填空题

A series of experiments were carried out by B. Latane and J. Darley. They studied the reaction of bystanders to emergency situations. Since car accidents, drownings, fires, attempted suicide, and the like arouse feelings of fear and morbid interest, these situations attract large numbers of people who stand fascinated watching the event. Yet, it is a strange aspect of crowd behavior that often nothing is done to help the victim.
(71) Journalists writing of such events often claimed that this kind of behavior is due to apathy, indifference, or lack of concern. To account for any bystander’s decision to act or not to act, the authors of the paper ask us to consider the basic characteristics of an emergency situation.
Emergencies involve threat or harm certainly to the victim and possibly to those who try to help him (or her). The events are highly unusual, different from the normal course of life and also from each other. (72) Since little secondhand wisdom on the subject is available, it is difficult to cope with a genuine emergency by relying on such worn-out clichés as "Women and children first" or "Send for the police."
The authors tell us that it is perhaps surprising that anyone should intervene at all. (73)
Latane and Darley were interested, therefore, in trying to isolate the factors that make a person decide to act. It seemed to them that an individual is more likely to take action when he or she is alone than when part of a group. Latane and Darley theorized that when only one bystander is present, he or-she must judge the situation alone and decide whether to act or not. Only the bystander is responsible for the decision. The presence of other people, however, affects a person’s assessment of the costs and rewards of intervention. (74)
The results of the experiments confirmed the theory. They showed that the immediate social environment is more important in determining a person’s reaction to an emergency than are such vague cultural or personality concepts as "apathy" or "indifference." They also help to explain why the failure to intervene seems more common in large cities than in rural areas. In large cities, the members of the crowd that gathers do not take action because they do not feel individually responsible. They may be concerned, but they watch one another, uncertain of how to act, knowing that responsibility is shared. In rural areas, however, witnesses to an emergency are likely to be alone. They must take all the responsibility for their actions and are not made embarrassed or unsure by the presence of others. (75)

• A. Thus, people have little experience with handling them.
• B. They are, therefore, more likely to come to the aid of the victim.
• C. The police asked some of the bystanders about the accident.
• D. The investigators had noted this phenomenon and asked themselves why in most cases bystanders do not act.
• E. This is because when there is a group, responsibility is diffused over all the members.
• F. But people do sometimes interven