Skip to main content

The Bystander Effect

There is a phenomenon in psychology called “diffusion of responsibility,” also called the “bystander effect.” When there are a certain number of people around when a problem arises, everyone who is watching will ignore the problem because all of them think that someone else will take care of it. There is a sense of confusion as to who is responsible for helping. A study conducted in 1968 demonstrates this.

Two researchers asked college students to talk about problems that college students face, except that the conversation was held over an intercom “to avoid embarrassment” (no one could see the person talking). During the first round, a student mentioned that he had seizures. When it came to his turn to speak again, he made sounds that made it seem he was having a seizure. The researchers found that the larger the group of people, the less likely people were to help. Eighty-five percent of people who believed they were alone with the seizure victim offered help; sixty-two percent of people in groups of three reported the seizure; and only thirty-one percent of people in groups of six offered help.

The same year, the same researchers conducted a similar study. They invited college students to take part in an interview. While they waited for the interview, smoke began to pour through a vent in the wall. Some people were in groups of three, while others were alone. Again, the larger the group, the less likely people were to report the problem. While seventy-five percent of those alone reported the smoke in less than two minutes, less than thirteen percent of those in groups of three said something, and that within six minutes (by that time the smoke completely filled the room).

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Heroes

Although we have several examples of heroes in our day, one of the best known is of a woman named Agnes Gonxhe Bojaxhiu (“Gonja Bojaju”), who devoted her life to sustaining the “poor, sick, orphaned, and dying.” Her venue was Calcutta, India, where she served as a teacher until she began to take notice of the poverty there. Seeking to do something about it, she began an organization that consisted of just thirteen members at its inception. Called the “Missionaries of Charity,” the organization would eventually burgeon into well over 5,000 members worldwide, running approximately 600 missions, schools and shelters in 120 countries; and caring for the orphaned, blind, aged, disabled, and poor. As her personal work expanded, she traveled to countries like Lebanon, where she rescued 37 children from a hospital by pressing for peace between Israel and Palestine; to Ethiopia, where she traveled to help the hungry; to Chernobyl, Russia, to assist victims of the nuclear meltdown there; and to ...
2 comments
Read more

The Nice Guy Fallacy

I read part of a poem recently by one of my favorite poets. It reads: I envy not in any moods The captive void of noble rage The linnet born within the cage That never knew the summer woods. I envy not the beast that takes His license in the field of time Unfetter'd by the sense of crime To whom a conscience never wakes. Nor what may call itself as bles't The heart that never plighted troth But stagnates in the weeds of sloth Nor any want-begotten rest. I hold it true, whate'er befall I feel it, when I sorrow most 'Tis better to have loved and lost Than never to have loved at all. At base, Tennyson contrasted a life of risk, and consequent pain, with one of security. He sides conclusively with the life of risk, and says he fails to envy those who have faced no hardship. I agree with him; and, for good or ill, his words are just as relevant today as they were in the nineteenth century. Like then, there are those today who choose to live their lives with as little risk as...
2 comments
Read more

Comparative Medical Care

One thing I'd like to understand is why there is such a difference between medical costs here and those in Haiti. At the time the book Mountains Beyond Mountains was written, in 2003, it often cost $15,000 to $20,000 annually to treat a patient with tuberculosis, while it cost one one-hundredth of that-- $150 to $200-- to treat a patient for the disease in Haiti. Even if the figures aren't completely accurate, the sheer difference would still be there. Indeed, the United States pays more per capita for medical care than any other country on Earth. My first guess for why the disparity exists is that there is a market willing and able to pay more for medical treatment, so suppliers see the demand and respond with higher prices. According to at least one doctor (go to http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2009/05/what_is_the_cause_of_excess_co.php), part of the reason is administrative prices here. People here have a higher standard of living, and so the cost of care is shifted to ...
2 comments
Read more