Darley+1968+ +Bystander+Intervention+in+Emergencies.+Diffusion+of+Responsability

8/13/2019 Darley+1968+ +Bystander+Intervention+in+Emergencies.+Diffusion+of+Responsability

1/7


2/7

78 JOHN M. D A R L E Y A N D BIBB L A T A N T Cs u r e to in t e rv en e focuses u n i q u e l y on h i m .W h e n the re are several observers present ,however, the pressures to in tervene do notfocus on any one of the observers; insteadthe responsibil ity for interv ention is sharedamong all the onlookers and is not u n iq u eto any one. A s a result, no one helps.A second possibility is that poten t ia l b lamemay be diffused. However much we may wishto th ink that an individual 's m oral behavioris divorced from considerations of personalpunishment or reward, there is both theoryand evidence to the cont rary (Aronfreed,1 9 6 4 ; Miller & Bollard, 1941, Whiting &Child , 19S3) . It is per f ec t ly reasonable toassume that, under ci rcumstances of g roupresponsibility for a punishable act , the p u n -ishment or b lame that accrues to any oneindividual is often slight or nonexistent.

Finally, if others are k n o w n to be present ,b u t their behavior cannot b e closely observed,any one bys tander can as sume that one ofthe other observers is alread y taking actionto end the emergency . Therefore, his ownin tervent ion would b e o n l y r edu n dan t p er -haps harmfu l ly o r confus ingly so. Thus,given the presence of other onlookers whosebehavior cannot b e observed, any given b y-s tander can rationalize his own inaction b yconvincing himself that somebody else m ustbe doingsomething."

These considerationslead to the hypothesisthat the more bystanders to an emergency ,the less likely, or the more slowly, any onebystander will intervene to provide aid. Totest this propostion it wou ld be necessary tocreate a situation in which a realistic"emergency" could plausibly occur . Each sub-ject should also be blocked f rom com-municat ing with o thers to prevent h is gett inginformat ion about their behavior during theemergency . Finally, the experimental situa-tion should allow for the assessment of thespeed and f requency of the subjects' reactionto the emergency . The experiment reportedbelow attempted to fulfill these conditions.

P R O C E D U R EOverview. A co llege s tud en t a r r iv ed in the labora -to ry a n d w a s ushered into an individual room f r omwhich a c o m m u n i c a t i o n system wou ld enab l e h imto talk to the o ther par t ic ipan ts . It was explainedto h im that he was to t a k e p a r t in a discuss ion

abou t pe r sona l p rob l ems a s soc i a t ed wi th college l i f eand tha t the d iscussion w ou ld be held over thei n t e rcom sy s t em, r a t he r than face-to-face, in o rde rto avo id emba r r a s smen t b y preserving the a n o n y m -i ty of the su bjec t s . Du r ing the cou rse of the dis-cussion, one of the o the r sub j ec t s unde rwen t wha tappea r ed to be a very ser ious nervous seizure s imi-la r to epilepsy. During the f i t i t was impossible forthe s u b j e c t to talk to the other discussants or tof ind out w h a t , if anyth ing , they were do ing aboutthe e m e r g e n c y . The dependent var iable was thespeed wi th which the s ub j e c t s repor ted the emer-gency to the expe r i men te r . The ma jo r i ndependen tva r i ab l e wa s the n u m b e r of people th e s u b j e c tt h o u g h t to be in the discuss ion group.Subjects. Fif ty-n ine female and th i r t een male s tu-d e n t s in in t rod uc tory psychology courses a t N ewYork Univers i ty wer e con t ac t ed to take part in anunspecified expe r imen t aspart of a class requi rement .Method. U pon ar r iving fo r the exper im ent , thesubject found himself in a long corridor with doorsopen ing off i t to severa l smal l rooms. A n experi-m e n t a l assistant met him, took him to one of therooms , and sea ted him at a table. Af te r fi l l ing out ab a c k g r o u n d in f o rma t ion f o r m , the subject was g ivena pai r o f head phone s wi th an a t tached m icrophoneand was told to listen fo r ins t ruct ions .Ov e r the in terc om , the exp er im enter expla ined thathe w as in t e r e s t ed in l ea rn ing abou t th e k inds ofpe r sona l p rob l ems faced b y normal col lege studentsin a h igh pressure , urban envi ronment . He sa idt ha t to avoid possible embar rassment about di s-cussing personal p roblem s w i th s t rangers severa lpreca u t i ons had been t aken . First, s ub j e c t s w o u l dr ema in anonym ous , wh i ch was why t hey had beenplaced in individ ual rooms ra the r than face - to- face.(The actua l reason fo r th i s was to a l low taper e c o rd e r s imula t ion of the o the r sub jec ts and theeme rgency . ) Second, since the discussion might beinhibited by the presence of outside l isteners, th eexpe r i men te r w ou ld not l isten to the ini t ial discus-sion, but would get the subject ' s r eact ions late r , b yquest ionnai re . (The rea l purpose of th i s was tor e m o v e th e obviously responsible exper imenter f romthe scene of the emergency . )The s ub j e c t s w ere told tha t s ince the expe r ime nterwas no t presen t , i t was necessary to impose someorganiza t ion. Each person would ta lk in t u rn , p r e -sen t ing h is p roblems to the g roup. Next , each personin t u rn w ou ld comm en t on wha t t h e o the r s had said ,and f ina l ly , there would be a free discussion. Amecha n i ca l swi tch ing device would regula te th i s di s-cussion sequence and each sub jec t ' s mic rophonewould be on for a b o u t 2 minu t es . Whi l e any mic ro -phone was on, a l l o the r mic rophones wou ld b e o f f .Only one su bject , there fore , could b e hea rd ove rth e n e t w o r k at any given t ime. The sub jec t s wer ethus l ed to rea l ize when they la ter heard the seizuretha t on ly the v i c t im ' s mic rophone w as on and thatthere was no way of de te rm i n i ng what any of theo ther wi tnesses were do ing , nor of discussing thee v e n t and its possible solut ion wi th the o thers .When these ins t ruct ions had been g iven , the discus-sion b e g a n .


3/7

B Y S T A N D E R I N T E R V E N T I O N I N E M E R G E N C I E S 379In the di scuss ion, the f u t u r e victim spoke first ,saying that he f ou nd it difficult to ge t ad jus ted toN e w York Ci ty and lo his s tudies . Very hesi tan t ly ,a n d w i th o b v i o u s e m b a r r a s s m e n t , h e m e n t i o n e d t h a the w as p r o n e to se izures , pa r t i cu la r ly when s tudyingha rd or taking exams. The other people , inc ludingth e real sub jec t , took the i r tu rns and discussed

s imi la r problems (minus , of course, th e proneness tose izures ) . The na ive subjec t ta lked last in theseries, a f t e r th e last prerecorded voice w as p l ayed .2W h e n i t was again the vic t im 's tu rn to talk, hem a d e a few re la t ive ly ca lm comments , and then ,g rowi ng i nc rea s ing ly loude r a nd i ncohe re n t , hecon t i nued :I-er-um-I think I-I necd-er-if-i f could-er -er - some-b o d y er -er -er -er -er -er -er give m e a li l t le-er-givem e a l i t t le he lp here because-e r-I-e r-I 'm-er-e r-h -h-hav ing a-a-a real p rob l cm-e r - r i gh t now andI-er-if som ebody cou ld he lp me out i t wou ld - i twou ld -e r - e r s-s-sure be-sure be good . . . because-c r- there-e r-c r-a causeI-er-I-uh-I've got a-a one ofthe-er - sei er -cr - th ings coming on a nd -a nd -a ndI cou ld real ly-er-use some help so if s o m e b o d ywould- e r - g ive me a little h -he lp -uh - e r - e r - e r - e r - e rc-cou ld somebody -e r - e r -he l p - e r - uh -uh -uh ( chok i ngs o u n d s ) . . . . I'm gonna die-er-er-I'm . . . gonnadie-er -help-er -er - seizure-er - [chokes , then qu ie t ] .The ex per im ente r began t iming the speed of therea l subjec t ' s response at the beginning of the vic-t im 's speech. In fo rme d judges l i s tening to the ta pehave es t ima ted that the victim's increasingly louderand m o r e disconnected rambl ings c lea r ly repre-

sen ted a b r e a k d o w n a b o u t 7 0 seconds a f te r th esignal for the vic t im 's second speech. The victim'sspeech was a b r u p t l y cut off 125 seconds af te r thissignal, which could b e i n te rp re t ed by the sub j ec tas indicating that th e time allotted fo r that speakerhad elapsed and the switching circuits had switcheda w a y f rom him. Times repor ted in the results aremea su red f rom the s ta r t of the fit.Group size variable. The m a j o r i n d e p e n d e n t vari-able of the s tudy was the n u m b e r o f o ther peoplethat th e subjec t be l i eved a lso hea rd the fi t . By theassistant 's comments before th e expe r i men t , and alsoby the n u m b e r of voices heard to speak in the firstr o u n d of the group discussion, th e sub j ec t was ledlo believe that th e discussion group was one of th reesizes: ei ther a two-person group (cons i s t ing of aperson w ho would la te r have a fi t and the reals u b j e c t ) , a three-person gr ou p (consisting of thevic t im, the rea l sub jec t , and one confede ra t e vo i ce ) ,or a six-person group (consisting of the victim, th erea l sub jec t , and fo u r c o n f e d e r a t e voices) . All theconfede ra t e s ' voices we re t a pe - re co rded .Variations in group composition. Varying th e k i ndas wel l as the n u m b e r of bys ta nde r s p re s en t at an

2T o tes t whether th e o rde r in whi ch th e subjec tsspoke in the first discussion round significantly af-f ec ted the subjects ' speed of report, the order inwhich th e subjec ts spoke w as var ied (in the six-pe r son g roup) . This had no significant or not i ceab leeffect on the speed of the subjects ' r epo r t s .

eme rgency shou ld a l so va ry the a moun t o f r e spon-sibility felt by any single bys t ande r . To test this ,severa l va r ia t ions of the t h r e e -p e r s o n g r o u p w e r er u n . In one th ree -pe r son cond i t i on , the ta ped b y -s tander voice w as t h a t of a female , in ano ther amale , and in the t h i r d a ma le w ho said that h e w a sa p r emedi ca l s tuden t w ho occasionally wo rked i nth e eme rgency wa rd s a t Bel levue hospi ta l .In the above condi t ions , th e sub j ec t s we re femalecollege s tuden t s . In a final cond i t i on ma le s d ra wnf r o m the s ame i n t roduc to ry psycho logy sub j e c t poolwe re tes ted in a th ree -pe r son f ema le -bys ta nde rcondi t ion.Time to help. The m a j o r dependen t variable w asth e time elapsed f rom th e start of the victim's fi tun t i l the s u b j e c t lef t he r exper imenta l cubic le . W h e nt he s ub j e c t left he r room, she s a w the exper imenta lassistant seated at the end of the hall, and invar i -a b ly wen t to the assistant. If 6 minu tes e lapsedw i t h o u t the s ub j e c t having emerged f rom he r room,the experiment was terminated.As soon as the sub j ec t r epo r t ed th e eme rgency ,or a f t e r 6 m i n u t e s had elapsed, th e exper imenta lass i s tant d i sc losed the t ru e na tu re of the exper i-m e n t , and deal t wi th any emotions a roused in thesubjec t . Finally th e s u b j e c t fi l led out a ques t ionna i reconcerning her thoughts and feelings during thee me rge n c y , and completed scales of Machiavellian-i s m , a nomi e , and auth ori tarian ism (Christie , 1964),a social desirabi li ty scale (Cro w ne & Marlow e, 1964),a social responsibi li ty scale (Daniels & Berkowitz ,1964), and repor ted v i ta l s ta t i s t i cs and socioeconomicdata.

R E S U L T SPlausibility of Manipulation

Ju dg i n g by the su bjects ' nervousness w henthey reported the fit to the experimenter , bytheir surprise when they discovered that th ef i t was s imula ted, and by comments theymade during the f i t (when they thoughttheir microphones were o f f ) , one can con-clude that almost all of the subjects perceivedthe fit as real. There were two exceptions indifferent experimental conditions, and thedata fo r these subjec ts were dropped fromth e analysis. f f e c t of Group Size on Helping

The n u m b e r of bystanders that th e sub-ject perceived to be present had a major ef-fect on the likelihood with which she wouldreport the em ergency (Table 1) . Eighty-fivepercent of the subjec ts w ho thought theyalone knew of the victim's plight reportedthe seizurebefore the victim was cut off, only31 of those w ho thought four other by-standers were present did so.


4/7

380 JOHN M. DARLF.V AND BIBB L A T A N I RT A B L E 1

K C T S 01? GROUPS SIZE O N L I K E L I H O O D A N DSPEED or RESPONSEG r o u psize

2 (5 & victim)3 S, v ic t im, & 1other)6 (.9,vic tim, & 4 others)

N

132613

% respondingby end of fit856231

Timeinsec.5293166

Speedscore.87.72.51

Note.p value of d i f f c i e n c e s : x2 = 7 . 9 1 , p


5/7


6/7

382 JOHN M . BARLEY A N D BIBB L A T A N T Cindifference thought to characterize unre-sponsivebystanders." W h en th eexperimenterentered her room to terminate th e situation,th e subjec t often asked if the victim w as all right." Is he being taken care of?He's all right isn't he ? Ma ny of these sub-jects showed physical signs of nervousness;they often had t rembl ing hands and sweat ingpalms. If any thing, they seemed m ore emo-tionally aroused than did the subjects whoreported the emergency.Why, then, didn't they respond? It is ourimpression tha t nonintervening subjects hadnot decided not to respond. Rather they werestill in a state of indecision and conflict con-cerning whether to respond or not. The

emotional behavior of these nonrespondingsubjects was a sign of their continuingconflict, a conflict that other subjects resolvedby responding.The fi t created a conflict situation of theavoidance-avoidance type. On the one hand,subjec ts worr ied about the guilt and shamethey would feel if they did not help th eperson in distress. On the other hand, theywere concerned not to m a k e fools of them-selves by overreact ing, not to ruin the on-going experiment by leaving their intercom,and not to des t roy the anonymous na ture ofth e situation which th e experimenter hadearlier stressed as important . For subjects inth e two-person condition, th e obvious distressof th e victim and his need fo r help were soimportant tha t their conflict w as easily re-solved. For the subjects w hoknew there wereother bystanders present, the cost of not help-ing was reduced and the conflict they were inmore acute. Caught between the two nega-tive alternatives of letting the victim continueto suffer or the costs of rushing in to help,th e nonresponding bystanders vacil lated be-tween them rather than choosing not torespond. This distinction may be academicfor th e victim, since he got no help in eithercase, but it is an ext remely important onefor arriving at an understanding of thecauses of bys tanders ' failures to help.Although th e subjects experienced stressand conflict dur ing th e experiment, theirgeneral reactions to it were highly positive.On a questionnaire administered after th eexperimenter had discussed th e na tu re and

purpose of the experiment, every single sub-jec t found the experim ent e i ther interestingor very interesting and was willing to par-ticipate in similar experiments in the fu tu re .All subjects felt they understood what theexperiment w asabout and indicated that theythought th e deceptions were necessary andjustified. All but one felt they were betterinformed about th e na tu re of psychologicalresearch in general .Male subjects reported th e emergency nofaster than did females. These results (orlack of them) seem to conflict with th eBerkowitz, Klanderman, and Harris (1964)finding that males tend to assume more re-sponsibility and take more init iat ive thanfemales in giving help to dependent others.Also, females reacted equally fast when th eother bystander was another female, a male,or even a person practiced in dealing withmedical emergencies. The ineffectiveness ofthese manipula t ions of group composit ioncannot be explained by general insensit ivityof th e speed measure , since th e group-sizevariable had a marked effect on report speed.It might be helpful in unders tanding thislack of difference to dist inguish tw o generalclasses of intervention in emergency situa-tions: direct and reportorial . Direct interven-tion (breaking up a f ight , extinguishing afire, swimming out to save a drowner ) oftenrequires skill, knowledge, or physical power.I t may involve danger. American culturalnorms and Berkowitz 's results seem to sug-gest that males are more responsible thanfemales for this kind of direct intervention.A second way of deal ing w ith an emergencyis to report it to someonequalified to handleit , such as the police. For this kind of inter-vention, there seem to be no norms requiringmale action. In the present study, subjectsclearly intended to repor t th e emergencyra ther than take direct action. For suchindirect intervention, sex or medical com-petence does not appe ar to affect one's quali-fications or responsibilities. Anybody, maleor female, medically trained or not, can findthe experimenter.

In this study, no subject w as able to tellhow th e other subjects reacted to the fit.(Indeed, there were no other subjects actu-ally present.) The effects of group size on


7/7

B Y S T A N D E R I N T E R V E N T I O N I N E M E R G E N C I E S 383speed of helping, therefore, are due simply tothe perceived presence of others ra ther thanto the influenceof their actions. This meansthat the experimental situation is unlikeemergencies, such as a fire, in which by-standersinteract with each other. It is, how-ever, s imilar to emergencies, such as theGenovese m u r d e r , in which spectators knewothers were also watching but were pre-vented by walls between them from com-munica t ion that might have counteracted th ediffusion of responsibility.The present results create serious difficul-ties for oneclass of comm only given explana-tions for the failure of bystanders to inter-vene in actual emergencies, those involvingapathy or indifference. These explanationsgenerally assert that people who fail to inter-vene are somehow different in kind from th erest of us, that they are alienated by indus-trialization, dehumanized by urbanization,depersonalized by living in the coldsociety,"or "psychopaths." These explanations servea du a l function fo r people w ho adop t them.First, they explain (if only in a nominalw a y ) th e puzzling and frightening p rob lemof w hy people watch others die. Second, theygive individuals reason to deny that theytoo might fail to help in a similar situation.The results of this experiment seem toindicate that such personality variables maynot be as impor tan t as these explanationssuggest. Alienation, Machiavellianism, ac-ceptance of social responsibility, need forapproval , and authori tar ianism are oftencited in these explanations. Yet they did notpredict the speed or likelihood of help. In

sharp contrast, th e perce ived number ofbystanders did. The explanation of bystander"apathy" may lie more in the bystander'sresponse to other observers than in presumedpersonali ty deficiencies of "apathetic" indi-viduals. Although this realization may forceus to face the g uilt-pr ovo king possibility thatw e to o might fail to intervene, it also suggeststhat individuals are not, of necessity, "non-interveners" because of their personalities.If people unders tand the situational forcesthat can make them hesitate to intervene,they m ay bet ter overcome them.

R E F E R E N C E SA R O N F R E E D , J . The origin of self-cri ticism. Psycho-logical Review, 1964, 71, 193-219.B E R K O W I T Z , L., K L A N D E R M A N , S., & H A R R I S , R. Ef-fects of exper imente r awareness an d sex of subjec ton reactions to dependency relationships. Sociom-etry, 1964, 27 , 327-329 .CHRISTIE, R. The prevalence of machiavell ian orien-tations. Paper presented at the meeting of theAmerican Psychological Association, Lo s Angeles,1 9 6 4 .CROWNE, D., & M A R L O W E , D. The approval motive.N ow York: Wiley, 1964.DANIELS, L., & B E R K O W I T Z , L. Liking an d responseto d epen denc y re la t ionships . Human Relations,1963, 16, 141-148.MILGRAM, S., & H O L L A N D E R , P. M u r d e r t h e y h e a r d .Nation, 1964, 198, 602-604.MILLER, N., & B O L L A R D , J . Social learning andimitation. New Haven: Yale University Press,1 9 4 1 .R O S E N T H A L , A. M. Thirty-eight witnesses. N ewYork : M cG raw -Hil l , 1964.WHITING, J . W. M., & CHILD, I. Child training andpersonality. New Haven: Yale University Press,1 9 5 3 .

(Received July 8, 1967)

Documents

Darley+1968+ +Bystander+Intervention+in+Emergencies.+Diffusion+of+Responsability