Diffusion of Responsibility
In the Neverwhere RPG I mad a special item granted to a player called the Silence Knife. Inspired by the case of Kitty Genovese and the crimes of Jack the Ripper, it was a weapon formed by the fears, outrage, and shame of the city. A wickedly sharp blade, those in its circle of influence cannot raise a finger to intervene, and afterwards they're unable to communicate to others what they saw; only a strong will can overcome the Silence Knife. Worse yet, it's rumored to have a spirit and will of its own that will take over a weak "master". Unfortunately, the game didn't get much farther after this particular artifact made it's initial appearance, and its full capabilities were never explored. *frown*
Remembering that unfinished game led to some investigation into psychological studies of bystander apathy to the distress of others. The following is one such case. At the time this study was conducted (1972), there was a great deal of media coverage of Kitty Genovese; a woman viciously murdered outside her apartment in Queens, New York City. Although the victim screamed for help, not one of the thirty-eight neighbors who watched the attack from their windows came to her assistance or even called the police. Researchers Bibb Latane and John Darley proposed that the presence of other bystanders inhibits observers from helping, because they feel a "diffusion of responsibility." Piliavin and Piliavin disagreed with this explanation and proposed that people are less likely to help a victim if they feel helping may place them in danger.
The researchers observed the helping behaviors of subway passengers in response to a series of "staged crises" in which a confederate acting as a "victim" with a cane feigned a collapse on a crowded train and did not appear to bleed (indicating a nondangerous situation) or appeared to bleed from the mouth (indicating a potentially dangerous situation). During the experiment some of the passengers panicked when they saw the "bleeding victim" and some attempted to pull the emergency cord to stop the train. As predicted, bystanders exposed to the "bloody" victim were less likely to offer direct help and more likely to offer indirect help or no help at all when compared to those exposed to the bloodless victim. The researchers also found that contrary to the diffusion of responsibility hypothesis, the number of bystanders present did not significantly inhibit helping behavior. Overall, males were more likely to offer direct help than females. Bloody "victims" were more likely to be helped by bystanders of their own race, while race had no effect on helping behavior for bloodless "victims."
I think there's also the fear of legal repercussions. It's like the doctor uncertain if he should stop at the scene of an accident out of concern of being sued. Sometimes being a good Samaritan can bit you in the butt.
Remembering that unfinished game led to some investigation into psychological studies of bystander apathy to the distress of others. The following is one such case. At the time this study was conducted (1972), there was a great deal of media coverage of Kitty Genovese; a woman viciously murdered outside her apartment in Queens, New York City. Although the victim screamed for help, not one of the thirty-eight neighbors who watched the attack from their windows came to her assistance or even called the police. Researchers Bibb Latane and John Darley proposed that the presence of other bystanders inhibits observers from helping, because they feel a "diffusion of responsibility." Piliavin and Piliavin disagreed with this explanation and proposed that people are less likely to help a victim if they feel helping may place them in danger.
The researchers observed the helping behaviors of subway passengers in response to a series of "staged crises" in which a confederate acting as a "victim" with a cane feigned a collapse on a crowded train and did not appear to bleed (indicating a nondangerous situation) or appeared to bleed from the mouth (indicating a potentially dangerous situation). During the experiment some of the passengers panicked when they saw the "bleeding victim" and some attempted to pull the emergency cord to stop the train. As predicted, bystanders exposed to the "bloody" victim were less likely to offer direct help and more likely to offer indirect help or no help at all when compared to those exposed to the bloodless victim. The researchers also found that contrary to the diffusion of responsibility hypothesis, the number of bystanders present did not significantly inhibit helping behavior. Overall, males were more likely to offer direct help than females. Bloody "victims" were more likely to be helped by bystanders of their own race, while race had no effect on helping behavior for bloodless "victims."
I think there's also the fear of legal repercussions. It's like the doctor uncertain if he should stop at the scene of an accident out of concern of being sued. Sometimes being a good Samaritan can bit you in the butt.