Only 10% of the students who were in a hurry stopped to help the man. Of the students who were told they were on time, 45% of them helped. Sixty-three percent of students who were told they were ahead of schedule stopped to help. These numbers are highly disturbing. What does it say about human nature if one can ignore another individual's need just to make it on time? Did the subjects who passed the man not have any compassion for the man? Apparently they did. Darley and Batson recorded that many of the subjects that passed the man arrived at the second room distraught or anxious. As if they knew very well they should've helped the man but their concern to make it on time for their own self-interest was more important to them.
If being late is enough for someone to disregard an individual's need for help, what if the individual thought he or she was part of an important psychological study? Would that be enough for one to disregard their moral conscience as well? This is answered in the Milgram Shock Experiment. In this experiment, the subject believes he is taking part in an experiment that studies the effects punishment has on learning, as far as he or she knows, there is another subject who plays the role of "learner"." Although he is actually an actor just like the slumped man in the doorway of the Good Samaritan Experiment. The learner would be asked to seat and strap themselves into a chair that doesn't look too different from an electric chair. The subject is told he will play the role of "teacher"." The teacher's job is to administer an electric shock through the chair by flipping a switch every time the learner gets a question wrong. The questions are memory based, so prior knowledge isn't required to get the questions right. The teacher is given a sample shock so he or she knows the shocks aren't too bad. After every wrong answer, the shocks get stronger. The teacher is told that none of the shocks are fatal or dangerous.