The tragic stories of Matti Baranovski and Yusuf Hizel shed light on the complex interplay of social psychological factors that can contribute to criminal behavior. In both instances, bystanders failed to intervene despite witnessing the victims in distress, highlighting the bystander effect and diffusion of responsibility. This phenomenon, extensively studied by Darley and Latané (Pg. 289), illustrates how the presence of others can diminish an individual’s sense of personal responsibility to help, leading to inaction even in emergency situations.
The assailants in Matti’s case exemplify the impact of situational factors on aggression. The use of masks provided anonymity, triggering deindividuation and reducing inhibitions against violent behavior, as demonstrated by Zimbardo’s lab experiment (Pg.290). Additionally, the presence of a group heightened arousal through social facilitation, reinforcing norms of aggression within their peer group. These dynamics align with social psychology theories such as deindividuation and social facilitation, which elucidate how group contexts can amplify aggressive tendencies.
Furthermore, the frustration-aggression hypothesis proposed by Berkowitz (Pg. 290) offers insights into the role of frustration in triggering aggressive behavior. The alleged thwarted confrontation preceding Matti’s attack may have heightened the assailants’ frustration, leading to a violent outburst directed towards a new set of victims. This hypothesis underscores the influence of situational cues in inciting aggressive responses, as demonstrated by Berkowitz and LePage’s 1967 study on the effect of weapons on aggression.
While proximal factors like deindividuation and frustration shed light on the immediate triggers of criminal behavior, it’s essential to consider distal variables as well. These factors, occurring in the distant past relative to the event, encompass individual differences and background factors that shape one’s propensity for crime. The cases of Matti Baranovski and Yusuf Hizel underscore the importance of considering social psychological factors in understanding criminal behavior. By examining the interplay of situational influences, individual differences, and background factors, we can gain insights into the complex dynamics that contribute to crime.
Recognizing the multifaceted nature of criminal behavior is crucial for developing effective prevention and intervention strategies.
References
Berkowitz, L. (1989). Frustration-aggression hypothesis: Examination and reformulation. Psychological
Berkowitz, L., & LePage, A. (1967). Weapons as aggression-eliciting stimuli. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 7, 202– 207.
Darley, J. M., & Latané, B. (1968). Bystander intervention in emergencies: Diffusion of responsibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8(4), 377–383.
Gruman, J. A., Schneider, F. W., & Coutts, L. M. (Eds.). (2016). Applied social psychology :
Understanding and addressing social and practical problems. SAGE Publications, Incorporated.
Eyewitness testimony can be a very helpful and useful tool for an investigation. It can also be very flawed. A person’s perception and memory can be very altered. It is usually a very shocking experience as well. We do not have the ability to record in our minds. It reminds me of when we experience something, and we go to tell others and another person is listening to you tell the story and they were there and say that’s not what happened. Determining which persons memory of the event is correct would then be difficult. As you stated a person as well can be pushed towards a direction even if that is not exactly how it occurred. Great Blog!