Which model suggests that bystanders evaluate the pros and cons of helping in emergency situations?

The cost-benefit analysis model is focused on how individuals make decisions regarding whether to help in emergency situations by weighing the potential benefits of helping against the potential costs or risks. This model posits that bystanders assess various factors, such as their emotional responses, the potential consequences for themselves and the victim, and the overall context of the situation. By this rational calculation, someone might decide to intervene or refrain from helping based on what they perceive to be the most advantageous choice for themselves and the circumstances.

In contrast, the other concepts mentioned do not center on this evaluative process. The General Aggression Model deals with understanding aggression and interpersonal conflicts rather than the altruistic decision-making process in emergencies. Groupthink describes a phenomenon within decision-making groups where the desire for harmony overrides realistic appraisal of alternatives, but it does not focus specifically on bystander intervention in emergency contexts. Diffusion of responsibility refers to the tendency for individuals to feel less compelled to take action when others are present, but it doesn’t encompass the idea of weighing the pros and cons. Thus, the cost-benefit analysis model is the most fitting choice for describing how bystanders evaluate their decision to help or not during emergencies.