Study Notes on Bystander Intervention in Emergencies: Diffusion of Responsibility

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology: Study of Bystander Intervention

General Information

  • Authors: John M. Darley & Bibb Latané

  • Published: 1968, Vol. 8, No. 4, Pages 377-383

  • Title of Study: Bystander Intervention in Emergencies: Diffusion of Responsibility

  • Research Context: The study investigates why bystanders fail to intervene in emergencies, using a simulated seizure occasion.

Key Findings

  • Diffusion of Responsibility: The presence of other bystanders significantly reduces the sense of personal responsibility to intervene.

    • Statistics: When alone, 85% of subjects reported the emergency; with four other bystanders, only 31% did so (p < .01).

  • Personality Factors: Personality and background measures did not significantly predict helping behavior.

  • Common Explainers for Inaction: Previous explanations for bystander inaction include "apathy," "alienation," and "anomie;" this study challenges these interpretations.

  • Real-Life Example of Inaction: Kitty Genovese's murder illustrates the phenomenon of bystander inaction and raised public interest in the psychology of such behavior.

  • Conflict in Witnessing Bystanders: Witnessing an emergency creates conflict between humanitarian norms and personal fears of intervention risks.

Experimental Design

Overview of Experiment

  • Purpose: To test the hypothesis that bystanders in a group are less likely to intervene in emergencies.

  • Procedure: Subjects believed they were participating in a discussion on college personal issues via an intercom system, where a staged seizure incident occurred.

    • Dependent Variable: Speed of reporting the seizure to the experimenter.

    • Independent Variable: Number of participants thought to be in the discussion group (2, 3, or 6).

Subjects

  • Participants: 72 college students (59 females and 13 males).

Methods

  • Setting: Participants were isolated in individual rooms with intercoms.

  • Simulation: A recorded voice simulated a seizure, creating a situation where participants couldn't communicate with others during the emergency.

  • Emergency Response Measurement: The time taken by subjects to report the incident once the seizure occurred was recorded.

Results

Group Size and Help Reporting

  • Report Rates:

    • 2-person group: 85% reported the seizure.

    • 3-person group: 62% reported the seizure.

    • 6-person group: 31% reported the seizure.

  • Time to Report:

    • 2-person group: Average response time was 52 seconds.

    • 3-person group: Average response time was 93 seconds.

    • 6-person group: Average response time was 166 seconds.

Effects of Group Composition

  • Response Dynamics: Having a medically experienced bystander did not impact response speed or likelihood significantly.

  • General Findings: Participants in the experiment reported emotions, confusion, and concern for the victim but remained inactive despite recognizing the seriousness.

Discussion

Theoretical Implications

  • Conflict of Intervention: Subjects experienced emotional conflict about whether or not to help, created by their awareness of other bystanders, influencing their decision-making process regarding intervention.

  • Response Impact: The absence of intervention largely stemmed from the diffusion of responsibility rather than personal disinterest or apathy for the victim.

  • Perspective on Human Behavior: The findings suggest a re-evaluation of common interpretations of bystander inaction, focusing on situational rather than intrinsic factors.

Emotional Responses Observed

  • Subjects often expressed immediate distress upon witnessing the seizure simulation. Many noted confusion about what action to take, indicating a struggle between a desire to help and apprehension about taking responsibility in a group context.

  • Following debriefing, subjects expressed interest in the experiment, acknowledging that they found it meaningful despite the deception involved.

Conclusion

  • Implications for Understanding Bystander Behavior: These findings suggest that situational pressures significantly influence bystander intervention, demanding a reevaluation of psychological explanations for non-intervention in emergency settings.

  • Need for Awareness: If individuals recognize the situational factors that contribute to bystander apathy, they may learn to counteract these influences in future emergencies.

References

  1. Aronfreed, J. (1964). The origin of self-criticism. Psychological Review, 71, 193-219.

  2. Berkowitz, L., Klanderman, S., & Harris, R. (1964). Effects of experimenter awareness and sex of subject on reactions to dependency relationships. Sociometry, 27, 327-329.

  3. Christie, R. (1964). The prevalence of Machiavellian orientations. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association, Los Angeles.

  4. Crowne, D., & Marlowe, D. (1964). The approval motive. New York: Wiley.

  5. Daniels, L., & Berkowitz, L. (1963). Liking and response to dependency relationships. Human Relations, 16, 141-148.

  6. Milgram, S., & Hollander, P. (1964). Murder they heard. Nation, 198, 602-604.

  7. Miller, N., & Bollard, J. (1941). Social learning and imitation. New Haven: Yale University Press.

  8. Rosenthal, A. M. (1964). Thirty-eight witnesses. New York: McGraw-Hill.

  9. Whiting, J. W. M., & Child, I. (1953). Child training and personality. New Haven: Yale University Press.