1. The researchers studied how humans act in the case of emergency individually or in a group when they are exposed to the inaction of other people, who also witness the same emergency. Experiments were carried out to test the following hypotheses:
Passive reactions of other witnesses, in this case, confederates, to an emergency situation will affect the behavior of an individual; therefore, he will be more unlikely to act than if he were the only witness of this emergency;
According to the second hypothesis, if a group of naïve subject witnesses face an emergency situation, two factors are in play: the constraints on behavior in public inhibit response of the individuals in a group to an emergency and this effect is further augmented by the social influence; therefore, these factors will decrease the likelihood of the action by the members of the group faced with the emergency (Latane & Darley, 1968).
2. Experiments found that75% of the individuals in the alone condition reported the emergency (smoke in the room) within the experimental period. In the condition with two passive confederates, subjects were significantly less likely to react to the emergency: only 10% of the subjects (1 in 10) reported the smoke within the experimental period. In these two experiments, the dependent variable was the speed of the response. In the case of three subjects in the group, the likelihood of the report should have increased, as the number of subjects grew. In order to be able to compare the speed of the response between the alone condition and three bystanders condition, the experimenters used the mathematically calculated scores for the group of three, considering the participants in the group did not influence each other’s behavior, as a baseline for comparison with the results of the three naïve subjects condition. At odds with expectations, only 38% of these groups of three reported the smoke; overall, three people in this condition reacted to the emergency. In the post-experiment interviews, the subjects who reported the smoke, thought it was strange and unusual and suggested it was justified to report it. However, those bystanders, who did not report the emergency, provided a lot of alternative explanations in order to rationally justify their passive behavior. These subjects were ignorant or did not want to admit that other people’s behavior had influenced their decisions to ignore the smoke (Latane & Darley, 1968.
3. One of the probable explanations of the subjects’ behavior, is the possibility that solitary bystanders were more afraid of fire, while being in the group reduced this fear. Besides, the presence of other people may have assured the subjects that in the case of danger, they will be more capable to deal with it. Another explanation attributes the inaction of bystanders by the desire to appear brave, as courage is socially approved characteristic, while panicking, when other people in the room are calm, is not a desirable behavior. However, these explanations omit the fact, that subjects simply misinterpreted the situation, they decided that the smoke was not caused by fire and it was not reasonable to act. The alternative explanation of “diffusion of responsibility” is not suitable for these experiments, as in the case of inaction, the bystander could have become a victim of emergency himself (Latane & Darley, 1968).
4. The article does not mention pluralistic ignorance which may have explained the inhibition to act in an ambiguous situation. In this state people assume that their thoughts and feelings differ from those of other bystanders and seek the clues about the possible danger of the situation in their behavior. The book also provides other factors that play a role in the inhibition of intervention in the emergency, such as time pressure. When one is busy or late for a meeting, he or she is less likely to involve in prosocial behavior. Culture may also influence the decision to intervene. As studies showed, people from the countries with the high standard of life are less likely to intervene, than those from poor countries (Kassin et al., 2011)
5. The research demonstrated that in the Kitty Genovese’s tragic case the key role may have been played by the number of bystanders. As people observe other people’s behavior, they are influenced by it and fail to react to an emergency. Besides, because of the pluralistic ignorance, bystanders may have assumed that other people do not act because the situation does not require help; or they did not act because they mistakenly assumed that among many witnesses someone would take the responsibility and react to the situation.
References:
Latane, B. & Darley, J. M. (1968). Group inhibition of bystander intervention. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 10: 215-221.
Kassin S., Fein, S., & Markus, H.R. (2011). Social Psychology, (8th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.
