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.
Admittedly, I've been one of those unhelpful bystanders myself, on a few occasions. Once I saw somebody have a seizure at a seminar, and nobody in the audience, including me, even moved from their seat. I don't even know what went on in my own mind that made me so reluctant to help. It's as if the what's-going-on mode was in full throttle, but the what-am-I-going-to-do-about-it mode had been disconnected.
Watching news seems to provoke the same feeling - an engrossment with the event accompanied by a complete disinclination to do anything about it. You take for granted, of course, that events in the news are not your problem. There are, after all, thousands of other people watching it. But then this mentality somehow extends down to a group as small as two.
Most people feel safer walking the streets during daylight hours, when there are lots of people around. The scary thing is that that might not make any difference in the event of a violent attack. Realistically, most crimes will be 'tolerated' by onlookers. I'm reminded of a man in Edmonton who was sitting quietly on a city bus when he was attacked and beaten to death by two drunken teenagers, in full view of all the other passengers. Normal people passively watched a murder.
Of course we need to understand why that can happen.
I believe that it is basic selfishness. When we get involved in other peoples misfortune like that we feel their pain in an intense way. If we can avoid this pain we will.
While the first incident was disputed as possible having no witnesses. There was a similar case in Egypt where 30+ people watched a woman being rapped at crowded bus station and did nothing. So the conclusion from the alleged first incident must hold true as the Egyptian incident was confirmed by multiple sources.
When I approach a situation that is questionable -- such as an argument, I usually look to the people already present for an indication as to what is happening. I have worked as personal security. I wouldn't get involved in a stranger's argument unless one party expressed (or clearly had) the need for help. You must, and I do, consider personal safety in such situations.
The group, however, makes me more likely to stand back because I think they may be privy to information or variables that I am not. You don't know who started what, who might be undercover, or what the hell is going on.
If you are alone then you know that person requires *your* help or they won't get any.
I have seen angry women attack larger men. Let's suppose that a woman attacks a larger man and the event turns against her. Who is it your responsibility to help?
I'm not a psych. professional nor a student, so maybe I'm just swimming in the wrong tank, but I don't see what is so hard to understand about this phenomenon. Hard to measure, sure.
Haven't you ever driven past an old woman carrying her groceries uphill and thought "Damn. I should have stopped to offer her a ride."?
Haven't you ever attempted to help someone only to have it royally bite you in the ass?
I guess if I tried to boil it down, inaction is physically, mentally, legally and emotionally safer. Why be the first to take the risk? especially when you see others who could take that risk just as easily.
I stopped to break at a burning car once. Other people were there watching and I thought that I saw a child seat in the back so I ran to the car to open it. There were no occupants but once I ran in, other people rushed to help me. They weren't evil people -- they just hadn't figured out what to do. I was ~18 years old with no consideration that mortality was a factor, so I didn't need to figure.
I am neither a student nor a psychology professor or related to psychology in anyway other then my own personal interest in social human interaction.
I will state that I am a 24 year old caucasian male who is in the U.S. Army and has been deployed to Iraq twice. I have seen an obvious difference in my ability and willingness to help in a seemingly cataclysmic or dangerous situation. Not even speaking with direct relation to War Time Events. I've had my own personal experiences with such people in distress.
I think a major influence on people's reaction times has to do with who's the most qualified, agreeing with George Larson and Michael. A single person witnessing an event knows immediately they're the only person who might immediately save them. A group of people becomes a question of the classic phrase, "Is there a doctor in the house."
I don't think the normal person is even trained in simple first-aid procedures. Most people revolve their knowledge around TV shows. Pulling a person from a car wreck before it explodes as a classic example. I think a study should be done with an emphasis on people with the skills versus those without common knowledge in an unknowing situation. It would peak more curiosity to see which set of people would react first. Someone with common first aid knowledge or someone with the courage to just try and help.
I can easily say before i ever joined the army, I would have been completely clueless as to what to do to help a person in a dire situation. I would have worked on natural instinct alone. After joining the army and going through a lot of training, I'm more then ready to help someone out. Since I've been home from both tours in Iraq I have come across multiple situations where I've immediately jumped to the rescue, so to say. But, the more suprising parts have been watching my friends who move equally as quick as me without training or knowledge. One such incident being an elder man who was walking down a hill, lost his step and stumbled almost 200 feet before nose diving infront of my friends front porch. We were unsure if he was running or not at first, but as soon as he leaned too far forward, we were jumping and running to his effort. I took charge and gave orders on what first aid was needed and how to treat the gentleman, but the the fact that they were right beside me immediately was something I guess I noticed psychologically and was suprised to see. Average people without thought, moving to help someone.
I have been in a situation, though, where we can see obvious unwillingness to help. I was in a car wreck on 76E going past Pittsburgh in `06. It was raining and I hydroplaned from the middle lane into the left lane. Bounced off the center median and hit back end into the guardrail past the right lane almost hitting multiple cars and a dumptruck the whole time. I the flipped front over end over the guard rail and rolled about 7 or 8 times. Moments later as i crawled out of the car into the light rain, there was not a single person pulled over. Only a trail of belongings from my trunk.
The only people to show up was a lady who stoppped about 4 minutes later and had called 911 and some bystanders from a church up the hill who happened to notice I was wrecked. A completely bust highway and only one lady stopped and bothered to call 911.
Kind of upsetting. Good thing I wasn't majorly hurt and was wearing my seatbelt. Had I needed immediate medical attention, I might have died.
I think there may be something even more fundamental here than the human interest or disinterest in whether or not to help in an emergency situation. In fact, I think there might be two somethings.
The first "something" is seen in social events as simple as a group of strangers waiting to get on an elevator, all emergency situations aside for a moment. Elevator door opens, and one of three things happens: 1) one person decides to be leader and goes first without hesitation, and the rest file in like grains of sand in an hourglass; 2) one person decides to be a director rather than a leader and stands aside and holds the door to signal another person to go ahead first, and then the hourglass stream of people follow; or 3) there's a hesitation in the whole group, perhaps with some false starts, while some silent "turn taking" mechanism goes spinning fruitlessly around in each person's head until someone finally decides to go first. In a group or mob of unfamiliar individuals, there is sometimes no pecking order, no way to know who should go first, and the group stalls. I think that's why the social pecking order likes stereotypes, that "old people go first," or "the woman goes first." We need some way to pick someone to go first, and physical characteristics like age or gender (or beauty) are convenient social norms in a crowd of strangers.
Even in non-stressful situations, like waiting for an elevator, there is often stress involved in being a member of a group but having to decide to act independently to decide whether or not to "go first."
Now, add the second "something" I think is going on in group behavior in an emergency situation, like knowing someone is getting attacked or having a seizure. If you add the complications introduced by adrenaline and the "fight or flight" response that's an inherent part of our animal selves, you can have a "go first" paralysis that is more fundamental than someone hesitation because they worry about the legal ramifications or because they worry about embarrassment. I think a great portion of the stasis has to do with our more fundamental and lower thinking functions -- the "what do I do" that comes with three cars pulling to a four way stop at the same time; several strangers stalled getting into an elevator; kids following teachers direction to line up and milling first not wanting to commit.
Sorry that's so windy, but I didn't know how else to explain how I see these more fundamental features of human creatures. We're social animals since pre-history and I think hesitation is hard-wired when we don't have familiar cues about how to act. And the hesitation is greater when greater stress is applied, as in an emergency. That's why people trained to act in emergencies are drilled over and over in as real-word scenarios as possible -- so they find the scenarios as familiar as possible and act automatically. Works for the army, firemen, cops, nurses, doctors, you name it. They're pre-conditioned to act quickly and decisively. Most people are not. I also think there is a type of individual who is naturally predisposed to acting fairly decisively in an emergency, but most are not.
So, you'll all be glad to know that's the end of my rumination, and happier yet to know I don't have a big finish.
M
Thanks to all for your thoughtful comments on this study. It's always very interesting to read different people's perspectives.
I would be interested to see what the results were if the participants had a way to 'anonymously' help. Say if there was a phone in front of them and they could request help.
My spouse hemorrhaged to death in full view of between 25 and 40 persons. Only one called an ambulance at least 40 minutes later. Really. It took at least 20 minutes for him to bleed out. Really. Just knowing about this has dramatically affected my willingness to engage with my "friends and neighbors". What's weirder is the level of denial and hush-hush about this in the community. The level of rationalization in these postings is pretty consistent with this behavior. I wish I'd known more fully about this behavior before wasting years of my life volunteering in the community. What a waste! I'm now pretty much the most misanthropic person on the planet. F**** all of you
My family went through this. Our garage had set fire one night and it wasn't until something in the car exploded that anybody in our house woke up. After that, it took perhaps 10 minutes to figure out that the garage was burning.
The thing was, as my father went out to get our dogs away from the blaze, he noticed many of our neighbors were just watching our property burn and none of them were bothering to see if we were awake.
In fact, none of them even bothered to call the fire department even after standing there for 20 minutes. At the time, my father was a well-known paramedic in this town, so maybe they all thought that as he and his family was burning alive when the house caught that he'd be able to magically save us... We had to call ourselves.
I also nearly died from drowning in a public pool where there was no lifeguard. I eventually somehow managed to save myself. It wasn't as though they didn't know I was drowning. People even asked me if I was ok afterwards and I told them to politely f*ck off.
However, instead of complaining and not doing anything about this phenomenon, I decided to become the exception. Of course I would later become a lifeguard myself, I didn't feel that was enough. So, I decided to find out why people do this and, from reading much of the research, I think that the bystander effect- as well as poor survival skills- is largely due to failure to prepare. People don't prepare themselves for problems before they happen.
What about self-preservation? People often don't help because the situation is violent and thus they assume they'll get punched or stabbed or both parties will just turn on them.
In my experience, people are quite willing to help if someone has an accident, esp. if they're in a 'vulnerable' demographic (the old, the young & mostly women) as its low-risk to offer assitance i.e. no threat to own life.
People who observe an event that requires the emergency services often don't call because they assume someone else has called already & they're just gonna be a nuisance to the police, the ambulance etc. They just don't want to 'kick up a fuss'.
From personal experience, I would agree with the proponents of the theory that in a larger group, there is a greater chance of there being an individual more skilled or qualified to handle an unusual situation. I certainly would have no idea what to do for a person having a seizure, and if I were in a group, would pause to see if a truly qualified person were available to help.
A laboratory experiment is a bit different, however. If I were involved in such an experiment that I knew was being closely monitored by scientific professionals, I would be inclined to assume that the individuals monitoring the experiment would certainly help any participant in need of immediate aid. You can bet my reaction time would be significantly slower in that situation.
I remember one time my freshman year in college, I showed up for a class to find the door to the classroom closed. Several students were standing or even seated in the hall, waiting for the door to be opened. Notice that I did not say 'unlocked'. Each new arrival just assumed that the person before them had already tried the door. As people in the group didn't know each other, no one talked to one another to discuss the situation, just went on quiet assumption. I wish I could say that I was the one who finally tried the door and walked right on in, to everyone else's mild embarrassment. I wonder if the phenomenon is related to the one in the experiment.
It seems to me that humans do follow a sort of 'pecking order' code of behavior when in a group, waiting for more able or qualified individuals to take control of an unexpected situation. In the controlled experiment, I expect that most participants desired to help, but felt that more qualified people (qualified scientists who were more likely to know proper first aid) and more able people (scientists running the experiment who actually had access to all the particpants) were already doing what they could.
And in defense of humanity, I have both witnessed and been involved in a variety of vehicular accidents. In all cases, help was immediately forthcoming from bystanders, usually in the form of multiple calls to 911, or, in a case where I was a passenger in my friend's car with my great dane in back, while waiting for the ambulance to arrive (which had been called immediately by at least three witnesses) a worker from a nearby office brought water for all three of us (it was a hot summer day), including a bowl for the dog.
You can bet that if I'm a person's best chance for help, I'll do what I can.
This an interesting topic that I am still somewhat confused about,
2 scenarios where i have personal experience dealing with situations where a stranger needed helped and there were other bystanders/more than 3 members of the public were present.
situaton 1
A woman was hit by a jeep breaking to a stop 5 metres, without instinctive reaction I found myself stunned but picked up my mobile and called for an ambulance.
My mind was filled with worry and concerned for the injured.
situation 2
A woman was yelling "stop thief" and was chasing a man carrying (quite obviously a ladies handbag), a random man X of good built body slammed the thief. The woman caught up and attempted to wrestle her handbag back however he threw her off on the ground and ran towards my direction.
Strangely the entire time I had felt no urge or gut instinct like the 1st situation, but calculating the possible harm he would have caused her or how i would escalate the situation if i intervened; including legal ramifications in the possible use of "excess force".
As well as expecting the X man to continue to intervene as he seemed better qualified physically.
However I have trained extensively in martial arts and in the situation would have had enough of an opportunity to stop the man if I had the benefit of "preparation for the problem" before it happened.
It just seemed that many theories discussed previously here could worked in unison to explain all these things happening to me in why i was able to act sooner in the first situation.
The lack of personal involvement(association with self preservation) in both cases, didn't seem to be the main factor in preventing initial thought/impulse on acting to help. The second situation did have more calculation and hesitation when I "felt"
1: The woman was no longer in danger while the thief was running away.
2: Repercussions for using excessing force, as well as the need for 2 legal warning before disarming a person without martial arts training.
3. The previous involvement of X man, and relinquishing partial if any responsibility to pursue the thief by expect X to continue to act.
Although we may all "lie to ourselves" due to cognitive dissonance, the gut feeling in the situation was present,
i'll be happy if there are any other theories or discussions that can show cause to the difference in the two difference case of behaviours.
I think it has to do with how well fit for help people consider themselves.
Like when i'm in a room with someone who gets a heart attack i will help him even though i'm not a doctor, simply because the little help i can give is better than no help. But when there are other people present, chances are that someone whil have a better clue on how to help, so i would wait for someone with more knowledge fit for the ocassion to take action.
with groups who can see each other you'll find them looking at each other sizing everbody up for fitness, till either someone steps up who has some knowledge or some bright soul will think to himself "heck if no one takes action i will".
for the experiment it's not unthinkable every person thought the experiment staff would come to aid, thinking they'd have a better idea on what to do.
I say what Michael said. This is most likely do to the logic that when in a larger group, each individual would assume that someone else with higher knowledge would react faster...
A simple experiment to test this would simply be to add a nurse/doctor to the group. Then see if that person reacts (which they probably will immedietely).
In fact, I bet if you have two people in the group and one is a nurse/doctor, the other one will not react at all, or delay longer than average...