Understanding The Bystander Effect

The Bystander Effect was first demonstrated by psychologists Bibb Latané and John Darley in 1968, four years after the brutal murder (encompassing thirty or more witnesses) of Kitty Genovese. It is a social phenomenon in which observers believe that someone else in a group will intervene and offer help to a victim in need (1). According to these psychologists, there are two important factors attributed to this phenomenon, social influence and a perceived diffusion of responsibility. Social

Psychologists state diffusion of responsibility is one of the main blames for the bystander effect being

“What hurts the victim most is not the cruelty of the oppressor, but the silence of the bystander.” -Elie Wiesel

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.

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).

different times) act as if they were is a lot of pain or a drunk. The test was to see how long it took

In 1964 a woman known as Kitty Genovese was murdered and although she was heard begging for help from 38 neighbors for more than a half an hour, no one decided to help by calling the authorities. The notion of deciding to help those in need is known as ‘bystander intervention’, which raise high awareness after Kitty’s murder (Baumeister & Bushman, 2011). Darley and Latane (1968) decided to further investigate bystander intervention and it was concluded that higher assistance is provided when only one bystander is present within the ongoing situation in contrast to when several bystanders are observing, which is known as the ‘bystander effect’. This becomes evident because several bystanders are less likely to feel responsible for intervening leading to ‘diffusion of responsibility’, which was present in Kitty’s case where bystanders thought that someone else would intervene eventually and thus did not feel accountable to take any action. Diffusion of responsibility was shown in a study by Darley and Latane (1968) in which 72 university students heard other people’s problems. While they heard each person sharing their problems there was also a man who as he informed, was suffering from seizures. At some point the recorded man appeared to experience a seizure and what was observed was that 85% of the participants who believed were alone provided help in contrast to a 31% of those who thought other participants were present. Thus, what can be understood is that people are more likely to help when alone rather than in

“Thirty-Eight Who Saw Murder But Didn’t Call the Police” is unfortunately a true story about citizens who witnessed their neighbor being assaulted and didn’t take action. The neighbor’s negligence perturbed me, and I had to look into it. The Samuel Merritt University refers to it as “The Bystander Effect” and explains it as “a diffusion of responsibility . . . the more people there are to witness an event, the less each individual feels personally responsible for doing something” (Samuel Merritt University, “Bystander Intervention & Prevention”). This article about Kitty Genovese and her selfish neighbors reminded me of a dispute I once saw between a small group and an individual. It wasn’t the fight that startled me, but the group of apprehensive

Another important factor involved in helping behaviour is the influence of others, known as bystander effects. When considering the incident involving the murder of Kitty Genovese in 1964, Darley and Latane (1968), (as cited in Collins 2004) proposed that the fact that were so many possible helpers may have contributed to the lack of intervention. They proposed a cognitive model of helping which they used as a possible explanation as to the reluctance of others to help in situations such as the one involving Kitty Genovese. The first component of the model is known as the 'diffusion of responsibility', involving the suggestion that when a person is alone in a situation where somebody needs help, they feel solely responsible for providing that help. In a situation where two people may be involved, the responsibility is divided and the more people there are, the further the responsibility is divided. When there are many people involved, each person may feel less and less individually responsible. The second component of Darley and Latane's cognitive model is known as 'pluralistic ignorance', which suggests that when it comes to deciding

In 1964 The Bystander Effect came about when two men of the names Bibb Latané, a social psychologist; and John Darley also a social psychologist were impacted by the murder of Kitty Genovese. Kitty had been stabbed to death outside her own apartment, while over 38 people standing nearby had watched the brutal crime being committed. These same people didn’t have the audacity to say anything or even try to stop the murderer. Those 38 people just stood there and watched while an innocent life was taken away. John Darley and Bibb Latané were so fascinated by this tragedy that they decided to create an experiment well known as the Bystander Effect. This experiment is a social psychological wonder that alludes to cases in which people don't offer

Though it’s a lesson taught frequently in the education system, the impact of bystander intervention, particularly by people who don’t know those that they are helping, cannot be understated. It’s important to recognize some of the obstacles that prevent bystanders from acting, particularly when they are in a group, and then to overcome that resistance and help those in need. As a society, we have begun normalizing bystander intervention, and it’s imperative that we continue to encourage others to be responsible for intervening on the behalf of others (Source

Concluding with a summary of findings into the two approaches used in investigating the Bystander Effect. Firstly ‘The Bystander Effect’ (Latne & Darley, 1970) is described as the finding that an individual is

Article While attending GoodLife Fitness gym, actress and Toronto native Alex Jade saved the life of a fellow gym-goer when he went into cardiac arrest. Jade, who had prior training in cardiopulmonary resuscitation, jumped to action when onlookers and employees did not. After the events, she reported how one employee, unbothered by the events taking place, strolled over to the victim, placed the defibrillator beside the him and stepped away. This prompted Jade to take action. The actress ran over, utilized the defibrillator and CPR methods until emergency responders reached the gym and took the man to the hospital to perform surgery.

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

Just because someone cannot recognize the faces they see on the street or identify the names of all their neighbors in an urban environment does not mean they are lonely. It does not mean that the urban environment as a whole is impersonal. Everyday interactions occurring in the public sphere may seem impersonal at a glance, but people’s lives are not wholly defined by their public lives. Even in the urban environment, people generally have enriching personal relationships. As stated in the textbook, there are many ways people can form bonds with one another. Even in the city, people bond over “kinship, occupation, lifestyle,” recreational activities and “other personal attributes” (142). These relationships are not geographically bound. People with similar interests may come together from all over the city and stay in touch through alternate modes of