Prosocial Behavior In Society : The Causes Of Bystanderism?

When there is an emergency, why is taking out our phones to take a picture or video the very first thing we want to do? Why do we casually walk by a person who is in trouble, and go about our business as if we did not anyone? Why do we not help or act when someone is getting, but instead we just stand in a crowd and watch? Why do we bury our moral instincts during emergencies? “We witness a problem, consider positive action, and respond by doing nothing. Why do we not help in these situations and put our moral instincts in shackles” (Keltner & Marsh, 2017). We as people are bystanders to the world around us daily, but the question is why? The answer to all the “why” questions is the bystander effect.

The bystander effect also arises from a diffusion of responsibility as each bystander can better rationalize his or her lack of action. In some cases, people assume that in a large group, there will be someone else that is more qualified to help and therefore, each person feels less obligated to act. For example, a doctor is far more qualified to provide medical assistance to a victim and likewise, a police officer or stronger-bodied man can better subdue a perpetrator. If the crowd of bystanders is large,

Social psychology first examined the phenomena later termed “bystander effect” in response to a 1964 murder. The murder of a young woman with as many as 38 witnesses and none who helped until it was too late. The bystander effect is individuals seeing an emergency situation but not helping. There are many reasons why individuals do not respond: diffusion of responsibility, not noticing or unsure if it is an emergency, and not wanting to be liable if the person still dies are a few.

People often only realize this after the worst occurs. One person’s actions can stop something from going downhill. In class, when we analyzed 60 Minute’s “Bad Samaritan,” through David Cash’s story, we came to realize that indeed, just one person’s actions could make a difference. If David Cash had stopped the violence, Sherrice Iverson would still be alive today. If Hitler chose not to exterminate Jews, the Holocaust would not have happened. The takeaway is that if we expand our universe of obligation, we will feel responsible for more people. In turn, we will help more people, and furthermore, we might prevent something terrible; we might prevent a genocide. Through analyses in class, we realize that more often than not, people have a very limited universe of obligation. In the video which we watched in class of a Gay Teen being bullied, many people in the surroundings of the video ignored the incident. It is clear, that they do not feel obligated to the teenager. Similarly, in Night, Franek simply takes out Eliezer’s crown without any guilt. Franek does not feel obligated to Eliezer. This feeling leads to the division of society. An analysis of Night allows teens to understand the need for an expansion, to create unity and change the world for the

The Bystander effect is a controversial theory given to social phenomenon where the more potential helpers there are, the less likely any individual is to help. A traditional explanation for this Bystander Effect is that responsibility diffuses across the multiple bystanders, diluting the responsibility of each. (Kyle et al.) The Bystander effect, also known as the Genovese Syndrome, was created after the infamous murder of “Kitty” Catherine Genovese in 1964, on the streets of New York in front of thirty-seven witnesses. After studying the Genovese syndrome and doing research on how this phenomenon occurs today, it is clear The Bystander effect is not theory, but actually fact.

Picture this. Someone is on their daily 3.5km run and as they pass the bus stop a woman grabs her chest and collapses. There are crowds of people passing by her but no one’s stopping to help. They probably aren't going to stop and help, because no one is stopping they are going to think if those many people aren’t stopping to help then she is fine, they might also be thinking someone else will help her. Now picture this that same person is out just for a walk around the park and they hear someone cry out for help, no one’s around but them so they probably would go over and help them. These situations are representing the bystander effect. John Darley and Bibb Latane came up with the bystander effect, the bystander effect states that the more people that are present the less likely anyone is to help someone in need. The bystander effect can be connected to the characters in William Golding's Lord of the flies. People just stand by in emergency situations when other people are around, and them no helping the victim can have some serious consequences.

First ‘The Bystander Effect’, states ‘that individuals are less likely to intervene in emergency situations when other people are present’. Latne & Darley, (1970) cited in Byford J.( 2014 pp 232). Simply put, where emergency situations arise, if more than one person is present the likelihood of someone in distress being helped reduces. This is the ‘diffusion of responsibility’ effect were each bystander feels less obliged to help because the responsibility seems to be divided with others present’. (Byford J., 2014 pp233) An example of Bystander Apathy shown within a video (The Open University 2016).

Another variable is that the greater the number of bystanders typically results in a decrease of any intervention (Paull, et al., 2012). People who really want to help out usually put being accepted into a group, or society over their want to intervene. Although this seems like something only a “follower” would participate in, the average person, regardless of morals and values, will not help someone out if they feel that it will result in them not being accepted. In some cases a person starts out by not conforming to a group, but once they notices that no one has followed suit they will quickly stop what they are doing and join in with the other people around them. A lot of people will have a hard time believing this because of people’s inability to admit to being concern with fitting in, but has been tested and scientifically proven.

In the 2007 article “the bystander effect” the author Dorothy Barkin’s was talking about the reasons why most people decide not to get involved in complex situations. Many think that the reasons maybe very obvious such as the fear of possible danger to one’s self or having to go through long legal proceedings. However, the author talks about two main reasons for such actions. The first being ambiguity, the fact the most people do not know how to evaluate different situations and there lays most for the decision making. As knowing what the problem that you are facing in that moment, that alone creates a high-pressure environment that most people would not like to be involved in. Not to mention, being able to help effectively

It is a challenge to reconcile human beliefs in compassion and morality with the actions, or inactions, of bystanders in the Holocaust. How is it possible that hundreds of thousands of people stood by while millions faced pain and suffering? Before exonerating or condemning all of them, it is necessary to consider the differences in bystanders. For the context of the Holocaust, a bystander is someone who was neither a target of the Nazis or a Nazi themselves. Putting all of these people in the same group is an oversimplification, because it ignores the power system in place during the Holocaust and the various positions of bystanders in that system. The wealthy business owner is not the same as the working-class mother of four. In this situation, one has considerable power and ability, and the other does not. Applying a blanket statement, and calling the latter unjust when they are ordinary people in a time of horrific war is contrary to reason. It is also necessary to consider the extent of bystander’s actions. Have their actions merely helped to ensure their own survival, or do they directly hurt Holocaust victims? The magnitude of each situation is varied. In conclusion, to gauge the morality of a bystander’s actions, they need to be judged on an individual basis, with two qualities in mind: that person’s ability to act and the effect of their actions.

Chapter 3 of the book Superfreakonommics published in 2009, Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner discusses about apathetic nature of human beings. The author starts off with the story of Mrs. Genovese who was sexually assaulted, stabbed and left to die by Mr. Moseley while having 38 witnesses. When police interviewed the witnesses, they used a variety of excuses like “We thought it was a lovers’ quarrel.” The author says that this incident took place when the crime rate in US were high because of various reasons like population explosion, expansion of civil rights and strangely, the introduction of television. The author includes some statistics to prove his claim but comes back saying that none of this proves why no one stepped in to help

Darley and Latane begin their essay by using solid examples of when the bystander effect presented itself, and why people were harmed because of it. They explain why nice people do not help in certain situations, and why someone can pass by a person in distress when others are around, and why more people respond when no one is around. Darley and Latane show what it takes for people to respond; they have to actually realize that it is an emergency and not a ruse or a normal occurrence. Sitting idly by while a dangerous situation is happening does not make someone a bad person, it just reveals their humanity.

The bystander effect is an age-old social practice that has existed outside of our social culture, and yet makes up so much of it. Inspiring shows like What Would You Do?, and teaching lessons of love and respect in several monotheistic religions across the globe, the bystander effect is as relevant as ever. The conflicting social rules we are raised with- to help others, and to also not make a scene in public- clash in this everyday dilemma. The bystander effect doesn’t necessarily brand people “good” or “bad”, but shows the power of mass influence and our instinctive herd-like behaviors our species still carries with us today.

"In the End, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends" (King, n.d.). King's (n.d.) statement demonstrates the major internal impact bystanders can have on others. As a matter of fact, most people do not think about the possible long-term effects of not standing up for someone or something. Although it may not seem like a big deal to one person, it could be life changing to another. Many just consider a bystander to be someone who is present at an incident and doesn't take action, but there is actually much more to it. The term 'bystander' can be defined as someone who is present during corruption, does not speak up, and seems not to care about others.

The bystander effect is both a social and psychological phenomenon in which an individual’s inclination towards showing helping behaviours are minimised by the influence of other people. Research has found that the more people acting as bystanders in a situation, the less likely it is that helping behaviours will be demonstrated. However in the correct conditions, where conditioned cues increase self-awareness, it is possible to reverse the bystander effect phenomenon. The bystander effect is prevalent in everyday life, and often decorates the news, shocking the world, especially when authority figures such as police men and women succumb to the effect. Diffusion of responsibility, ignorance of others interpretation of an event and self-consciousness are all social processes which appear to lead to social inhibition of helping behaviours and one of the main theories of the bystander effect is provided Latané and Darley (1970) whose cognitive model provides a series of decisions that can lead to social inhibition. The bystander effect is influenced by the conditions an individual is in when an event occurs, for example the bystander effect appears to be most dominant when an individual is in a group of strangers with low group cohesiveness. FINISH