2024-09-24 11:00:00
DOn public transport or on the street, sometimes courage seems to melt as quickly as snow in the sun. Although we all dream of being Clark Kent in these critical moments, social experiences show that a small inner voice often makes itself heard: “Someone else will intervene. »Most witnesses to an attack immediately tend to shrug off responsibility. This is what we call the “bystander effect”: the probability that an individual will intervene in an emergency decreases as the number of witnesses increases.
On March 13, 1964, Kitty Genovese, a young American woman, was walking along a quiet street in the residential neighborhood of Queens, New York. Suddenly she is attacked, raped and killed on the street. Her cries of anguish echo through the night, catching the attention of half a dozen neighbors in surrounding buildings. Yet no one came to her aid, no one called the police – until it was too late.
Is Homo urbanus dehumanized?
When journalists investigate the matter, they discover the disturbing reasons for this failure to intervene. Witnesses simply explain: “I didn’t want to get involved” or “I didn’t know what to do”. This indifference deeply shocks American citizens and stirs up considerable controversy across the country. The widely publicized circumstances of the murder became a symbol of urban apathy.
Is urban life dehumanizing? The murder of the young New Yorker starts a social debate throughout the American press on the “dehumanization” of Homo urbanus, the citizen. Two psychologists from Columbia University, John Darley and Bibb Latané, spoke on the topic, wondering whether a large number of witnesses really favors a “dilution of responsibility”.
READ ALSO In Paris, street rapes are not decreasingFor Darley and Latané, the witnesses to Kitty Genovese’s attack were not helpful because they knew that other people were also present. To test this hypothesis, they designed an ingenious experiment. Participants are placed in individual cabins and communicate via intercom with others located in separate cabins. They are told that the purpose of the discussion is to address the personal problems of urban students. In reality, an accomplice simulates a nervous attack, of an epileptic type, during the discussion. This pseudo-victim starts out speaking calmly before becoming increasingly incoherent and panicked.
The real test is whether the number of alleged witnesses influences how quickly participants report the emergency and intervene. Researchers vary the size of the discussion group: sometimes the participant thinks he is alone with the victim, sometimes he thinks there are three or even six of them. The nature of the alleged witnesses also changes: a woman, a man or a man who declares himself a student working in an emergency service.
The results speak for themselves: when participants think they are alone with the victim, 85% intervene. This percentage drops to 62% in the presence of another witness and to 31% when four other people are believed to be present. The nature of the alleged witnesses had no significant effect: participants intervened equally quickly whether the other witness was a woman, a man, or a person with medical expertise. No gender differences were observed between subjects.
These results confirm the initial hypothesis: the more witnesses there are in an emergency situation, the less likely it is that each of them will intervene promptly. This study also demonstrates that the simple belief in the presence of other witnesses is sufficient to significantly reduce the chances of intervention.
“Why me rather than someone else? »
Since then the research has progressed and the effect of the testimony has not been questioned. It has become more refined. When faced with a serious situation on the street, the first question witnesses can ask themselves is: “What are the others doing?” » A strange moment follows in which everyone looks at each other. And, since no one moves, everyone will be able to consider that the situation is perhaps less urgent than they thought… and decide not to intervene.
A second question troubles witnesses: “How will I appear if I make a mistake?” » Thus, the fear of disturbing your neighbor after hearing a knock and then realizing, embarrassed, that he was simply assembling his bookcase can dissuade you from intervening…
But, above all, a final dream crosses the mind and slows down the intervention: “Why me rather than someone else? » The more witnesses there are, the easier it will be to pass customs. This dilution of responsibility can turn the crowd into passive spectators, each waiting for the other to move first. And it’s not just a question of physical presence: the simple fact of knowing that others are witnessing the scene is enough to make us feel less obliged to act.
Where is the Good Samaritan?
Of course it all depends on the danger. Let’s take the example of a 2006 study. Participants watched a video in which a woman was assaulted. Some were alone, others with a passive witness. When the attacker seemed imposing and dangerous, witnesses often intervened alone or in groups. But, faced with a more fragile attacker, the group’s witnesses intervened less. In short, when the danger is evident, everyone feels responsible and the bystander effect disappears.
And the Good Samaritan? Researchers John Darley and Daniel Batson, inspired by the parable of the Good Samaritan, wanted to determine how religious values influence helping behavior. They then carried out an experiment with theology students, fervent in evangelical values. After having participated in a seminar in which they studied, among other things, the parable of the Good Samaritan, they were all confronted, on the way back, with a “victim” – in reality an accomplice who feigned anguish, closed in on herself , looking out of shape. The results are revealing: depth of faith and religious outlook have little influence on helping behavior. The results show only a slight increase compared to a group of non-practitioners.
#people #respond #emergency #situations #public