"Crowding" is a significant social phenomena affecting human behavior. The following content combines a theoretical observation of the "Bystander Effect" and summary of an acclaimed psychological investigation.
There are several ways to conceptualize the phenomenon of crowding. Some assumptions emphasize physical density while others stress subjective feelings or psychological responses. Because solutions are partly predicated on one's definition of the problem, it is crucial to link research and action with the conceptual meaning of crowding. This summation will focus on the social effects crowding has on human behavior and it's influence on the "Bystander Effect.
A Bystander is an individual that witnesses an event but is not involved. They participate as a spectator or an onlooker. The probability of intervention by a bystander is inversely related to the number of other surrounding bystanders. The more people present, the less likely a person will intervene. This refers to the Bystander Effect. It often associates with an emergency situation where individuals do not offer help to a victim in response to the assumption that other eyewitnesses will volunteer. Therefore, the individual may consider his/her own service to be redundant.
A bystander may rationalize their providing support by convincing themselves that somebody else has already provided aid to the situation. There are several variables that help explain why this social, psychological phenomenon may occur:
- Ambiguity: According to this factor, Bystanders consider the risks and threats to their own safety before proceeding to help. The number of bystanders is not necessarily significant factor in this case. An individual is more likely to intervene in low ambiguity situations (insignificant consequences) than high ambiguity situations (significant consequences).
- Cohesiveness: Intervention could also depend on an a bystanders familiarity of the environment where the emergency occurs and the existing relationship with the other observers. This established relationship, or Cohesiveness, has an affect on social responsibility. This norm states that people should help those who are dependent on them for it. Research suggests that the more cohesive a group, the more likely the group will act in accordance with their social responsibility. Also, research on altruistic behavior suggests that an individual is more likely to provide aid if there are similarities between the volunteer and victim.
- Diffusion of Responsibility: This effect variable suggests that a witness may gauge willingness to intervene according to the context of the situation. For instance, a bystander may assume that other onlookers are more qualified to help. Diffusion of Responsibility is often used to explain the Bystander Effect.
Succinctly, people must first be conscious of their surroundings to notice an incident requiring volunteer aid, thereby stimulating them to interpret the situation and later, determine their responsibility to intervene. Furthermore, taking the responsibility involves cognitive decision-making processes including weighing the costs and benefits of providing help in need. Over-Population or Crowding is a social concern which encourages the bystander effect.
According to John M. Darley and Bibb Latané's famed experiment, the Diffusion of Responsibility phenomenon relies more on a bystander's response to other observers rather than their indifference to the victim. The following is a synopsis and personal review of these distinguished findings on the Bystander Effect:
Bystander intervention in
emergencies: Diffusion of responsibility.
Darley & Latané (1968)
a.
Research question or hypothesis
During a dangerous event or emergency, the
experiencing individual would expect any bystander to intervene. Although there
are evident humanitarian norms about helping the victim, rational and
irrational fears accompany the person who is expected to assist. Darley &
Latane believe that in certain circumstance, “the norms favoring intervention
may be weakened, leading bystanders to resolve the conflict in the direction of
nonintervention”. They believe nonintervention can be reasonably explained by a
social phenomenon known as the Bystander Effect in which the presence of other
people reduces helping behavior. The focus of the experiment included in the
article is to explore whether the number of bystanders in an event of an
emergency affects the likelihood of individual response to the situation and
the time the response is assessed. Darley & Latane believed that the more
bystanders to an emergency, the less likely, or the more slowly, any one
bystander will intervene to provide aid.
b.
Method
In order to test this proposition, a plausible and
realistic emergency situation must first be created. Next, each subject would
be blocked from communicating with others to avoid transference of behaviors.
And finally, the experimental situation should allow for the assessment of the
speed and frequency of the subjects’ reaction to the emergency. In Darley and
Latane’s experiment, 59 female and 13 males students in introductory to
psychology course at NYU were ushered into individual rooms upon arrival at the
laboratory. In the lack of face-to-face interaction, a communication system
enabled communication amongst the students. Each subject is informed that he
will be questioned over an intercom system on his personal problems associated
with college life. During the course of the discussion, one of the other
subjects underwent what appeared to be a very nervous seizure similar to
epilepsy. During the 70 second fit, the ability for the students to communicate
about the situation was removed making it impossible for individuals to find
out if the situation was being assessed. At the beginning of the victim’s
irregular speech, the experimenter began timing the speed of each subject’s
responses. The major dependent variable was the time elapsed from the start of
the victim’s fit until the subject left their individual room. If six minutes
elapsed without the subject leaving their individual room, the experiment was
terminated. As soon as the individual subject reported the emergency, or after
6 minutes elapsed, the experimental assistant disclosed the true nature of the
experiment. Once the truth is revealed, each subject filled out a questionnaire
concerning her thoughts and feelings during the emergency.
c.
Results
Results showed that 85% of the subjects who thought
they alone knew of the victim’s plight reported the seizure before the victim
was cut off, only 31% of those who thought four other bystanders were present
did so. Ninety-five percent of subjects responded in the first half of the time
allotted to respond.
d.
Review
According to the results, Darley and Latane were
able to confirm their hypotheses that the number of bystanders that the subject
perceived to be present had a major effect on the likelihood with which each
would report the emergency. They also concluded that an individual is less
likely to respond if he thinks that others are present. I found it confusing
that the article did not inform the reader that the subjects were organized
into separate groups, each containing a different number of subject, until the
results were discussed. I also believe the fact that the participants were not
able to see other subjects has a changing affect on the outcome. Because of
this, I think that the subjects were more inclined to intervene and react more
quickly because they were unable to see if the situation was assessed which
make the experiment less realistic. In most emergency situations, the majority
of bystanders are within view of each other. I also believe that an equal
number of males and females should have been used. Last but not least, I think
that the article should have included more detail on the personality variables
and the demographic of the subjects in the experiment. It is important to
understand that people are not “non-interveners”. Many factors influence an individual’s
likelihood to respond to an emergency situation.
