume II:
Social İnteraction. Londra: SAGE Publications.
Küçükşenel, S. (2012). Behavioral mechanism design. Journal of Public
Economic Theory, 14 (5): 767-789.
Latane, B. ve Dabbs, J. M. (1975). Sex, group size and helping in three
cities. Sociometry, 38 (2): 180-194.
Levine, M. (1999). Rethinking bystander nonintervention: social
categorization and the evidence of withnesses at the James Bulger murder trial.
Human Relations, 52 (9): 1133-1155.
Levy, P., Lundgren, D., Ansel, M., Fell, D., Fink, B. ve McGrath, J. E.
(1972). Bystander effect in a demand-without-threat situation. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, 24 (2): 166-171.
Murnighan, J. K., Kim, J. W. ve Metzger, A. R. (1993). The volunteer
dilemma. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38 (4): 515-538.
Pantin, H. M. ve Carver, C. S. (1982). Induced competence and the
bystander effect. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 12 (2): 100-111.
Rapoport, A. (1988). Experiments with N-person social traps I: prisoner's
dilemma, weak prisoner's dilemma, volunteer's dilemma, and largest number. The
Journal of Conflict Resolution, 32 (3): 457-472.
Weesie, J. (1993). Asymmetry and timing in the volunteer’s dilemma. The
Journal of Conflict Resolution, 37 (3): 569-590.
Weesie, J. ve Franzen, A. (1998). Cost sharing in a volunteer's dilemma.
The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 42 (5): 600-618.

Thank you for copying data from http://www.arastirmax.com