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,