PSYCHOLOGY: Brighter side of human psyche —Humair Hashmi

A young woman was attacked by a man in an apartment building in New York City. The attacker stabbed her more than eight times, sexually molested her and then left her to die. Over 35 people heard her screams. Not one came to rescue her

Suppose you are walking along a crowded footpath and drop your wallet. At least 15 people see you drop it. Will you be told about it? Suppose again that you are walking along the road when there are only three people around who see you drop your wallet. Will you be told about it? In which of the two scenarios do you think you are more likely to be helped?

Imagine another scene. You are driving along a crowded road during the day and you get a flat tire: And then imagine you are driving along a road with practically no traffic when you get a flat tire. Where are you most likely to receive assistance?

You will probably pick the first situation in both scenarios because more people had the opportunity to witness the unfortunate incident. But you are wrong. Research shows that receiving assistance or help is related to a host of categories of factors but all of them are not related to common sense. So your common sense answer is wrong.

Altruism is helping others without expecting any reward or benefit in return. Helping behaviour that requires personal sacrifice on the part of helper, with no expectation of reward, is the brighter side of human psyche. Psychological research literature labels it altruistic behaviour, or altruism.

In a famous case in the 1960s, a young woman, Kitty Genovese, was attacked by a man in an apartment building in New York City. The attacker stabbed her more than eight times, sexually molested her and then left her to die. During the assault, which lasted over half an hour, she screamed for help repeatedly. Over 35 people, her neighbours, heard her screams. Some saw her from their own apartments; one even shouted at the attacker but his shout did not scare away the latter.

Not one of the neighbours came to rescue her. The general public was appalled, and psychologists found it difficult to explain why witnesses, the neighbours, acted as “bad Samaritans”. These and other similar examples triggered off research, unlocking the mystery of why bystanders do or do not intervene in situations where someone requires help, and to which they are a witness.

Initial research showed that the act of intervention consists of definite steps. For example, psychologists were able to identify the four steps leading to helping behaviour. The first is noticing a person, an event, or a situation requiring help. Whether a given bystander will, or will not notice such a situation varies from individual to individual. Some people notice such things easily, more quickly, and more often than others, whereas some others less frequently or not at all.

The second step is interpreting the stimulus in a situation as one requiring help or intervention. Individual differences play a major role here also. Some people interpret it one way, concluding that help is required; others may conclude that help is not required. Those in the first category are more likely to offer help then those who put the second interpretation on it.

The third step is assuming responsibility and helping, the most crucial step in helping behaviour. This assumption of responsibility depends on a number of factors, including individual differences and situational factors. Some individuals are more predisposed to taking responsibility than others: And some situations “cause” such behaviour more than some other situations.

And the fourth step is deciding and then implementing the kind and form of helping behaviour. In this final step individual differences and situational factors may interact, and their combination plays a major role in determining presence or absence of helping behaviour.

Psychologists have been also able to isolate and identify at least three categories of factors that contribute to being good Samaritans. These factors shed light on the altruistic behaviour of human beings.

First, there are some personality-related factors that may predispose an individual to altruistic behaviour. The first among them is presence of self-esteem. Self-esteem is the positive regard one has for one’s self. Individuals who have high self-esteem show greater altruistic, helping behaviour than those who have low self-esteem.

Individuals who are empathetic, i.e. sensitive to others’ emotions are more likely to exhibit altruistic behaviour. In other words, empathy predisposes one to altruistic behaviour.

Another study on helping behaviour found that both good and bad moods are related to helping behaviour. The surprising element in this link between mood and helping behaviour is that bad moods or depressive states of mind are more likely to elicit altruistic helping, behaviour than good moods.

Psychologists have explained that helping others enables the helper to view herself positively, raising her spirit and getting her out of her bad mood. Hence the positive link between bad mood and helping behaviour. And other psychologists have found that people with higher emotional quotient are more likely to behave altruistically than those with lower EQ. Thus the ability to monitor one’s own emotions, and those of others, is positively correlated to altruistic behaviour. The higher the ability, the higher the likelihood of offering assistance.

Research has revealed that a number of situational variables are also important. It reveals that the number of observers in a situation may facilitate or hinder altruistic behaviour. If there are more observers, the occurrence of altruistic behaviour diminishes while a smaller number of people facilitates altruistic behaviour.

So when someone drops his wallet on a busy, crowded footpath, he is less likely to be told about it than if he drops it in a less crowded, place. A large number of observers/witnesses prove to suppress altruistic behaviour. Research has repeatedly shown that when a large number of people witness an incident that requires helping behaviour, onlookers are reluctant to offer help. The opposite of it has also been found to be true.

So if you have a flat tire and are on an isolated road, you are more likely to receive help than if you were stuck on a busy road. Research statistics show that when an individual or a small number of people witness an incident requiring help, there are 85 percent chances of help; and when that number is large there are only 31 percent chances of help.

Humair Hashmi is a consulting psychologist, who teaches at Imperial College. This is the first of a two-part series

Home | Editorial