在他们着名的1968年研究中，Darley和Latané让研究参与者参与了对讲机的小组讨论（实际上，只有一个真正的参与者，而讨论中的其他发言者实际上是预先录制的磁带）。每个参与者都坐在一个单独的房间里，所以他们在研究中看不到其他人。一位发言者提到有癫痫病史，似乎在研究期间开始癫痫发作。至关重要的是，研究人员有兴趣了解参与者是否会离开他们的研究室并让实验者知道另一名参与者正在癫痫发作。在该研究的某些版本中，参与者认为讨论中只有两个人 – 他们自己和癫痫发作的人。在这种情况下，他们很可能会找到另一个人的帮助（85％的人在参与者仍然癫痫发作时去寻求帮助，并且每个人都在实验会议结束前报告了这一点）。然而，当参与者认为他们是六人一组时 – 当他们认为还有另外四个人也可以报告癫痫发作时 – 他们不太可能获得帮助：只有31％的参与者报告了紧急情况，而癫痫发作正在发生，只有62％的人在实验结束时报告了这一情况。在另一种情况下，参与者是三人一组，帮助率介于两人和六人组的帮助率之间。换句话说，参与者不太可能在遇到医疗紧急情况时获得帮助，因为他们认为有其他人在场，他们也可以为这个人寻求帮助。
In their famous 1968 study, Darley and Latané involved research participants in a panel discussion of the walkie-talkie (in fact, there was only one real participant, and the other speakers in the discussion were actually pre-recorded tapes). Each participant sits in a separate room, so they can’t see other people in the study. One speaker mentioned a history of epilepsy and appeared to have started seizures during the study period. Crucially, researchers are interested in knowing if participants will leave their lab and let the experimenter know that another participant is having a seizure. In some versions of the study, participants thought that there were only two people in the discussion – themselves and people with seizures. In this case, they are likely to find help from another person (85% of people ask for help while the participant is still in epileptic seizures, and everyone reports this before the end of the experimental session). However, when participants thought they were in groups of six – when they thought there were four other people who could also report seizures – they were less likely to get help: only 31% of participants reported an emergency, and seizures It is happening, and only 62% reported this at the end of the experiment. In another case, the participants are trio and the help rate is between the help rates of the two and six. In other words, participants are less likely to get help in a medical emergency because they think there are other people present and they can also ask for help.