"The bystander effect is a social psychological phenomenon in which individuals are less likely to offer help in an emergency situation when other people are present. The probability of help is inversely proportional to the number of bystanders. In other words, the greater the number of bystanders, the less likely it is that any one of them will help.

...The bystander effect was first demonstrated in the laboratory by John Darley and Bibb Latane in 1968.[3] 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 — examples include smoke pouring from a vent in the room, a woman falling and becoming injured, a student having an epileptic seizure, etc. The researchers then measure how long it takes the participants to act, and whether or not they intervene at all. These experiments virtually always find that the presence of others inhibits helping, often by a large margin.

There are many reasons why bystanders in groups fail to act in emergency situations, but social psychologists have focused most of their attention on two major factors. According to a basic principle of social influence, bystanders monitor the reactions of other people in an emergency situation to see if others think that it is necessary to intervene. Since everyone is doing exactly the same thing (nothing), they all conclude from the inaction of others that help is not needed. This is an example of pluralistic ignorance or social proof. The other major obstacle to intervention is known as diffusion of responsibility. This occurs when observers all assume that someone else is going to intervene and so each individual feels less responsible and refrains from doing anything.

There are other reasons why people may not help. They may assume that other bystanders are more qualified to help, such as doctors or police officers, and that their intervention would be unneeded. People may also experience evaluation apprehension and fear losing face in front of the other bystanders. They may also be afraid of being superseded by a superior helper, offering unwanted assistance, or facing the legal consequences of offering inferior and possibly dangerous assistance..."  Bystander effect, wikipedia

Some associated concepts:  deindividuation, social loafing, conformity...

The "Bystander Effect" offers us many psycho-social implications to contemplate, including the pro-social aspects of evolutionary theory.

Thoughts?

Apr 27, 2009 -- 12:00PM, F1fan wrote:

I remember this from psychology classes.  There are many theories that explain how the mind processes information of the immediate environment when  making decisions.  I think it was Blu who started a thread about how many decisions are made in the mind before they become conscious to the individual.  Many decisions are made automatically and without deliberate thought or consideration.  The bystander effect shows how people defer responsibility when there are many others around a given situation.  

An example would be that if you and a friend were eating and he/her began choking, you would be the only hope, and would attempt the Heimlich Maneuver because you saw it in a movie once.  If you were in a crowded restaurant you might assume there was someone else who was more competent to help than you.  You might yell "Is there a doctor in the house?" assuming you weren't worried about the cliche, but you probably wouldn't act.

I don't see how this supports your title "evolving to extinction".  If anything, bystanders are deferring to more competent help by not acting, thus increasing the chance that competent help steps in.

You can't be serious.  Like "deferring to more competent help" in the Kitty Genovese case which precipitated the study of this phenomenon?  Bystanders "deferred to more competent help" until her death.

ETA:  And, yes, I would act (and do) in emergency situations.  I know people, however, who wouldn't and don't.

What separates the actors from the bystanders?

Apr 28, 2009 -- 7:26AM, Don't_Be_Captious wrote:

Why did you make this thread?  What is your overarching point?  (before I argue against you or what I think you're saying, then you claim I'm making a strawman)

LOL!

Why do I have to have a point?

Can't you just comment without knowing what my next "move" will be (if any?)

:p

Adelphe:

You can't be serious.  Like "deferring to more competent help" in the Kitty Genovese case which precipitated the study of this phenomenon?  Bystanders "deferred to more competent help" until her death.

No, the deferment to more competent help was in reference to the example of a choking victim in a crowded restaurant.  I didn't say that is the subconscious attitude in all cases.

ETA:  And, yes, I would act (and do) in emergency situations.  I know people, however, who wouldn't and don't.

What separates the actors from the bystanders?

Well, awareness of this theory of behavior is one way yo override the subconscious.  And like most behaviors, there are exceptions to the general trend.  A person who is trained in emergency care WOULD likely step in and help a choking victim since that person is experienced and competent.  You could read about the reasons for the bystander effect in various sources.  I don't see how it backs up your title.

It's conditioning.
We are conditioned from childhood to believe that everyone has their place and skills and that there is a hierarchy above us - there will be someone out there better qualified.
This is instilled to retain control and authority in a further hierarchy from parents, education upwards to government.
Our true aspirations are subdued in that we must conform and qualify in order to rise in status.
I note with interest that the poster who puts the most emphasis on education and conformity is also the one who quotes from higher sources as if they had no right to their own opinion.
It obviously works, but does nothing for the Samaritan because it panders to our baser instincts. It is for this reason alone that human behaviour can be compared to those of insects.

Peace
AL