1. CONFORMITY – ASCH EXPERIMENTS (1953)

An example of Asch’s experimental procedure in 1955. There are six confederates and one real participant (second to last person sitting to the right of the table).

During the 1950s, Solomon Asch conducted and published a series of laboratory experiments that demonstrated the degree to which an individual’s own opinions are influenced by those of a majority group.

Male college students participated in a simple “perceptual” task. In reality, all but one of the participants were “confederates” (i.e., actors), and the true focus of the study was about how the remaining student (i.e., the real participant) would react to the confederates’ behavior.

Only one participant was actually a genuine subject for the experiment, the rest being confederates, carefully tutored to give certain pre-selected responses. Careful experimental construction placed a varying amount of peer pressure on the individual test subject.

The experiment was simple in its construction; each participant, in turn, was asked to answer a series of questions, such as which line was longest or which matched the reference line. (Fig 1)

The participants gave a variety of answers, at first correct, to avoid arousing suspicion in the subject, but then with some incorrect responses added.

The Asch Experiment results were interesting and showed that peer pressure could have a measurable influence on the answers given.

The control group, those not exposed to peer pressure where everybody gave correct answers, threw up only one incorrect response out of 35; this could probably be explained by experimental error.

The results for the other groups were interesting; when surrounded by people giving an incorrect answer, over one third of the subjects also voiced an incorrect opinion.

At least 75% of the subjects gave the wrong answer to at least one question, although experimental error may have had some influence on this figure. There was no doubt, however, that peer pressure can cause conformity.

It was debated whether this is because people disbelieve the evidence of their own eyes or if it was just compliance, that people hide their opinions.

2. HELPING - THE GOOD SAMARITAN EXPERIMENT (1973)

The Biblical story of the Good Samaritan, if you hadn’t heard, is about a passing Samaritan helping an injured man in need, while other, self-righteous types walk right on by. Psychologists John Darley and C. Daniel Batson wanted to test if religion has any effect on helpful behavior.

The researchers had three hypotheses:
1. People thinking religious, “helping” thoughts would still be no more likely than others to offer assistance.
2. People in a hurry will be less likely to offer aid than others.
3. People who are religions in a Samaritan fashion will be more likely to help than those of a priest or Levite fashion. In other words, people who are religious for what it will gain them will be less likely than those who value religion for it’s own value or are searching for meaning in life.

The recruited seminary students for a study on religious education. First they completed personality questionnaires about their religion (to help evaluate hypothesis #3). Later they began experimental procedures in one building and then told to go to another building to continue. On the way they encountered a man slumped in an alleyway (the victims condition is unknown — hurt, or drunk?).

They varied the amount of urgency they told the subjects before sending them to the other building, and the task they would do when they got there. One task was to prepare a talk about seminary jobs, and the other about the story of the Good Samaritan. In one condition they told the subject they were late for the next task, in the other they said they had a few minutes but they should head on over anyway.

In an alleyway they passed a man sitting slumped in doorway, who moaned and coughed twice as they walked by. They set up a scale of helping:
0=failed to notice victim as in need
1=perceived need but did not offer aid
2=did not stop but helped indirectly (told the aide on their arrival)
3=stopped and asked if victim needed help
4=after stopping, insisted on taking victim inside and then left him.
5=refused to leave victim, or insisted on taking him somewhere

After arrival at the 2nd research site, they had the subject give the talk and then answer a helping behavior questionnaire.

The amount of “hurriness” induced in the subject had a major effect on helping behavior, but the task variable did not (even when the talk was about the Good Samaritan).

Overall 40% offered some help to the victim. In low hurry situations, 63% helped, medium hurry 45% and high hurry 10%. For helping-relevant message 53%, task relevant message 29%. There was no correlation between “religious types” and helping behavior. The only variable that showed some effect was “relgion as a quest”. Of the people who helped, those who saw religion as a quest were less likely to offer substantial help than those who scored low on this statement. But later analysis revealed this may not be caused be real religious differences.

Ironically, a person in a hurry is less likely to help people, even if he is going to speak on the parable of the Good Samaritan. (Some literally stepped over the victim on their way to the next building!). The results seem to show that thinking about norms does not imply that one will act on them. Maybe that “ethics become a luxury as the speed of our daily lives increases”. Or maybe peoples cognition was narrowed by the hurriedness and they failed to make the immediate connection of an emergency.

Many subjects who did not stop did appear aroused and anxious when the arrived at the second site. They were in a conflict between helping the victim and meeting the needs of the experimenter. Conflict rather than callousness can explain the failure to stop.

3. DIFFUSION OF RESPONSIBILITY - BYSTANDER APATHY EXPERIMENT (1968).

The bystander effect was first demonstrated in the laboratory by John Darley and Bibb Latané in 1968 after they became interested in the topic following the murder of Kitty Genovese in 1964. These researchers launched a series of experiments that resulted in one of the strongest and most replicable effects in social psychology. In a typical experiment, the participant is either alone or among a group of other participants or confederates. An emergency situation is then staged. The researchers then measure how long it takes the participants to act, and whether or not they intervene at all. These experiments have often found that the presence of others inhibits helping, often by a large margin. For example, Bibb Latané and Judith Rodin staged an experiment around a woman in distress in 1969. 70 percent of the people alone called out or went to help the woman after they believed she had fallen and gotten hurt, but when there were other people in the room only 40 percent offered help.

4. THE STANFORD PRISON EXPERIMENT (1971).

The Stanford prison experiment was a study of the psychological effects of becoming a prisoner or prison guard. The experiment was conducted at Stanford University from August 14 to August 20 of 1971 by a team of researchers led by psychology professor Philip Zimbardo. It was funded by the US Office of Naval Research and was of interest to both the US Navy and Marine Corps as an investigation into the causes of conflict between military guards and prisoners.

Twenty-four male students out of 75 were selected to take on randomly assigned roles of prisoners and guards in a mock prison situated in the basement of the Stanford psychology building. The participants adapted to their roles well beyond Zimbardo’s expectations, as the guards enforced authoritarian measures and ultimately subjected some of the prisoners to psychological torture. Many of the prisoners passively accepted psychological abuse and, at the request of the guards, readily harassed other prisoners who attempted to prevent it. The experiment even affected Zimbardo himself, who, in his role as the superintendent, permitted the abuse to continue. Two of the prisoners quit the experiment early and the entire experiment was abruptly stopped after only six days. Certain portions of the experiment were filmed and excerpts of footage are publicly available.

On August 20, 1971, Zimbardo announced the end of the experiment to the participants. The results of the experiment have been argued to demonstrate the impressionability and obedience of people when provided with a legitimizing ideology and social and institutional support. The experiment has also been used to illustrate cognitive dissonance theory and the power of authority.

The results of the experiment favor situational attribution of behavior rather than dispositional attribution. In other words, it seemed that the situation, rather than their individualpersonalities, caused the participants’ behavior. Under this interpretation, the results are compatible with the results of the Milgram experiment, in which ordinary people fulfilled orders to administer what appeared to be agonizing and dangerous electric shocks to a confederate of the experimenter.

Shortly after the study had been completed, there were bloody revolts at both the San Quentin and Attica prison facilities, and Zimbardo reported his findings on the experiment to the U.S. House Committee on the Judiciary.

5. AUTHORITY - THE MILGRAM EXPERIMENT (1961)

The Milgram experiment on obedience to authority figures was a series of notable social psychology experiments conducted by Yale University psychologist Stanley Milgram, which measured the willingness of study participants to obey an authority figure who instructed them to perform acts that conflicted with their personal conscience.

The experiments began in July 1961, three months after the start of the trial of German Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann in Jerusalem. Milgram devised his psychological study to answer the question: “Was it that Eichmann and his accomplices in the Holocaust had mutual intent, in at least with regard to the goals of the Holocaust?” In other words, “Was there a mutual sense of morality among those involved?” Milgram’s testing suggested that it could have been that the millions of accomplices were merely following orders, despite violating their deepest moral beliefs. The experiments have been repeated many times, with consistent results within societies, but different percentages across the globe. The experiments were also controversial, and considered by some scientists to be unethical and physically or psychologically abusive. Psychologist Diana Baumrind considered the experiment, “harmful because it may cause permanent psychological damage and cause people to be less trusting in the future.”

The participants in the Milgram experiment were 40 men recruited using newspaper ads. In exchange for their participation, each person was paid $4.50.

Milgram developed an intimidating shock generator, with shock levels starting at 30 volts and increasing in 15-volt increments all the way up to 450 volts. The many switches were labeled with terms including “slight shock,” “moderate shock” and “danger: severe shock.” The final two switches were labeled simply with an ominous “XXX.”

Each participant took the role of a “teacher” who would then deliver a shock to the “student” every time an incorrect answer was produced. While the participant believed that he was delivering real shocks to the student, the student was actually a confederate in the experiment who was simply pretending to be shocked.

As the experiment progressed, the participant would hear the learner plead to be released or even complain about a heart condition. Once the 300-volt level had been reached, the learner banged on the wall and demanded to be released. Beyond this point, the learner became completely silent and refused to answer any more questions. The experimenter then instructed the participant to treat this silence as an incorrect response and deliver a further shock.

Most participants asked the experimenter whether they should continue. The experimenter issued a series of commands to prod the participant along:

1. “Please continue.”
2. “The experiment requires that you continue.”
3. “It is absolutely essential that you continue.”
4. “You have no other choice, you must go on.”

The level of shock that the participant was willing to deliver was used as the measure of obedience. How far do you think that most participants were willing to go? When Milgram posed this question to a group of Yale University students, it was predicted that no more than 3 out of 100 participants would deliver the maximum shock. In reality, 65% of the participants in Milgram’s study delivered the maximum shocks.

Of the 40 participants in the study, 26 delivered the maximum shocks while 14 stopped before reaching the highest levels. It is important to note that many of the subjects became extremely agitated, distraught and angry at the experimenter. Yet they continued to follow orders all the way to the end.

Because of concerns about the amount of anxiety experienced by many of the participants, all subjects were debriefed at the end of the experiment to explain the procedures and the use of deception. However, many critics of the study have argued that many of the participants were still confused about the exact nature of the experiment. Milgram later surveyed the participants and found that 84% were glad to have participated, while only 1% regretted their involvement.

SO DO YOU THINK YOU WOULD BEHAVE DIFFERENTLY THAN PEOPLE IN THE EXPERIMENTS?

Photo Courtesy of Watcharakun on freedigitalphotos.net

Since writing my Modern-Day Good Samaritan posts, I’ve been thinking a lot about a phenomenon I learned in psych class called “Diffusion of Responsibility”. It’s a phenomenon where a person is less likely to take responsibility for action or inaction when others are present.

How do you overcome that?

In an emergency situation—say, when someone passes out in public or a woman screams and no one does anything to help—it’s referred to as the “Bystander effect”. It seems, the larger the crowd, the less sense of personal responsibility people feel and the less likely they are to help. The case most infamous is the rape and murder of Kitty Genovese that was witnessed by thirty-some people.

What causes this lockup? It can’t be that all these people are just cold and callous…or brain dead. What could be going through a person’s mind to rationalize doing nothing?

Shock: First off, witnessing someone drop to the sidewalk or suffer a brutal mugging isn’t an everyday occurrence for most of us. (At least I hope not). So, there’s the shock factor of something way out of the ordinary.

Look for guidance: We look around. What does everyone else think of this? If everyone’s acting normal or standing there, not taking any action, then it must be okay, right? You might not understand what’s going on, but someone does. Someone else must be in-the-know. Right?

Lack of Qualifications: Someone else, more experienced in how to handle emergency situations probably did what needed to be done. Or they will. Surely there’s a doctor, nurse, EMT, policeman or military Special Forces in the crowd somewhere.

Fear: We’ve all heard “no good deed goes unpunished.” We could get embroiled in something and get hurt. We’ve watched plenty of TV drama to prove it. Plus, there are a plethora of lawyers making it their lives’ work to try to punch holes in the shield of Good Samaritan laws and sue us for trying to help anyone.

Stranger: Someone who knows the victim will help.

Anonymity is easier. To watch from the crowd or walk away as if nothing’s amiss.

English: CPR training (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Possible Ways to Overcome This Bystander Tendency?

Purpose: For me, I would think it would start with your worldview. Do you think we’re on this planet to help each other? Or to live for ourselves and simply make sure we keep on breathing? If we determine we’re the kind of people who want to help…well then, maybe we can decide ahead of time that we’d give it our best shot, should such a situation arise.

Recognition: I can’t guarantee how I would react in such an emergency situation. All I know is how I’d WANT to respond. As my mom always says, identifying the problem is a big step. Recognize the situation. Like, “Hey, could this be that bystander effect happening right now? Why nobody’s doing anything? Including me?” Recognize the hurdle so you can jump over it. Moving forward may not come naturally, but if we can consciously recognize a situation for what is, maybe then it will help push us to act.

And helping may not require a lot. It may simply mean making a phone call or taking a photo or leveraging the crowd.

Pinpoint: In this case, it’s not rude to point at someone. If you want to offer assistance and need help, specifically designate someone. Don’t just say, “Someone help me. Someone call 911.” Make eye contact. Point. “You in the ball cap, call 911.”

My husband said that type of pinpointing was part of his lifeguard training in high school. Sad that it took me so long to learn it, too.

What examples do you have of diffusion of responsibility happening? Or its opposite? Maybe you’ve witnessed someone courageously take charge like the folks I wrote about in Uganda? Ever used the Heimlich? Given CPR?

It so happened that on one of those unremarkable days I left the gym early because “I was not feeling the need to workout.” On my way home, I came to an accident that probably just happened a few minutes before I arrived. Cars were steaming and one was on fire (a small fire that was put out), car parts were strewn across the 4 lane road and a few people were on their cell phones while one or two ran over to the car that was in the middle of the road.

Like myself, many people pulled off to the side of the road and waited. I was not sure what I was waiting for… I decided after a few moments that I would just drive by because it seemed that a number of people “appeared” to be stopping to help. Just to interject a little social psychology, the thought that when multiple people witness an incident,  each person expects that the next individual would do something ie. call the cops, go to help etc is called the bystander effect. This phrase came from the Kitty Genovese murder that happened in the 60′s in which people heard her cries for help but no one called 911 because each person assumed his/her neighbour already called. Here I was looking at a recent accident and implementing the bystander effect – ‘surely someone else will stop to help these people so I don’t have to.’

Most of us know the parable of the good Samaritan. Most of us know that a few people stopped, gawked and walked by because they did not think it was their job to get involved. I understand quite well the feeling of not wanting to get involved – frankly it disrupts my day, it  can be very time-consuming, and then again you never know what you may get into.

That day, which was quickly turning into a dark evening as well as the fact that I was feeling tired and wanted to get home before it was dark (I hate driving at night), I decided that walking by was not the right thing to do. I decided to play the role of the good Samaritan along with a few other people. The decision became clear when at the moment I realized that most people actually stopped to gawk but never left their cars (bystander effect) and the other car involved in the accident had a person trapped inside. I just could not pass by; I needed to become involved.

Needless to say that once I got to the car with a 60 yr old woman with multicolored hair who was trapped and in pain, the issues of driving at night, feeling too tired or loss of personal time was not an issue. It was all about this woman who needed the help of strangers and few of us answered her call. It was quite moving to see the support that people can give to each other in times of crisis.

I really can’t say that I made a difference at the scene when I suggested that they use her blanket to cover her or when I decided to put her glasses back on her face because I thought she might need to see (I wear glasses so I understood the importance of seeing).  I acknowledge that my role was very insignificant; however, I would do it all over again because for that moment in time, someone else needed my support and full attention. It was not all about me and my needs.

I received no medals of commendations or pats on the back or anything such things (except for a few Facebook friends’ kind words); I slipped away from the scene when I was sure she was in good hands with the first responders. Choosing to become involved in someone else’s life is a risky venture. In this day and age, being a good Samaritan can get you killed and sometimes by the person you are trying to help. Thank God, that in this case, multicoloured-hair grandmother (who looked a lot  younger than her age of 60) did not appear to suffer any life threatening injuries and everyone who stopped to help did not meet with any harm. All in all, it was a good moment to choose to be a good Samaritan.

Examples:

• People often make money from abominable practices so they should be allowed to sell their organs because it is marginally less bad
• Climate change is happening, therefore there’s nothing we can do therefore we should just do what we like and fuck the consequences
• The bystander effect is real therefore I have an excuse not to help those in need on the street.
• People who try to commit suicide may go on to try again, so why bother trying to help them, why not just let them die
• It’s too hard to explain things to people with intellectual disabilities so let’s not bother giving them adequate medical treatment
• The world is full of bad people, so the only thing I can do is trying to be badder than all of them, or have no friends, or…

Just because bad things happen does not mean that everyone has an excuse to lie down and be bad. There is such a thing as leading by example and this is something that may take practice or work but it gets easier and easier with time. It is possible to be moral and hopeful and generous and kind and it is a thing with its own reward.

There is a delicious feeling of freedom and peace and health that comes with doing the right thing and knowing that you have made a difference.

artistic rendering of the Kitty Genovese case

(source, the murder of Kitty Genovese is the archetypical although contested example of the bystander effect)

The bystander effect can explain the persistence of certain types or instances of rights violations. If many people witness a person in distress, then it’s the less likely that any one person will help. “I could help, but I’m sure someone will”. Numerous experiments have proven the effect. Virtually all of them find that the presence of others inhibits helping, often by a large margin. The probability of help is indeed inversely related to the number of bystanders, although not necessarily one-on-one. More precisely, the effect occurs when bystanders are strangers; when bystanders are friends help is usually forthcoming.

What are the reasons for this effect? Hard to tell, but social influence may be one: bystanders monitor the reactions of other people in an emergency situation to see if others think that it is necessary to intervene. If everyone first looks at the others, then you have a vicious circle of influence. Since everyone is doing exactly the same thing – i.e. nothing – they all conclude from the inaction of others that help is not needed. Diffusion of responsibility may be another reason: when a lot of people are present, they all assume that others carry more responsibility to intervene, because others may be seen as closer or stronger or first on the spot (this is also the thinking behind the firing squad or the Japanese procedure for capital punishment). The fear of being harmed or of offering unwanted assistance may also explain the effect.

Increasing urbanization and improved knowledge of everyday events (by way of better information systems such as the internet) can make the bystander effect more common, and can therefore make it more difficult to stop rights violations.

(source)

There’s a peculiar reaction to the bystander effect described here. And here are some notorious cases of the effect. More on the possible causes of rights violations here.

Scholars might argue that Edmund Burke never said, “All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing,” but most of us would agree that whoever said it, it is absolutely true.

The Bystander Effect – or Genovese Syndrome – is a social psychological phenomenon that refers to cases where individuals do not offer help in an emergency situation when other people are present. It would appear that the more people present when something bad happens, the less chance there is that anybody will help.

This is a controversial theory first put forward after the much publicised murder of 28 year old Kitty Genovese in 1964. According to reports at the time, 37 people in the New York neighbourhood where Kitty Genovese was attacked, saw her struggle or heard her scream and call for help.  A man shouted from a window which made her attacker run off after he first stabbed her.

But when nobody came to Kitty’s aid, the attacker, 29 year old Winston Mosely, returned.  He found Kitty in the hallway of her apartment building where he raped and murdered her.  During this protracted attack, which lasted more than half an hour, only one person called the police. By the time help arrived, Kitty Genovese was dead.

The controversy as a result of the Kitty Genovese murder gave rise to a number of studies.  And while nowadays there is evidence that the Kitty Genovese murder was sensationalised by the media, the fact is that it’s a phenomenon we all know exists.  We put it down to our materialistic, modern attitudes and our growing selfishness but the explanation is probably not so much associated with modern life as with ancient, instinctive behaviours.

One of the main theories put forward to explain the Bystander Effect is the suggestion that we are predisposed towards ‘herd’ behaviour. This is an instinct that has served us well as a species because let’s face it – if the ‘herd’ begins to run because someone shouts ‘Lion’, then it is definitely safer to run first and ask questions later! The only problem is that it may not be quite as useful a reaction in complex social situations as it is on the Plains.

Another explanation for the Bystander Effect is the idea of ‘diffusion of responsibility’.  This means just what it seems to mean – the more of us there are around, the more diffuse our feelings of personal responsibility.

Hey Man in the Blue Sweater!

But there is a feature of the Bystander effect that is perhaps less well known and that is that it appears to be very easy to overcome.  Simply recognising the possibility that anyone (me, you – anyone) may not intervene in an emergency can mean that we do intervene.  Just that much knowledge can make a difference.  Also, it is well known that, in general, when bystanders are specifically asked for help –Hey man in the blue sweater – they tend to respond positively.   It as if a consciousness of ourselves as individuals seems to generally bring with it not just a myriad personal likes and dislikes and idiosyncrasies but also an awakening of moral and ideological beliefs and even a willingness to help others.

So, here’s the question – does the war and poverty and violence and hatred we see all around us on our planet flourish – at least in part – because we suffer from a global Bystander Effect?  It would seem logical that this might be the case.  After all, if having six or seven people witness an emergency slows down or destroys our individual reaction then what if 6 or 7 billion people see the same thing?  How diffuse must that responsibility feel?

Related articles

• Libya And The “Bystander Effect” (businessinsider.com)
• Bystander Effect (stewie1017.wordpress.com)
• Chrissy Lee Polis: The New Kitty Genovese? (bilerico.com)
• How to Cry for Help (eideneurolearningblog.blogspot.com)
• Elisa Izquierdo: Abandoned to Her Fate (time.com)