Why We Don’t Help Others: Bystander Apathy
In the next nomination for the best social psychology study I need your help as I'm in two minds. On one hand this study, inspired by the highly publicised murder of Kitty Genovese in 1964, is mentioned in every textbook and often dubbed 'seminal'. On the other, I'm not sure how original it is. So I'll explain the study then ask you to vote on whether it should be included in my top ten social psychology studies. Get your critical faculties into gear!
The study investigates the 'bystander effect'. In social psychology this is the surprising finding that the mere presence of other people inhibits our own helping behaviours in an emergency. John Darley and Bibb Latane were inspired to investigate emergency helping behaviours after the murder of Kitty Genovese in 1964.
The newspaper report of the murder stated that 38 people had heard and seen the attack, which lasted an hour, yet they did nothing. Subsequent reports, however, suggest the number of witnesses was much lower and few, perhaps none, had witnessed the whole attack.
Epileptic seizure
Whatever the status of this incident the facts of the study are well-known. Participants were invited into the lab under the pretext they were taking part in a discussion about 'personal problems' (Darley & Latane, 1968). Participants were talking to a number of unknown others, varying from just one up to four in each of the experimental trials.
Because of the sensitive nature of the discussion they were told the discussion would take place over an intercom. In fact this was just a ruse to ensure the participants couldn't physically see the other people they were talking to.
During the discussion one member of the group would suddenly appear to be having an epileptic seizure. Here is the script:
"I-er-um-I think I-I need-er-if-if could-er-er-somebody er-er-er-er-er-er-er give me a little-er-give me a little help here because-er-I-er-I'm-er-erh-h-having a-a-a real problem-er-right now and I-er-if somebody could help me out it would-it would-er-er s-s-sure be-sure be good . . . because-there-er-er-a cause I-er-I-uh-I've got a-a one of the-er-sei er-er-things coming on and-and-and I could really-er-use some help so if somebody would-er-give me a little h-help-uh-er-er-er-er-er c-could somebody-er-er-help-er-uh-uh-uh (choking sounds). . . . I'm gonna die-er-er-I'm . . . gonna die-er-help-er-er-seizure-er-[chokes, then quiet]."
The experimenters then measured how long it took for participants to go the person's aid. They clearly found that the more people were involved in the group discussion, the slower participants were to respond to the apparent emergency. It seems that the presence of others inhibits people's helping behaviours.
Don't you care?
Some participants made no move to intervene in the apparent emergency. What was going on? Darley and Latane (1968) report that those who did not act were far from uncaring about the seizure victim. Quite the reverse in fact, compared to those who did report the emergency, they appeared to be in a more heightened state of arousal. Many were sweating, had trembling hands and looked to be in considerable discomfort.
The non-helpers appeared to be caught in a double bind that locked them up. One part of them felt shame and guilt for not helping. Another part of them didn't want to expose themselves to embarrassment or to ruin the experiment which, they had been told depended on each conversant remaining anonymous from the others.
More than Milgram?
It's here that I wonder about the originality of the finding. Certainly Milgram's study of obedience casts a long shadow over this experiment. Similar to the Milgram situation, participants here were put under pressure to continue with the experiment by authority figures (the psychologists). Again, someone was suffering discomfort and participants felt conflicted about whether or not to intervene. In this case in an epileptic seizure, in Milgram's study, it was the electrical shocks participants themselves were administering.
This study's originality comes from the finding that the more people are present, the longer participants take to help. And this is certainly an important insight in social psychological terms. Because of the way the experiment was set up participants had no way of knowing how the other people who heard the seizure had responded. This meant that the only variable was how many other people they knew to be present.
ยป Read on for the best social psychology studies
Reference
Darley, J. M., & Latane, B. (1968). Bystander intervention in emergencies: diffusion of responsibility. J Pers Soc Psychol, 8(4), 377-83.
Join 21938 readers
- No related posts.
Milgram does cast a long shadow, but I would say that Milgran's shadow falls more heavily over Zimbardo than over Darley & Latane.
And the presumption is "anyone is more qualified than me." However, other researchers (I can't remember names) have found two correlaries to this study. If someone makes a direct appeal for help, the bystander is more likely to help. It is best to pull the individual out of the group than to appeal to the whole group. Second, knowing about the bystander effect makes you more likely to help.
During my college years, I worked a menial job in retail. I was speaking with an older woman at my checkout stand when her eyes rolled into her head and she collapsed backwards hitting her head on the register wall behind her.
Naturally, as she fell, I reached after her. I regrettably missed, but it is about my thoughts after she had fallen that I want to share because I sadly too took part of this terrible form of apathy.
I withdrew my hands once she had hit the floor as if she had been a hot pan. The man that had been in line behind her rushed in and began helping her up. I felt a strong urge to tell him to stop because I had seen the way her head had hit and I was concerned first about a possible neck injury.. but I couldn't get the words out despite my strong desire too. I deferred to him because in my mind he was an "adult" and my inner self was still fashioned as a child in my minds eye. I felt little, weak and helpless.
My point is that I felt powerless as I did, like a child, and I looked to someone else to take that leadership role subconsciously. It didn't matter that I knew what should be done or what I could do.
After the other customer broke the stillness to help the older woman, I felt released and helped as well by getting her the store wheelchair, a cold drink and calling her family and an ambulance. But it took his move to make the rest of us function. It had been as if I was trapped behind a seal of clear cellophane frozen, locked in place. No matter how I wanted to move I couldn't.
Where I am going with this is to touch on the overwhelming sense I had of reverting to a child in that awful moment. We are raised in a society that develops a hierarchy of established niches demanding each person bow to the needs of another. We are choked with laws, lawsuits, a deeper understanding of how things hurt us, and above all fear. And let's not forget the fascination!
As the human herd we follow and find it difficult to lead.
Speaking of herd, and not to compare Humans to wildlife as I know that may offend some, but in a herd of gazelle when an animal is being attacked by a predator, the others continue to flee and watch on, satisfied that they are safe that day because someone else was sacrificed. Water Buffalo flee as if on fire, but being the fierce and gigantic beasts they are they turn back to attack. But even they will watch a fellow member be savagely mauled before one bull or cow finally tiptoes over the invisible line of fear and takes action against the lions. If you watch the scenario, though, it always takes one to go in first before any of the others join ranks.
How often have you watched one of Spike TV's Most Amazing Video's and said to yourself: "Glad that's not me,"?
To go onto a secondary rant, another angle I see is as self preservation. You see someone else throw up and so will you. It's reflex reaction. If they ate something that makes them sick then so might you be. We develop instinctual aversions to things (argue nature versus nurture here). If we see one person in agonizing pain because they've been hit by a car, then we fear going to their aide for fear of our own lives.
Looking back at the story above, I also would like to point out that though I hesitated helping the old woman as a human I could identify with, I have had many occasions before that I put myself in danger to help animals without a second thought. I have been bitten by everything from snakes to horses in the process of these vet aided rescues. So why didn't I hesitate at those times? I truly believe it was due to being less able to directly identify my self image with theirs.
Just to share my own experience, I have recently had two accidents - in one, I fell down half a flight of stairs at a subway station, in another I had a bike accident. Both times, people stopped to help me before I even had a chance to ask for help. They were kind and understood that I was a bit dazed, and I hope they understood how much I appreciated their help. The reverse has never been true - I have never been in an accident where people did not help. I wonder though if it's because I am a woman - would they have been so willing to help had I been a man?
I also have a question about the experiment: the blog post says that the people were in separate rooms talking over an intercom. Did the subjects even know where the other participants were? Quite a few posts have mentioned that people will not help if they don't know what to do - indecision can be paralyzing. I wonder if the results of the experiment would be different if the subjects knew exactly which room contained the epileptic participant?
First off, excellent blog. Just thought I'd leave my own experience which after reading this makes me shiver. I'm currently in Medical School and the first test that we had was an Anatomy practical. Basically the professors put flags/pins in various locations on a number of cadavers inside the lab. All the students line up outside the lab and are filed from question to question every 45 seconds by a bell. You are not allowed to go back and for obvious reasons must continue forward when the buzzer rings.
So when I got to question 7 one of the TA's near the entrance shouted "can I get some help here!! this girl is seizing!!" One of our classmates who had epilepsy was overcome by the stress of everything and had an episode. Every student looked back at girl.... and then the bell rang and we moved forward to the next station. This was a group of students who are all taking up a career to provide medical aid!!!! Some of us used to be PA's, nurses, chiropractors, or MA's.
So how do I validate my actions? Well I froze, I was caught in the thought of "someone else is more qualified to deal with this then myself" (I had been an MA in an emergency department for 3 years, fully qualified). The next thought was self-preservation. I wasn't sure if I broke ranks I would be given the opportunity to continue the exam. I rationalized that there is really nothing to do acutely for a seizure except stabilize the patient and the TA had that under control.
By the second buzzer various professors were heading to aid our classmate. The girl was fine, as I stated had a history of epilepsy and had been on a horrible diet and sleep pattern heading into our test.
Just a little real world experience to add to the debate as to the validity of this experiment.