Imagine you are at an outdoor concert and as you pick up to leave, you start to feel a bit off. You notice a numb sensation on your right side. You decide to sit down against a tree, but this doesn’t help. Your anxiety goes through the roof as you come to realize that you might be having a stroke. Throngs of people are passing you by in your prone state, and no one seems concerned. No ones seems to want to help. What do you do?
This scenario is altogether possible and begs the question: why do we hear of so many situations where large groups of people ignore people in need? We attribute it to an increased callousness, a sweeping apathy brought on by our coarse society, but research has shown this is not the case at all.
In his groundbreaking marketing book “Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion, Robert Cialdini notes that there are two reasons why large groups of people found in urban environs, pass by those in dire need . When there are many observers around, the personal responsibility of each observer is reduced. Our internal voice might say “Someone else, for sure, is making the call for aid.” The second, more psychologically intriguing reason is based on the principle of “Social Proof” and involves something called pluralistic ignorance. In situations that are ambiguous, large groups of people see others not reacting, which is the social proof they need to not act themselves. And the broader group is ignorant as to what exactly is going on.
There are three characteristics that separate urban areas from rural ones that explain why there is less bystander aid in cities: there is generally more confusion, they are densely populated, and there are low levels of acquaintanceship.
Many years ago, I was on a booze cruise in Boston Harbor on July 3rd. We hadn’t left the dock and everyone was socializing and eating from the fabulous buffet. I struck up a conversation with two interesting women from Lithuania sitting next to me. They were big fans of the Grateful Dead since after the Soviet Union fell, The Dead funded the 1986 Lithuanian Olympic Basketball team and outfitted them with tie dyed uniforms. There was even a documentary made about this called “The Other Dream Team.” We had a lot to talk about!
As the boat was about to depart, I noted that one of the two women was scarfing down her food so she could focus on watching our progress through the harbor. All of a sudden, I notice something wrong. She was leaning over the railing trying to throw up. I saw her face was blue. Without missing a beat, I grabbed her, spun her around and began applying the Heimlich Maneuver. Everyone on the top deck gasped as I violently thrust my fisted hands into her abdomen. With one great heave a palm sized chunk of roast beef was expelled and went SPLAT on the deck. Needless to say, I didn’t have to pay for a drink the rest of the night.
Why did I react so quickly? There was no ambiguity. I had observed her eating ravenously and thought it a bit excessive. There was no pluralistic ignorance or social proof tests in this situation. I was the only one that saw her distress, and I knew it. I wasn’t confused by what was going on, there was no one else observing what I was seeing, and I had established a personal relationship.
So what do you do when you are in need of emergency assistance in a crowd? You must reduce uncertainty regarding your condition and the responsibility of those around you. You must pick out one person, and assign the critical task to that individual. “You, with the blue coat, please call an ambulance for me.” Knowing this might save your life. Knowing this might help you rise to the occasion, when a dire situation afflicting someone else, presents itself.
