The Theory Of The Bystander Effect

People have a tendency, known as social proof, to believe that others' interpretation of the ambiguous situation is more accurate than their own. Hence, a lack of response by others leads them to conclude that the situation is not an emergency and that response is not warranted. Finally, empirical evidence has shown that the bystander effect is negated when the situation is clearly recognized as an emergency. In a 1976 study published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Lance Shotland and Margaret Straw illustrated that when people witnessed a fight between a man and a woman that they believed to be strangers to each other, they intervened 65 percent of the time. Thus, people often do not respond appropriately to an emergency situation because the situation is unclear to them and as a result, they have misinterpreted it as a non-emergency based on their own past experience or social cues taken from others.

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.

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).

As shown in Fischer et al.(2011) bystanders will more likely to provide help, when they are with the people familiar with rather that strangers, because the partners can give supportive to each other in order to reduce the negative consequences, regulate negative emotions and also can communicate to increase the decision-making in order cooperate to help the victim. This is applicable for our respondents because almost all of them provide help with the partners accompany them. However, researcher mentioned when bystanders having the conversation among them, there may have bystander effect

There’s a lot bad situations that shouldn’t happen and could of been prevented, and people question how is that in their control. Half of any horrible situation could've been prevented with a phone call to authorities or saving someone when they’re hurt and contacting an ambulance. When someone is in need of assistance physically and can’t get help the most common sensed idea is to help them which in humanity should be an instinct. Yet the more bystanders there is the less likely it is that any one of them help.

When there are less people in a situation, the bystander effect often fails to take place. This could be an example of common knowledge. If one person is aware that they are the only person with the information, they are more likely to take action. Another way to break the bystander effect is to make the situation more personal. One can do this by calling someone by their name, to break them out of the conformity mold of the situation. By breaking the bystander effect intentionally, one may be able to alter the behavior of others in the situation. Allowing others to lead one to conform is not ideal in numerous situations, which is why it is important to break the mold of conformity in the bystander

The fear of making a social blunder, and being subject to ridicule if a situation is ambiguous, also deters people from helping (Pennington et al, 1999). Interestingly, Latane & Rodin (1969) found that when two friends were placed in an ambiguous situation, their response to a potential emergency was just as quick as when either was alone, and much quicker than when two strangers were together or when a naïve participant was with a 'stooge' instructed not to respond. Presumably, with people we do not expect to see again, we are deterred from acting because we will not have the opportunity to explain ourselves if our interpretations are incorrect. There is, however, evidence indicating that when an emergency clearly requires bystander intervention, help is much more likely to be given, even when a large number of people witness the emergency.

Firstly, bystander effect is seen in case of emergency surrounded by number of people. This create the situation of confusion that is diffusion of responsibility such that we may expect that others will help, so we don't have to. They may even be better qualified to help, we may assume, so we ought to give them a chance to mediate.

"The Bystander Effect" is a short video on the study how people reacted to others in distress while in a crowd. Most would assume there is safety within numbers, however, the results prove that that may not always be the case. This study seems to bring to attention that while in a larger crowd people may actually be less likely to receive help. This may be due to our human behavior of doing the same as everyone else, or possibly a mental thought of let someone else handle it, do not get involved. These findings could easily bring on a new fear of being in crowded areas.

Have you seen a group of children bullying or pushing around another child? Did you stand by and watch the situation and not intervene? If so, even with such a minor situation, you fell into the bystander effect theory. The bystander effect happens every day in our lives and dates all the way back to the Holocaust and even further back in history.

The greater number of bystanders, the less likely it is that anyone of them will help” There are two reasons as to why the bystander effect occurs. Reason one is because of misinterpretations between the bystanders, with multiple people being there scatters the responsibility of helping the person in distress, therefore one person thinks that the other person present will do it and vice-versa resulting in nobody helping out. The second reason being that socially acceptable behaviour, if nobody is helping, should I? Is it socially wrong to help them and could I potentially get hurt helping this person? It’s sad to know that the presence of others discourages individuals to intervene in emergency

People wanted to help Ruth but they were to afraid. Ruth laid there more than four minutes without help because every bystander was trying to see who would help Ruth first. Once a bystander decides to walk up and ask Ruth was everything ok she started to draw other bystanders attention after the man approached her. Peter returned for a second time dressed business casual with shirt and tie which blended in with the Liverpool Street Station environment. As bystander passed it only took 6 seconds for someone to approach Peter and give assistance. Peter blended in well with the environment by the way he dressed in accordance with the way all other bystanders was dressed. Therefore, they shy away from given him the assistance he needed. This is what “psychologists call the diffusion of responsibility when it is much easier to let someone else get involved first” (Coolpsychologist.,

It provoked a storm of anger and shock. Many people viewed the event as a sign of growing apathy in the modern and fast-paced Chinese society. However, the bystander effect may have played a very big role. The likeliness of providing help is inversely related to the number of other bystanders which means that the greater the number of other bystanders in the same area as a person, the less likely it is that that person will help the victim. Experiments have proven this to be true.

If the person interacts they must notice the event first, they must realize the situation as an emergency, and they must decide that it is their responsibility to take action. At each of these small steps, the bystander to an emergency can remove themselves from the decision process and then not want to help. They can fail to notice the event, fail to realize the event as an emergency, or can fail to do the responsibility to react. If each one of the other bystanders seem to fake the event to be non-serious, it changes and makes the perceptions of anyone and clouds potential helping behaviour! At each of these small steps, the bystander at an emergency can remove themselves from the decision process and then not help. They can look like they didn't notice the event, look like they didn't realize the event was happening, or don't have to take the responsibility to react. The bystander effect has attracted much research attention. Some people on websites post up videos on people doing bad things to other people and look for the people who don't do anything to help that person out. A primary aim of the current topic was to identify situations or emergencies in which the bystander effect would be most likely to occur (“Bystander

Interpret When a circumstance has been recognized, in place for a bystander to intercede they must translate the occurrence as a crisis. As per the rule of social impact, bystanders screen the responses of other individuals in a crisis circumstance to check whether others feel that it is important to mediate. On the off chance that it is resolved that others are not responding to the circumstances, bystanders will decipher the circumstances as not a crisis and won't intercede. This is a case of pluralistic lack of awareness or social proof. Alluding to the smoke test, despite the fact that understudies