Contents
The article is based on the book «Social Psychology» by David Myers.
A person in distress is more likely to get help from a single witness than from a group of witnesses.
The experimenters «accidentally» dropped coins or pencils in the elevator (there were
there were 1497 episodes); if there was one person in the elevator with them, help came in 40% of cases, but if there were six passengers in the elevator, less than 20%. Why? Summarizing the experimental material, Latane and Darley came to the following conclusion:
- the more eyewitnesses, the less likely that one of them will notice incident, deems his problem or accident and will take responsibility for specific actions (see figure).
Did the incident attract attention?
Darley and Latane conducted the following experiment: they asked male students at Columbia University to complete questionnaires, some alone, others in the presence of two strangers. As they worked and the experimenters watched them with a one-way mirror, smoke began to enter the rooms through the vents. The subjects, who filled out the questionnaires alone and from time to time looked around the room with a seemingly absent gaze, noticed it almost immediately, in less than 5 seconds. The attention of those who worked in the presence of strangers was focused on the questionnaire, and they paid attention to the smoke no earlier than 20 seconds later.
- In the presence of witnesses, we are less likely to pay attention to the accident.
Is the incident interpreted as an accident?
Having drawn attention to an ambiguous event, we must somehow explain it. Imagine yourself in a room filled with smoke. You are excited, but you are embarrassed to raise a panic. You are looking at the others. They are completely calm and unruffled. Deciding that everything is in order, you put the thought of smoke out of your head and return to work. Some time passes, and one of your neighbors notices the smoke, but, seeing that, judging by your appearance, this does not bother you, they react in the same way as you.
It was this phenomenon that Latane and Darley observed in their experiments. When the subjects working alone noticed smoke, they stood up, approached the vent, sniffed, dispersed the smoke with their hands and, after a short pause, reported the incident to the experimenters. The behavior of groups contrasts sharply with the actions of singles: of the three people, not one even moved. Of the 8 groups, only one subject reported smoke during the first 4 minutes. 6 minutes after the start of the smoke supply, it was already so much accumulated in the room that people saw practically nothing, coughed and stung their eyes. And yet, only in 3 groups out of 8 was there one person who sounded the alarm.
No less interesting is how the group’s passivity affects the interpretation of what is happening by its members. Where did the smoke come from? “The air conditioner is broken”, “There is a chemical laboratory in the building”, “The heating is junk”, “They supply a special gas to check if we are on time or not.” No one said the word «fire». The members of the group, without demonstrating their reaction to what was happening, influenced how each of them interpreted the situation. (About the same way we react in real life. What do these high-pitched screams coming from the street mean? Someone is «fun» or crying for help? And these boys? Have a friendly brawl or started a serious fight?)
Those people who did not react to the situation in any way admitted that they did not perceive it as an accident. Some decided that “nothing terrible” happened, others were afraid to put themselves in an “embarrassing position”. The eyewitness effect also manifested itself in this case:
- the more eyewitnesses, the less the chances that someone alone will help.
Do you take responsibility?
Misinterpretation is not the only reason for not responding to an accident. If a person is not the only one who sees what is happening, then the responsibility for adequate actions is blurred. We would rather stop to help a driver stuck on a country road than someone in a difficult situation on a freeway. When simulating an accident in experiments, those people who did not intervene were not indifferent. Many had shaking hands, and the palms were wet. They didn’t doubt that something was wrong, but they didn’t know if they needed to intervene. If the situation was absolutely clear, bystanders were equally willing to rush to help, regardless of whether they were alone or in a group.
- However, if the situation was not absolutely, one hundred percent obvious, the subjects in the groups showed significantly less willingness to help than the single subjects.
Since residents of megacities rarely go to public places alone, their responsiveness will be less (compared to the responsiveness of residents of small towns).
General conclusion according to the experiments of social psychologists: the presence of other eyewitnesses hinders the provision of assistance, especially if situation ambiguousand other eyewitnesses strangerswhich can’t figure out each other’s intentions right off the bat.