# Research on the Bystander Effect: answers and explanations

Testmigo Practice Test 4, Listening Part 3

Source: Written by Testmigo.

## Answer key

| Q | Answer | Proof |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 21 | A | the other voices were all tape-recorded |
| 22 | A | lots of them had trembling hands and sweaty palms |
| 23 | B | some decided it was harmless, like a leaking air conditioner |
| 24 | C | the story itself has limited the questions psychologists ask |
| 25 | D | similar in all three countries |
| 26 | anonymous | keep them anonymous |
| 27 | sound | the videos had no sound |
| 28 | alcohol | alcohol may have affected how some bystanders judged the risk |
| 29 | flawed | called its own reporting flawed |
| 30 | parable | a modern parable |

## Why these answers are right

**21. A.** Hannah points out that in the intercom study the other voices, even the student who seemed to have a seizure, were tape-recorded. Students believed they were talking with others in nearby rooms, so the recordings created the impression that others were present. The answer is A.

**22. A.** In the intercom study, Hannah notes that the students who never reported the seizure did not look indifferent. Many had trembling hands and sweaty palms, which are signs of nerves. Indifferent is paraphrased as uncaring, and the physical signs as anxious, giving A.

**23. B.** Hannah describes the smoke study: people in groups noticed the smoke more slowly, and some decided it was harmless, for example a leaking air conditioner. Smoke is the warning sign, and the air conditioner is the harmless explanation, so the answer is B.

The why and the trap for questions 24 onwards are free with an account on the [answers page](https://testmigo.com/ielts/listening/research-on-the-bystander-effect/answers).

## Transcript

**Announcer:** Part 3. You will hear two psychology students, Hannah and Owen, discussing the research they have read for an essay on the bystander effect.

**Announcer:** First, you have some time to look at questions 21 to 25.

**Announcer:** Now listen carefully and answer questions 21 to 25.

**Owen:** Right, Hannah. Shall we go through the four studies and agree what each one actually shows?

**Hannah:** Sure. Let's start with the classic, Darley and Latané's intercom study from 1968.

**Owen:** The seizure one. Students at New York University thought they were discussing personal problems over an intercom, each in a separate room.

**Hannah:** Except the other voices were all tape-recorded, weren't they? Even the student who seemed to have the seizure.

**Owen:** Exactly. When people thought they were the only listener, eighty-five per cent reported it before the victim's voice was cut off. With four others supposedly listening, it was just thirty-one per cent.

**Hannah:** What struck me was the people who didn't report it. You'd expect them to look indifferent, but lots of them had trembling hands and sweaty palms.

**Owen:** Yes, the authors didn't think they'd decided not to help. They were still making up their minds.

**Hannah:** Then the second experiment, where smoke came into the room through a vent.

**Owen:** Do we really need that one too? We're close to the word limit.

**Hannah:** I think so. It shows something different. People in groups were slower even to notice the smoke, and some decided it was harmless, like a leaking air conditioner.

**Owen:** Okay, fair enough. That's about how people read the situation. We'll keep it.

**Hannah:** Now, Kitty Genovese. The 1964 murder in New York that got Darley and Latané interested in the first place.

**Owen:** Where the New York Times said thirty-eight witnesses watched and nobody called the police during the attack.

**Hannah:** Right. But the 2007 paper by Manning, Levine and Collins went back through the archive material.

**Hannah:** They found no evidence that there were thirty-eight witnesses, or that they saw the murder, or that they all did nothing.

**Owen:** So they're saying bystander research is built on a myth.

**Hannah:** No, that's the thing. They separate the story from the experiments, which they call a robust research tradition.

**Hannah:** Their point is that the story itself has limited the questions psychologists ask about helping in emergencies.

**Owen:** Ah, I'd misread that, then. So it's a criticism of the story, not of the lab work.

**Hannah:** And finally, the CCTV study by Philpot and his colleagues.

**Owen:** My favourite. They studied two hundred and nineteen real conflicts filmed by city cameras in Lancaster, Amsterdam and Cape Town.

**Owen:** In about nine out of ten, at least one person did something to help. I'd assumed Cape Town would be lower, since people there feel less safe in public.

**Hannah:** But it didn't. The chances of someone stepping in were similar in all three countries.

**Owen:** And the more bystanders there were, the more likely it was that somebody helped. So that disproves the bystander effect, surely?

**Hannah:** Not quite. They measured whether anyone at all helped, not whether each person was less likely to. The authors say themselves they didn't test the bystander effect.

**Owen:** Hmm. Okay, you've changed my mind. More people just means a bigger pool of possible helpers, even if each one feels less responsible.

**Announcer:** Before you hear the rest of the conversation, you have some time to look at questions 26 to 30.

**Announcer:** Now listen and answer questions 26 to 30.

**Hannah:** So, the limitations section. For the intercom study, I'd mention the deception.

**Hannah:** People were told the separate rooms would keep them anonymous, so nobody felt embarrassed. Really, the rooms were there so the tapes could be played.

**Owen:** And the sample: seventy-two introductory psychology students, fifty-nine of them women.

**Hannah:** True, though in one condition the men reported it no faster than the women.

**Owen:** Now, for the CCTV study, I was going to say the picture quality was a problem.

**Hannah:** They actually left out clips that weren't clear enough to code. The bigger issue is that the videos had no sound.

**Hannah:** So they couldn't count anything people said, like telling someone to calm down.

**Owen:** Good point. And they didn't code aggressive ways of stepping in either.

**Hannah:** There's also where the cameras were. They were mostly in city centres, full of restaurants, bars and nightclubs.

**Owen:** So some of the people watching weren't exactly sober?

**Hannah:** Possibly. The authors suggest alcohol may have affected how some bystanders judged the risk.

**Owen:** And for Genovese, I'd add that the newspaper itself backed down in the end.

**Hannah:** Yes. In 2016 the Times called its own reporting flawed. It said none of the witnesses had seen the whole attack.

**Owen:** So how do we finish? I was going to end on the CCTV study.

**Hannah:** I'd rather come back to Genovese. Manning and colleagues call the story of the thirty-eight witnesses a modern parable. That would make a neat final line.

**Owen:** Hmm, I'd still rather end on the cameras. No, actually, you're right. Opening and closing with the same case ties it together.

**Hannah:** Great. I'll draft the conclusion tonight.

**Announcer:** That is the end of Part 3. You now have 30 seconds to check your answers.

[Practice Research on the Bystander Effect](https://testmigo.com/ielts/listening/research-on-the-bystander-effect)