terest. Under this theory, a bystander would give assistance, not necessarily because of moral or legal implications but only if he would benefit in someway. The most commonly cited reason centers on one's view of himself. This supposes that a bystander viewing a person in distress will help not out of a moral conscience but simply to make him feel better the mere act of giving aid would alleviate his bad feelings and compel him to act. Critics also state that the opposite can occur. Meaning that the same selfish reasons that may cause someone to aid a victim will in fact drive him to leave the situation as a means of alleviating his "bad feelings." This approach seems to take morality out of the equation.Psychologists have also proposed that the amount of empathy a person experiences when viewing a person in distress may also control whether a person will grant aid. This view seems to contradict the selfish approach in that it shifts the discomfort from the bystander to the victim. The feelings of the victim in peril becomes the primary focus and not the interest of the self. Paper written by Rene Roman. This theory mandates that the bystander first perceive the peril of the victim and then decides if he will identify more with his own distress, as in the selfish approach, or the distress of the victim. If the bystander connects with the victim and experiences his distress then aid would be guaranteed. However, if he experiences personal distress the option of flight also becomes a choice.The psychological perspective of the bystanders may be affected by the sociological pressure exerted on the individual. This is most often cited because of the individual's wanting to conform to his beliefs of society. This is most often characterized as adhering to the mob mentality. For example, the bystander may feel the sociological pressure to adhere to the societal norm to conform to the group dynamic. Considering American legal...
