YASMINE ASSAR

Darley's study on the bystander effect.

Introduction Section

Two Major Points from Introduction

The authors refer to the complexity of responding to emergencies, emphasizing that people have

limited first-hand experience with such situations. They introduce the idea that social norms

facilitate helpfulness but psychological and situational factors may interfere with this tendency.

They also argue that the presence of others may interfere with individual action by causing

confusion and spreading responsibility, leading to inaction even in potentially dangerous

situations.

Did the Authors Clearly Describe their Purpose and Hypotheses?

Yes, the authors clearly state their aim: to investigate how the presence of others affects

bystander intervention in emergencies. They expect that individuals in a group will be less likely

to assist during an emergency due to social influence and diffusion of responsibility. Their

hypothesis is clearly stated logically, on the basis of prior research, and forms a sound foundation

for the study. Their explanation is concise and clear and thus easy to understand their intentions

and expectations.

Did This Section Convince You That This Study Important?

Yes, this is a good introduction that effectively establishes the significance of the research. The

authors use real-world examples, such as the well-known Kitty Genovese case, to show why
bystander behavior needs to be studied. They refute common myths about human nature, in that

not assisting is not always due to apathy but, rather, to psychological processes. By both solving

a legitimate social issue and providing a theoretical background, the introduction succeeds in

conveying why it is valuable to investigate group inhibition in emergencies.

Method Section

How the Author Conducted the Study

The researchers conducted an experiment in which individuals were left waiting in a waiting

room and exposed to a vague emergency—a puff of smoke through an air vent. Some were

alone, and some were in groups with passive confederates (actors instructed not to respond) or

naive people. They were watched by a one-way glass, and how long it took for the smoke to be

reported was recorded. It wanted to find out if the presence of others decided an individual's

likelihood of responding to the seeming emergency.

Did the Author Clearly Describe How the Study Was Conducted?

Yes, the authors provided a clear and detailed account of their procedure. They described clearly

how participants were approached, how the emergency was simulated, and how reactions were

assessed. They also controlled other conditions to ensure each scenario was well planned. By

describing what materials were used, such as titanium dioxide smoke, and how participants were

managed, they made it easy for readers to understand the procedure. This transparency allows the

study to be replicated and tested by other researchers.

Did You Gain a Thorough Understanding of What It Was Like to Be a Participant in This

Study?
Yes, the report is a fair account of the participant experience. The experiment defines the setup,

the slow release of smoke, and the visibility or not of other human beings. The breakdown of

participants' response—delay, exploration, or repeated inaction—makes it easy to picture the

psychological pressure they would have felt. With the addition of post-experimental interviews,

the authors present an insight into participants' thought, which allows readers to see why they

responded—or did not respond—a certain way.

Did the Author Do Anything that Didn’t Seem to Make Sense?

The methodology is good design, but the limitation that participants are only males might limit

generalizability. The assumption that passive confederates would have no impact on participants

other than inaction is questionable—some of the participants might have interpreted their

behavior differently. Although the research is strong from a design standpoint, these factors

might have been more completely explored to investigate response differences by gender or

different levels of social influence.

Results Section

Most Interesting Results of the Study

One the most striking result was that subjects were much more likely to say they saw the smoke

when they were alone than when they were with others. When alone, 75% of the subjects

reported seeing the smoke, while 10% of the subjects did when they had passive confederates

present. Three-groups of naive subjects also showed a reduced sensitivity, reporting only 38%

seeing the smoke. This exactly shows the strength of social influence—when individuals see

others remain silent, they suppress their own impulse to react too, leading to inaction en masse

during disasters.
Did the Author Clearly Describe the Results?

Yes, the author presented the results in a clear and simple manner. The data were briefly

summarized with percentages to describe how different conditions impacted bystander behavior.

Cumulative distribution plots were simple to read to determine patterns of intervention over time.

Main findings were also reported using simple sentences without additional complexity, which

made it simple for readers to see at a glance how social presence altered emergency response.

The findings of the study were well-concluded and well-supported, and readers could see why

the findings were significant.

Discussion Section

Most Important Message of This Study

The key message of the study is that social influence plays a crucial role in bystander

intervention during emergencies. Individuals tend to look at the response of others to determine a

situation, and when the people around them are passive, they will not intervene. This brings out

how group dynamics can unwittingly quell individual responsibility, causing individuals to

hesitate even when intervention is called for. An appreciation of this phenomenon comes into

play when handling real-life situations where quick intervention is called for, such as medical

emergencies or public security threats.

Implications of This Study

The results are important because they go against predictions of human action in emergency

situations. Rather than indifference or apathy, people do not act because they assume others will

or see a situation as not emergent based on group action. This has implications for emergency

readiness and public safety—informing people of the "bystander effect" can encourage them to
recognize their personal responsibility in emergency situations. It also influences policy that

encourages intervention, like public information campaigns or empowerment programs that train

people to do something themselves instead of waiting for someone else to do it.

One Idea for Future Research on This Topic

A future study could examine the influence of different types of social relationship on bystander

intervention. For example, does one respond in different ways depending on whether he or she is

among friends or strangers? Experiments could reveal whether intimate social relationship leads

to intervention or people are still averse even around familiar individuals. This would provide

more information regarding the influence of interpersonal relationship on decision-making under

crisis situations and may more appropriately inform strategies aimed at enhancing active

response.

Research Ethics

The study does not appear to have any major ethical concerns. The emergency scenario was

established in a controlled environment, and no participants were placed in actual danger. One

concern that could be raised is whether the participants were placed under distress by the smoke

exposure or pressure of being observed. Modern ethical standards emphasize fully informing

participants of possible risks and ensuring that they do not feel coerced. While the study is in line

with ethical research standards, modern-day experiments would likely include more formal

debriefing procedures to ensure that participants have full understanding and reflect on their

experience.

Milgram-A Behavioral Study of Obedience

Introduction Section
Two Major Points from the Introduction

Milgram describes how obedience is a part of social structure, a part that provides order and

functioning within society. However, he also shows the dangers of blind obedience, using

examples of how authority will lead people to do that which they know is wrong. He uses war

time atrocities as a way of showing how obedience will dominate ethical considerations, showing

his study to be important for understanding human behavior.

Did The Authors Clearly Describe Their Purpose and Hypotheses?

Yes, Milgram clearly states his purpose: to study how individuals obey orders even when told to

harm others. His prediction is that individuals will continue to obey orders no matter what moral

problems are involved. He provides historical context and logical explanation, so his purposes

are simple to grasp and clearly explained.

Did this section convince you that is important?

Yes, the introduction effectively establishes the significance of the study. Milgram traces

obedience to historical catastrophes, illustrating how authority can lead normal individuals to

commit evil acts. His premise contradicts presuppositions about moral action and highlights the

imperatives of examining obedience in real-life circumstances. This makes the study invaluable

to psychology, ethics, and public awareness.

Method Section

How the Study Was Conducted

Milgram's experiment involved recruiting volunteers in the cover of a learning experiment. The

subject, who was in the role of "teacher," was instructed to administer electric shocks to a
"learner" (a confederate) for incorrect responses. The shock machine increased voltage settings,

and the experimenter prompted participants further. The measure of concern was the highest

amount of shock that each subject would administer before no longer being able to continue.

Did the Author Clearly Describe How the Study Was Conducted?

Yes, the process in the study was described, such as participant recruitment, roles, administering

of shock, and experimenter prompts. It was evident from the description how obedience was

tested and how variables were controlled.

Did You Gain a Thorough Understanding of What It Was Like to Be a Participant in This

Study?

Yes, Milgram's precise account—participant reactions, emotional distress, and tension—helps

readers understand their experience. The account of hesitation, nervous laughter, and seeming

stress reveals how conflicted participants were.

Did The Author Do Anything That Didn’t Seem to Make Sense?

The ethics of the study are particularly notable. Participants felt they were causing harm to a

person, bringing distress and potential emotional damage. Contemporary ethical norms would

demand stronger protections, including informed consent and prompt debriefing to limit

psychological effect.

Results Section

Most Interesting Results of the Study

One of the most significant findings was that 26 of 40 subjects complied to maximum shock

level even in the presence of discomfort evidence. Most displayed extreme nervousness,
sweating, shaking, or even forced laughing. To the contrary of expectation, subjects persisted in

obeying authority when the "learner" no longer reacted, a testament to the strength of obedience

against moral qualm.

Did the Author Clearly Describe the Results?

Yes, Milgram explained the findings clearly in simple sentences, percentages, and tables. He

clearly explained how the participants reacted and when they declined to continue. The extensive

behavioral observations also helped readers understand the psychological tension the participants

experienced.

Discussion Section

Most Important Message of the Study

Milgram's experiment demonstrates the powerful impact of authority on human behavior. It

demonstrates how people will typically obey, even when it goes against the individual's moral

code. The experiment demonstrates how obedience can override personal ethics and help to

explain historical and current examples of people obeying harmful commands.

Implications of the Study

These findings are concerning regarding the influence of authority on decision-making. They

illustrate that ordinary people can engage in unethical acts when coerced, stressing the need for

critical thinking and moral sensitivity when following orders. This experiment is relevant in

numerous fields, including education, law enforcement, and organizational management.

Why the Results Are Important

importantly, how individuals justify harmful behavior when under the influence of authority.

Understanding such mechanisms avoids unethical conduct in social, corporate, and political life.

It facilitates discussions about accountability, leadership, and the role of blind followership.

Idea for Future Research

One possible future study is to explore the impact of cultural differences on obedience.

Researchers could carry out tests to determine whether people from different societies react

differently to individuals in positions of authority and explore the impact of upbringing,

education, and social norms on obedience levels. This would provide a better understanding of

how obedience operates everywhere.

Research Ethics

While the study yielded groundbreaking findings, it also poses ethical concerns. Participants

were subjected to repeated instances of emotional distress as they believed they were physically

harming another person. Modern ethical guidelines would involve protection against informed

consent, stronger debriefing, and avoidance of psychological damage. While Milgram attempted

to study an important social problem, modern ethical guidelines would likely exclude such

experiments.

Darley, J. M. (1968). Group inhibition of bystander intervention in emergencies. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 10(3), 215-221.

psychology, 67(4), 371.