(单词翻译:单击)
If you've ever taken a psychology class, you've probably heard the shocking story of Kitty Genovese.
如果你上过心理学课程，就可能听过凯蒂·热诺维斯(Kitty Genovese)那令人震惊的故事。
As the story goes, she was murdered one night in 1964 with 38 witnesses,
故事是这样的，1964年的一个晚上，她在38名目击者面前被杀了，
yet no one helped or even called the police until it was too late.
在惨剧发生之前，没有人帮忙，甚至没有人报警。
Reports about this horrible, bizarre event sparked research on what came to be known as the bystander effect.
这一奇怪可怕的事件的报道引发了关于旁观者效应的研究。
Despite what you'd think, it says that, sometimes, someone is actually less likely to help if there are others around.
不管你是怎么想的，这一效应都表明，有时，人们在周围还有其他人的情况下实际不太可能提供帮助。
But even though it's talked about in every intro psych course,
尽管旁观者效应在每个心理学入门课程中都提过，
the bystander effect isn't as simple as "more people equals worse odds of getting help."
但它并不像“人越多，获得帮助的几率就越少”那么简单。
Sometimes, more is better, and there are other factors that matter, too. Oh, and also?
有时候，人越多越好，还有其他因素也很重要。噢，还有什么因素？
That original story of Kitty's murder isn't entirely true.
凯蒂被杀故事的最初版本并不完全是真的。
After the New York Times published their story about Kitty Genovese,
在《纽约时报》发表了关于凯蒂·热诺维斯的报道后，
scientists set to work trying to figure out why so many witnesses hadn't responded.
科学家们开始研究这么多目击者没有回应的原因。
The first major study was published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology in 1968.
第一个主要研究发表在1968年的《人格与社会心理学杂志》上。
In it, two researchers created a similar situation in the lab.
在这项研究中，两名研究人员在实验室中创造了相似的环境。
They had 72 undergrads come in to what they thought was a study on common problems in students' lives.
他们让72名大学生参与进来，这些人认为这是一项针对学生生活中常见问题的研究。
Each participant was seated alone in a room with an intercom
每个受试者都独自坐在一个有对讲机的房间里，
to share their problems with one, two, or five other so-called "participants" although they were actually recordings.
与一名、两名或五名所谓的“参与者”分享他们的问题，不过这些“参与者”实际是录音。
Then, one of these pre-recorded participants pretended to have a seizure,
然后，其中一名预录参与者假装癫痫发作，
and the scientists timed how long it took for the undergrad to get help.
同时科学家们计时这名大学生需要多久才能得到帮助。
They found that the more bystanders there were, the longer it took, if they got help at all.
他们发现，旁观者越多，得到帮助花得时间越长，
When they were alone, 85% of participants got assistance.
当旁观者只有一个人时，85%的参与者获得了帮助。
But in the largest group of five bystanders, only 31% did.
但在人数最多的五名旁观者中，只有31%的参与者获得了帮助。
Admittedly, most people were concerned about the sick person, but they didn't know if they should do something.
诚然，大多数人都担心病人，但他们不知道自己是否应该做些什么。
And so the bystander effect was born.
于是旁观者效应就产生了。
Since then, multiple studies have confirmed this effect,
自此以后，多项研究证实了这一效应，
but they've also found it isn't always as straightforward as it seems.
但他们也发现，事情并不总是像表面那样简单。
Sometimes, people are more likely to help with bystanders, or simply aren't affected by their presence.
有时候，人们更愿意帮助旁观者，或者根本不受他们的影响。
One major influence on this is the bystanders themselves.
对此的一个主要影响是旁观者本身。
Not surprisingly, people who are in a hurry are typically less likely to stop and help someone.
匆忙的人通常不太可能停下来帮助别人，这一点儿也不奇怪。
And people who are highly skilled in a certain emergency, like nurses trained to handle medical situations,
而那些擅长处理紧急情况的人，比如受过医疗情况处理训练的护士
are also more likely to try to help, whether bystanders are there or not.
不管有没有旁观者在，都更可能尝试着提供帮助。
More interestingly, though, making a commitment also matters.
更有趣的是，做出承诺也很重要。
In a 2015 study in France, a man sat down his bag
在2015年法国的一项研究中，一名男子坐在他的包上，
and asked either one specific person to watch it, everyone in general to watch it,
他要么让一个特定的人看它，要么让所有人都看它，
or said nothing, then headed to a nearby ATM.
要么不发一言，随后朝着附近的ATM取款机走去。
Then, the researchers faked the backpack getting stolen.
然后，研究人员捏造背包被偷了的假象。
They repeated trials of this until they had a total of 150 different bystanders, 50 for each scenario.
他们反复试验，直到招到150名不同的旁观者，每个场景50名。
Ultimately, the more direct of a commitment, the more likely people were to intervene when someone took the bag.
最终结果表明，承诺越直接，当有人拿走书包时，人们更有可能介入。
Other studies suggest that responses in situations like this have to do with a couple of things.
其他研究表明，这样的情形下，人们的反应与以下几件事有关。
One is social influence.
一个是社会影响。
In general, when you aren't sure what is going on, you probably tend to look at other people for more information.
一般来说，当你不确定到底发生了什么时，你可能会倾向于看别人以获取更多信息。
And if no one else seems to be concerned, then maybe this guy's backpack isn't a big deal,
如果没有人关心，那么这个人的背包可能不是大事儿，
so you don't do anything, just like everyone else.
你就会像其他人那样什么都不做了。
Another factor is diffusion of responsibility.
另一个因素是责任分散。
If something happens when you're in a big group,
如果你所在的一个大群体发生某事，
like some participants in this backpack study, it isn't up to only you to help. Other people could help too.
就像这个背包研究中的某些参与者一样，不是只有你能帮上忙，其他人也能帮忙。
So, you don't feel as responsible and don't act, and suddenly that man's out of a bag.
那么你不觉得自己有责任，也不去行动，突然，那个男人的书包没了。
Besides the bystanders, another major factor in general is the specific situation.
除了旁观者之外，一般来说，另一个主要因素是具体情况。
Sometimes, it's hard to tell if someone needs help or not.
有时，我们很难辨别某人是否需要帮助。
And many studies have found that when things are ambiguous, people are less likely to jump in.
许多研究表明，当事情模棱两可时，人们不太可能介入。
Which seems reasonable.
这似乎是合理的。
After all, if it turns out someone is just playing around, it could be really embarrassing to be wrong.
毕竟，如果事实只是有人在胡闹，那么这种错误可能会让人很尴尬。
Research suggests that ambiguous situations can make people fear being judged negatively,
研究表明，模棱两可的情况会让人害怕得到负面评价，
which can stop them from acting.
这可能阻止他们行动。
The good news is that when it's clear that there is an emergency, the bystander effect doesn't usually happen.
好消息是，当紧急情况明显时，旁观者效应通常不会发生。
A 2011 meta-analysis of more than 50 studies also showed that
2011年对50多项研究的荟萃分析还显示，
if the situation is dangerous, like if the perpetrator is still there,
如果情况危险，比如行凶者仍在那里，
people are more likely to help if there are bystanders. And that makes sense.
如果有旁观者的话，他们更愿意帮忙。这能讲得通。
Those situations are clearly an emergency, and it's safer if other people have your back.
这些情况显然是紧急情况，如果别人支持你，你会更安全。
Ultimately, although there are some trends,
最终，尽管有一些趋势，
a lot of different social and psychological factors determine whether or not someone will offer help.
但许多不同的社会和心理因素决定了一个人是否会提供帮助。
Today, research suggests that your best bet in an emergency is to make it clear that you do need assistance,
现在研究表明，在紧急情况下，你最好的选择是明确表示你确实需要帮助，
and to make individuals feel responsible for stepping in.
让人们觉得有责任介入。
Really, though, it isn't that surprising that this effect isn't totally straightforward.
不过，这种效应并不完全明确，这一点儿也不奇怪。
Humans aren't exactly clear-cut, so the bystander effect isn't, either.
人类并不是完全清晰的，所以旁观者效应也不是。
Even the original Kitty Genovese story wasn't as black-and-white as the New York Times reported.
甚至是最初的基蒂·热诺维斯故事也没有《纽约时报》报道的那么黑白分明。
The truth is, 38 people did not witness the murder.
事实是，38人没有目击到谋杀。
When Kitty was first attacked on the street, many may have briefly heard something,
当凯蒂第一次在街上遭到袭击时，许多人可能听到过一些声音，
but only a handful of people saw anything happening in the dark.
但只有少数人在黑暗中看到了什么。
And even then, it was the middle of the night, and it was hard to tell what was going on.
即使那样，已经是半夜了，他们也很难识别发生了什么。
In other words, it was ambiguous.
换句话说，它是模糊的。
One person scared the attacker away by yelling out the window, and, injured, Kitty tried to get to her apartment.
有一个人对着窗外大喊，把攻击者吓跑了，凯蒂受伤了，她试着回到公寓。
Then, unfortunately, in the building's entrance where people couldn't see or hear her very well, the attacker came back.
不幸的是，在大楼的入口处，人们无法看到或听到她声音的地方，攻击者又回来了。
Police were called but didn't arrive until it was too late to save her.
警察被召来，但赶到时已为时已晚。
The newspaper article wasn't published until two weeks after the event,
报纸上的这篇文章直到事件发生两周后才发表，
so there was time for details to get a little fuzzy.
所以时间让细节变得模糊。
Thankfully, we have researchers studying this phenomenon to make sure that's less likely to happen again.
值得庆幸的是，我们的研究人员正在研究这一现象，以确保这种情况不会再次发生。
Thanks for watching this episode of SciShow Psych!
感谢您收看本期的心理科学秀！
If you'd like to dig deeper into some of the topics you might've covered in Psych 101,
如果你想深入研究一下心理学101中可能涉及到的一些主题，
you can watch our episode about Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs.
你可以看我们那期“马斯洛需求层次”，
Turns out, that's not as helpful as you'd think, either.
事实证明，它也没有你想象的那么有用。
