Bystander Effect

Bystander effect in psychology

We know that we are responsible for acting when seeing someone in need of help. However, it's a known phenomenon in psychology that the more people there are witnessing an emergency, the lower the likelihood of someone intervening. This phenomenon, called the bystander effect, can help us understand why people engage or don't engage in prosocial behaviour.

Bystander effect definition

The term bystander is used to describe a person that witnesses a dangerous situation but doesn't do anything to address it. This behaviour typically occurs when many other people are also present at the scene. The mere presence of others takes the responsibility to act off our shoulders. We become more likely to assume someone else will take care of it and walk away.

While bystanderism is common, it is also dangerous. If no one feels responsible to act, no one will, putting the victim's life in danger. When bystanders don't take any action, we talk about bystander apathy. If a bystander takes personal responsibility and decides to act to affect the situation positively, we call it bystander intervention.

Bystander effect examples

Bystander effects explanation

Several psychological explanations for bystander behaviour can help us understand this phenomenon and design interventions to minimise it. The two sets of factors that contribute to bystander behaviour include situational and dispositional factors.

Situational factors

Situational factors influencing bystander behaviour refer to the environmental influences that promote a lack of action. Since we are more likely to intervene when we are alone than surrounded by others, it can be argued that the presence of others contributes to bystander apathy.

The presence of others that could act instead of us minimises our personal responsibility to intervene. This is called the diffusion of responsibility.

Moreover, we often overvalue the expertise of others, especially in unfamiliar situations; if no one is reacting, then it's probably not a big deal. This leads to pluralistic ignorance, a shared denial about how serious the situation is that legitimises the lack of the group's reaction. While referencing the behaviour and reactions of others is generally helpful, it can also encourage bystander apathy.

Latane & Darley (1968) investigated whether the presence and reactions of others will influence bystander apathy in a potentially dangerous situation. The researchers asked participants to complete a questionnaire in a waiting room, where they either sat alone or together with other people. As the participants worked on the questionnaire, the room started to fill up with smoke, indicating a fire in the building. Let's take a look at the findings of this study.

• Most participants (75%) sitting alone in the room reported the fire within the first two minutes.
• When participants were accompanied by someone else, only the minority (38%) reported the presence of smoke.
• Only 10% of participants accompanied by someone who paid no attention to the smoke decided to act.

Another important situational factor is the cost of helping. We will remain passive if we perceive the costs of intervening to be greater than the potential benefits.

• The costs of intervening involve the time and effort it takes and the possible embarrassment or danger we would expose ourselves to.

• The benefits of intervening involve feeling better about ourselves, protecting someone from harm, or even saving someone's life.

People are less likely to help a person in need when in a crowd, flaticon.com

Dispositional factors

Even when many passive bystanders are present, some people still come forward and take the initiative to help. This could be explained by individual personality factors that make some less susceptible to remain passive.

One dispositional factor influencing bystander behaviour is our perceived expertise, or how competent we think we are to help. If we feel confident with our ability to administer first aid, call for help or confront the attacker, we are more likely to act. However, if we assume that whatever we do won't be successful, we can give up on trying.

Another important dispositional factor is empathy. According to the empathy–altruism hypothesis, people who are generally less self-focused and more empathetic are more likely to react, despite any situational factors.

Beirhoff et al. (1991) investigated whether bystanders that help and those that don't help have different personalities. The researchers administered various personality measures to people who performed first aid after witnessing a traffic accident and to passive bystanders. It was concluded that the first aiders' personalities differed on several dimensions, such as:

• Showed higher empathy and low egocentrism
• Believed in a just world
• Had an internal locus of control
• Emphasised social responsibility

Similarity to the victim has also been shown to affect bystander behaviour. If the victim is similar to us in terms of demographic characteristics (e.g. age, gender, race) or belongs to the same groups as we do, we are more likely to empathise with this person and intervene.

Bystander effect cases

Let's explore the real-life implications of bystander behaviour that highlight why it's important to address it in society.

Kitty Genovese bystander effect

The murder of Kitty Genovese is certainly the most famous case of bystander behaviour, sparking a major psychological inquiry into this phenomenon. Kitty was murdered in 1964, at the age of 28. A man attacked her outside of her flat in New York. Kitty was stabbed several times and raped by the man before dying from the injuries she sustained in the attack.

Shortly after her death, the New York Times published an article claiming that 38 witnesses heard and saw the attack happening but didn't intervene or call for help.

Later investigations showed that only a few neighbours heard her screaming and did intervene by scaring the attacker away and calling the police. Unfortunately, no one came to check on Kitty after she was stabbed. She hid at the back of the building, where she was later found by the attacker and brutally killed.

The case of Kitty Genovese illustrated the bystander effect, flaticon.com

Even though many details regarding Kitty's murder have been debunked, there are many current cases of bystander behaviour contributing to the victim's death.

Nowadays, bystanders are also likely to record threatening incidents instead of reacting. This was the case in the killing of Khaseen Morris, a 16-year-old who was attacked by other teenagers in a public space in daylight. Several people are thought to have witnessed and recorded the incident, videos of which were later posted online. None of the bystanders reacted at the time of the attack or called an ambulance to help the teenager.

Discussion around the origin of bystander behaviour

Whether altruism and bystander apathy occur due to the influences of nature and nurture is still a matter of discussion. The fact that we are more likely to help victims similar to us supports the nature side of this debate, which argues that we have evolved to protect our kin and promote the survival of our genes.

On the other hand, reliance on the reactions of others and pluralistic ignorance support the influence of nurture. Social and cultural norms, like the norm of using others as a point of reference, can shape how we act in an emergency. The emphasis on competition in individualistic cultures can also affect how empathetic we feel toward people different to ourselves.

Most of the research on the bystander effect has been conducted in individualistic cultures. However, it is important to recognise that different factors and mechanisms may guide actions in collectivist cultures.

Since, in collectivist cultures, it is more acceptable to rely on others, people may base their decisions less on a cost-benefit analysis of the situation and more on the behaviour of other bystanders. In collectivist cultures, people may also be more likely to help strangers, regardless of their similarities.