John Darley从纽约大学和哥伦比亚Bibb Latane（1968），在他们的研究的社会心理学家，“在紧急情况下，旁观者介入：“负责任的扩散与亲社会行为的心理学领域的研究。此外，他们认为旁观者不行为提供帮助在紧急情况下作为旁观者干预。都认为，没有帮助可能有相关的人在犯罪现场的数量。此外，他们得出结论说，责任的扩散可能是回答问题的问题。作为一个旁观者急救增加数人报案数量将减少。因此，一个消极的关系在一个旁观者的急救号码和个人责任之间的报告有。他们最初的研究工作对旁观者效应已被广泛研究的影响（Darley和Latane，1968，，，377 – 383）。
从人格的角度出发，认为研究者预测旁观者干预难（Darley & Latane，1968）。Kahn（1984）认为，在最近的社会心理学教科书，人格有旁观者帮助很少或没有关联（Kahn，1984，217）。另一方面，人格变量如男性可能会影响一个人的看法是，一个高度男性化的人很可能会在紧急情况下进行干预。Tice，Baumeister（1985）发现，受试者是高度阳性者介入急救可能比别人少。男性化的功能似乎是帮助在紧急情况下的意愿的一个预防因素。男性的主题是不愿意帮助，也许是因为他们害怕尴尬。此外，他们可能更注重自己的整体形象在急救的情况下，比其他人低的男性（实践、M.D.、和Baumeister，FR，1985，420 – 428）。
他们的实验的发现表明，男性的性格因素可以影响一个旁观者的决定，无论是帮助或不帮助在紧急情况下。然而，这不是一个乐于助人的影响，男性个性坚实的解释。再一次，这是没有说服力的忽视人格是帮助在紧急情况无关（泰斯，M.D. & Baumeister，FR 1985，420 – 428）。例如，比较不同文化背景的美国和中国人之间的个体差异；而中国文化强调团结和美国的个人和独立的文化。这两种类型的人之间有一个很强的区别，当它来考虑的结果，作为一个可能会预测是，一个中国人将更有可能帮助相比，一个美国男子在紧急情况。最重要的是，必须仔细考虑结果，考虑参与者的背景，如他们的文化背景。这是最有可能影响一个人做出决定的方式和他们的反应能力的帮助。
In 1964, the Kitty Genovese’s Murder case, it was likely to be a tragedy. This incident sparked off the many social psychologists’ interests over the question: “What could have prevented people from at least calling for police?”
John Darley from New York University and Bibb Latane of Columbia (1968), both social psychologists in their research study, “Bystander intervention in emergencies: Diffusion of Responsibility” and examined the psychology area of prosocial behavior. In addition, they regarded the unwillingness behavior of bystanders to offer help during emergencies as bystander intervention. Both suggested that the failure to help could have related to the number of people present at the scene of crime. Moreover, they concluded that diffusion of responsibility could have been the problem to answer the question. As the number of bystanders in an emergency increases, the number of people reporting the case will decrease. Thus, there is a negative relationship between the number of bystanders in an emergency and a person responsibility to report. Their initial research work on bystander effect has been influential to a wide range of studies (Darley, and, Latane, 1968, 377 – 383).
However, their research did not involve much discussion about other possible considering characteristics; different individual varies from gender, to personality. I believed that Man has an important social role in helping. Thus, Man should help a Woman when she is in need.
From the perspective of personality variables, it is believed that researchers had a hard time predicting bystander intervention (Darley & Latane, 1968). Kahn (1984) suggested that in recent social psychology textbooks, personality has little or no relevance to bystander helping (Kahn, 1984, 217). On the other hand, personality variable like masculine might influence one perception that a person who is highly masculine would likely intervene in an emergency. Tice and, Baumeister (1985) found that subjects who are highly masculine were less likely to intervene in an emergency than others. Masculine functions are seems as a preventing factor in willingness to help in emergency situations. Masculine subjects are unwilling to help maybe because they are fear of embarrassment. Moreover, they may pay more attention to their own overall image in emergency situations than others who are low in masculine (Tice, M.D., & Baumeister, F.R., 1985, 420 – 428).
The finding of their experiment shows that personality factor of masculine can influence a bystander’s decision whether to help or not help in emergency situations. However, this cannot be a solid explanation that masculinity affects individuality helpfulness. Then again, it is not convincing to ignore the fact that personality is unrelated to helping out in emergencies (Tice, M.D., & Baumeister, F.R. 1985, 420 – 428). For example, comparing individual differences between an American and Chinese man from difference cultural background; which a Chinese culture emphasizing on togetherness and American culture about individual and independence. There is a strong difference between both type of people when it comes to considering the results; as one might likely to predict is that a Chinese man will be more likely to help as compared to an American man in an emergency situation. Most importantly, must consider the results carefully; taking in consideration of participants’ background such as their cultural background. It is most likely to influence the way a person makes decision and their responsiveness to help.
Another example of personality, guilt could to some extent influence a person helping behavior. Salovey, Mayer & Rosenhan (1991) demonstrated that guilt can likely lead a person to increase possibility to help.
In examining the interaction between gender and condition (non-social vs. social) on helping behavior, it has found that there is a marginally significant between both variables. The condition variable is likely to facilitate in predictions of a person helping behavior; this is in line with the classical bystander effect. It is a social condition, where the subjects will notice that there are other people around. It caused the subjects less likely to help due to the “diffusion of responsibility” (Darley, and, Latane, 1968, 377 – 383) than when they are alone (Karakashian, L.M., Walter, M.I., Christopher, A.N., and Lucas, T., 2006 13 – 32).
For gender variable, it is also a marginal predictor of helping behavior. It is an idea natural thing that men in social condition to help women out of heroic acts. This holds up by their gender role. It is found out that men helped more females than they did for males. One of the possible reasoning could be sex role stereotypes. It can influence a man behavior to produce a heroic act of helping a woman in need. Especially for male participants, in a social condition which they were considered the minority. It means that all man should help to show case their heroism to the women at scene, therefore, they are more likely to intervene in an emergency situation. This finding further affirmed social role theory of helping (Eagly and Crowley, 1986, 283 – 308).
However, it is quite hard to say whether men are more helpful than women, more importantly, “the size and direction of sex differences should be a product of situational variables that determine what social roles are salient in particular situations” (Eagly and Crowley, 1986, p.286).
I reconciles that Individual personality and gender differences, to some extent have influential effects on one helping behaviors.
Darley, J.M., & Latane, B. (1968). Bystander intervention in emergencies: Diffusion of responsibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8, 377 – 383.
Eagly, A. H., & Crowley, M. (1986). Gender and helping behavior: A metaanalytic review of the social psychological literature. Psychological Bulletin, 100, 283 – 308.
Hock, R.R. (2005). Forty studies that changed psychology: Explorations into the history of psychological research. New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc.
Kahn, A. S. (1984). Social Psychology. Dubuque, I A: Brown.
Karakashian, L.M., Walter, M.I., Christopher, A.N., & Lucas, T. (2006). Fear of negative evaluation affects helping behaviour: The bystander effect revisited. North American Journal of Psychology, 8, 13 – 32.
Levine, M. & Crowther, S. (2008). The responsive bystander: How social group membership and group size can encourage as well as inhibit bystander intervention. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol.95, no. 6, 1429 – 1439.
Salovey, P., Mayer, J. D., & Rosenhan, D. L. (1991). Mood and helping: Mood as a motivator of helping and helping as a regulator of mood. In M. S. Clark (Ed.), Review of personality and social psychology: Vol. 12. Prosocial behavior (pp. 215 – 237). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Tice, M.D., & Baumeister, F.R. (1985). Masculinity inhibits helping in emergencies: Personality does predict the bystander effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 420 – 428.