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 22301 readers
- No related posts.
Has anyone taken into consideration, the hesitation noted in the 'bystander effect,' especially in real-world examples, may have something to do with 'legal ramifications'? So many times an individual tries to help someone in distress, only the individual becomes blamed by the 'authority figures' for causing the distress in the first place and punished for it.
Just an thought.
The investigation into the "bystander effect" is certainly an interesting look into human behaviour, applicable to many real-world situations and I would certainly consider it a worthy contestant for top psychological study!
There is a trick here you might have overlooked about the so called genovese effect. When people are asked why they didn't do anything about this or that - they will rationalize their way out of it and make excuses because dissonance is created when the interviewer asks with a certain expectation of that they should have helped. It is the "political correct" way of answering other people in our culture and make an excuse for ourselves so we don't look bad in the eyes of other people - usually not the truth.
Take a look back in history, the coliseum in Rome where people were thrown to the lions, the Witch burnings in the medieval, the guillotine during the French Revolution, the slaughters in America 1880-1920 - thousands upon thousands showed up to watch, not to protest or help - in our culture you can just think of television shows of wars, and so on. People don't feel sorry or really want to help. They watch it - enjoy it - and then rationalize their way out of it in our cultural context with the statement "There's nothing I can do about it anyways" - and the genovese effect is another excuse which is more political correct, than closer to the truth about human nature.
That would be a little part of the argument against the genovese effect anyways - enjoy and keep working :)
Another, yes I think there's some truth to what you're saying. On the other hand the examples you provide are a little extreme. When the cost to helping is so small, as in the current experiment, it does seem surprising that more people don't help. Don't forget that helping someone out - even when there isn't much cost - makes us look good in the eyes of others. Why not take the plaudits?
This was observed long before the litigious nature of our culture (in the US) was observed. Notwithstanding, I am sure that contemporary researchers are able to mitigate such effects. This is the very nature of research: i.e. separating the independent variables from the controlled variables to attain the dependent variables. Litigation, while worthy of cultural debate, plays no role here.
~Isaac
A decision about whether this belongs in the top 10 requires another study (or group of studies) to compare it with. Otherwise it must be compared with all "potential" studies out there.
Luckily just such a list now exists!
The examples I came with in my previous post aren't really extreme, it's a part of human nature, and history shows it in all its glory. I know its not fun or nice to think about, and its certainly not political correct, its quite inconvenient and harsh.
The bias you seem to have is humanism, and you would like to think that it was this or that way - it has some merit of course, there are people who actually help and does something, but in many cases it doesn't.
But since you think the cases I came with are extreme, then i'll suggest you do a little research on more simple cases, I believe they will show you something similar to what i've suggested. You could for an instance also try looking into ordinary traffic accidents, in our current culture, - what does people actually do?. Unfortunatly, they often just stand there and watch, protected by the anonymousity of the crowd itself - its very few people who actually does something - like call an ambulance, cpr, you name it. That was at least what I found when I looked into various statistics and police reports. I suggest you do your own research on the matter, and your own conclusions. I'm just as biased, being a pessimist beyond imagination. :-)
I wonder how much the advent of television has affected bystander apathy. I know that in the few times in my life that I have been a witness to distress of this sort that it's taken me a few moments to shake off the impulse to sit back and watch the drama unfold.
It would be interesting to see if there is any difference in reactions when the group of bystanders has been defined as an audience compared to when it has been defined as a team.
I became part of this type of incident in real life. It was after I had read about the experiment with smoke coming from another room and 3 strangers watching it happen while taking an exam. They ignored it. When it was 1 person alone, he took action.
Anyway, in my experience, my friend (female) and I had parked in a large, multi-store parking lot (thousands of parking spaces). We were walking towards a deli and noticed a rogue shopping cart being blown by the wind towards a semi-busy street at about 10mph. It was heading directly for the exit onto the street, and any oncoming traffic would be unable to see it in time because of bushes.
Well, we both just watched it, even though we could have easily caught up to it and stopped it. About 20 feet before the street, it made a 90 degree turn and hit an embankment. Crisis averted. I turned to my friend and said, "I think God was testing us...and we failed horribly." I wonder if I'd have done better if I were alone.
Another, actually you're probably right! After all, the fact that people don't help is exactly what this experiment is telling us. And Gnasche is providing more evidence of the sort of thing many of us do.
Thanks for your comments.
Is there any possible causality in the fact that the more people in the group means there is a higher likelihood that someone has more specialised situational knowledge?
E.G. If someone has a seizure then people in a crowd would defer responsibility to the person with the highest specialised knowledge of correct action for the situation.
If you are the only one witnessing an event there is no question that you are the highest qualified bystander.
Michael, yes, this sounds very plausible - not sure if it's been tested in a study or not...
I have a problem with the reasoning behind anotherdomain's examples. I read what you said as the reason people don't respond is because they are entertained? it strikes me as significantly different for the examples you chose(the coliseum of rome, witch burnings etc). in those examples, what was happening was completely planned. Those attending were expecting what was happening. In the study, people were exposed to an event the experimenters wanted the participant to respond as something out of the ordinary, something UN expected. (if i missed something or have the facts wrong sorry for the mistake)
Someone getting hurt, is different from someone being inconvenienced, and also different again from someone dieing. I know i am more inclined to help someone when i am the only one who could respond. I honestly sometimes i get a "bad feeling" about something and try to just get out of there cause i don't want to become involved. Sometimes thats because i am afraid, i don't know what to do, i can't bring myself to act. And that is true even when there are more people. If there are more people, there are more things to consider. You have to figure out what everyone else is doing so that you can see what options are left to you. So that to me is the reason(at least the vast majority of it) as why it takes people longer to respond or do anything about the situation. I think ignorance of what to do, and shock are large concerns too. I also expect someone to be doing something about the situation if i don't know what to do. "someone must be doing something, aren't they?" i know i would ask myself. How long does it take me to realize that no one is?
What can we really learn about our nature if we judge peoples reactions to situations they have never experienced or considered what they should be doing. What i think is important is whether or not some reacts when they do have some knowledge or experience. and then see how they respond when there are more people.
-Adam McG-
forgot to add, im dumb, so maybe that rant was inappropriate. If so, sorry everyone.
-Adam McG-