"Who is my neighbor?"

I don't know how many times I've heard the biblical story of the Good Samaritan.  I have mentioned the story once before in a previous post ("If I do not stop to help this man...").  The story is told by Jesus in the Gospel of Luke and begins with the passage, "Who is my neighbor?"  A traveler is robbed, beaten, and left for dead alongside the road, and at different times, three individuals find him.  Two religious men walk past him and leave the traveler on the side of the road, while a third man - the so-called "Good Samaritan" stops and helps the man, giving him food, clothing, and shelter.  The moral lesson is that we should all show mercy and help each other out.  

Unfortunately, several studies have shown that when individuals are faced with someone in need of emergency assistance, they may not always choose not to help.  For example, the "bystander effect" is a well-known theory from psychology that states that an individual’s likelihood of helping in an emergency decreases when passive bystanders are present.  It's almost a reverse of peer pressure.  When other individuals are present, we are more likely to think that "someone else will help" and we therefore do not need to do so.  The most famous example of the bystander effect is the 1964 case involving Kitty Genovese.  Genovese was a 28 year-old woman who was stabbed multiple times and killed just outside of her apartment building in Queens, New York.  A New York Times article reported that at least 38 witnesses saw the murder without calling the police.  Most believed that someone else would call for help.  Subsequent reports suggest that the number of witnesses was inaccurate, though the story led the social psychologists, Bibb Latané and John Darley to coin the phrase diffusion of responsibility and propose a new theory of the "bystander effect" (which has also been called, for obvious reasons, the "Genovese Syndrome").

There is a very old study (published in 1973) that provides additional information relevant to the "Good Samaritan" story.  The investigators John Darley and Daniel Batson recruited 40 students from the Princeton Theological Seminary to participate in their simulation of the Good Samaritan story.  Subjects were told that they would be giving a brief 3-5 minute talk on the other end of campus on either (1) the jobs or professions that seminary students enjoyed most or (2) the Good Samaritan story itself ("explain in your own words").  Some of the students were told, "Oh, you're late.  They were expecting you a few minutes ago.  We'd better get moving.  The assistant should be waiting for you so you'd better hurry."

After leaving the laboratory, the students passed a victim who was slumped over in a doorway with his head down and eyes closed.  The "victim" was moaning and coughing.  If the subject stopped to offer help, the "victim" would respond with "Oh, thank you [cough].  No, it's all right [pause].  I've got this respiratory condition [cough].  The doctor's given me these pills to take, and I just took one.  If I just sit and rest for a few minutes, I'll be okay."

What do you think these investigators found?  As it turns out, subjects who were in a hurry were significantly less likely to stop to offer help compared to those subjects who weren't in a hurry!  Of the 40 subjects, 16 (40%) offered some form of assistance to the "victim", while 24 (60%) did not help.  Remember that these were seminary students!  And it didn't even matter if they were being asked to speak about the Good Samaritan story!

Looking at the data further, the only thing that mattered was whether they were running late or not.  If the subjects were running late, they usually didn't stop to offer assistance.  Subjects were told that they (1) had plenty of time to make it to the talk ("low-hurry"), (2) were on-time and should head over now so they wouldn't be late ("intermediate-hurry"), or (3) were running late and needed to move quickly ("high-hurry").  Sixty-three percent of the students in the "low-hurry" condition stopped to help, while only 45% of subjects in the "intermediate-hurry" and 10% in the "high-hurry" condition did so. 

So, what does this all tell us?  First, if there are others around in an emergency, individuals may not always step forward to help due to the mistaken belief that "someone else will do so."  Second, if individuals are in a hurry, they may be even less likely to step forward to help.  Being aware of these natural biases, tendencies, and behaviors is important, regardless of the setting.

It doesn't have to be a case of life-and-death!  The "bystander effect" has been observed in a number of different scenarios (just watch any episode of the ABC television show, What Would You Do?.  The fact that the "bystander effect" was first described in a potentially life-and-death emergency only further emphasizes that people will be resistant to participating or helping in any given situation, and they will be even less likely to help if they are in a hurry.  

The biblical "Good Samaritan" story is still a remarkable one.  I go back to my original post, which referred to a speech given by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr so many years ago.  Dr. King ended his speech with the "Good Samaritan" story, trying to explain why the priest and Levite did not stop to help the victim when the Samaritan did.  He offered, "And so the first question that the priest asked - the first question that the Levite asked, was 'If I stop to help this man, what will happen to me?'  But then the Good Samaritan came by.  And he reversed the question: 'If I do not stop to help this man, what will happen to him?'"  

I would argue that Dr. King was thinking about one more question.  "If I do not stop to help this man, what will happen to him?  And by not stopping to help him, what does that say about me?"  "Who is my neighbor?"  He or she is right there in front of you.