Summary:
The model in question outlines the cognitive steps individuals go through when deciding whether to offer help in an emergency situation. The first stage involves noticing the event, followed by interpreting it as an emergency, and then deciding whether they have the responsibility to act. The final step is taking action to help. A key issue occurs at the responsibility stage, where the concept of "bystander apathy" can arise. This refers to the phenomenon where individuals are less likely to offer help when others are present. This is often explained by the "diffusion of responsibility" effect, where people assume that someone else in the group will take charge or intervene, especially if they perceive others to be more capable or in a more authoritative position—such as a teacher or manager. Additionally, the presence of others can create "audience inhibition," where individuals hesitate to act because they fear they might look foolish if the situation turns out not to be an emergency. This fear of social embarrassment can cause people to refrain from taking action, even when they recognize that help is needed. Essentially, the more people present in an emergency, the more likely it is that responsibility will be shared, and individuals may avoid intervening due to concerns about appearing overly dramatic or incorrect. This combination of diffusion of responsibility and audience inhibition contributes significantly to the bystander effect, where inaction is more likely in the presence of others.
An Application:
An application of this model can be seen in the context of workplace emergencies. For example, imagine a situation where an employee suddenly collapses at work. Employees in the vicinity may recognize the emergency but hesitate to act because of bystander apathy. At the responsibility stage, the presence of colleagues, including supervisors or managers, might lead individuals to assume that someone else—perhaps the manager or a senior staff member—will take charge of the situation. This diffusion of responsibility reduces the likelihood that any one person will step forward to provide help. Additionally, audience inhibition could play a role; employees might worry that if they act without confirming it’s a true emergency, they could look overly dramatic or out of place, particularly if the person quickly recovers or the situation turns out to be a false alarm. As a result, the entire group might hesitate to intervene, even though help is urgently needed. This scenario highlights how the dynamics of group presence and the psychological factors of diffusion of responsibility and audience inhibition can prevent timely and effective assistance in emergencies, emphasising the need for clear protocols and training in workplaces to address these barriers.
Can you think of some times where you'd not intervened to help someone who is apparently in need because other people have been present?
Key References
Darley, J. M., & Latane, B. (1970). The Unresponsive Bystander: Why Doesn't He Help? New York: Appleton Century Crofts.
This book explores the phenomenon of bystander apathy and why people often fail to intervene in emergencies, even when they are clearly aware that someone needs help. This book is based on their earlier research into the bystander effect, which was first demonstrated in laboratory studies.
Darley, J. M., & Latané, B. (1968). Bystander intervention in emergencies: Diffusion of responsibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8(4), 377–383.
This is the classic study by Darley and Latané that introduced the concept of the bystander effect and the diffusion of responsibility. It demonstrated that individuals are less likely to help in an emergency when others are present, as they assume that someone else will intervene.
Latané, B., & Nida, S. (1981). Ten years of research on group size and helping. Psychological Bulletin, 89(2), 308–324.
This paper provides an in-depth review of research on the bystander effect, expanding on the diffusion of responsibility and audience inhibition. It discusses how group size influences helping behavior and how larger groups tend to reduce the likelihood of individual intervention.
Fischer, P., Greitemeyer, T., Pollozek, F., & Frey, D. (2006). The bystander-effect: A meta-analytic review of research on bystander intervention in emergencies. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10(3), 158–168.
This meta-analysis consolidates research on the bystander effect, exploring various factors that influence whether people intervene in emergencies. It reaffirms the impact of diffusion of responsibility and audience inhibition and provides a comprehensive overview of the conditions that affect helping behaviour.
