One of the challenges of researching bystander intervention is a lack of external validity – simply put, most of the experimental research involves situations that are not very dangerous or violent,...

One of the challenges of researching bystander intervention is a lack of external validity – simply put, most of the experimental research involves situations that are not very dangerous or violent, whereas real-world emergencies may well be. So what of situations in which the bystander can readily ascertain that intervention is necessary, but which also pose significant risks? Fischer and his colleagues (2006) performed a study in which low-danger situations were compared to high-danger situations. When the danger seemed low, the usual effect was found: a bystander was more likely to help when alone than when other bystanders were present. Interestingly, when the danger was perceived to be high, the effect disappeared – it didn’t matter whether the bystander was alone or with another person. Unfortunately, in the situations considered, no more than 50 per cent of the participants tried to help someone in trouble, no matter what the circumstances. So what can we conclude about real-world helping?

Have you ever encountered an emergency? Did you intervene? Can you relate your behaviour to the principles discussed above? Does knowing these principles seem likely to affect how you will react to future emergencies (priming suggests that it should)? If you’ve never been involved in an emergency, under what conditions do you think you would intervene?