The Causes and Sonsequences of the Bystander Effect

In an emergency, if there are four or more bystanders, the chances of at least one person intervening is only thirty-one percent. A bystander is defined as an individual who observes or hears an emergency but does not take part in it. The bystander effect is a highly investigated phenomenon in which individuals are less likely to help a victim in the presence of others (Williams and Law). Research confirms this concept to be extremely consistent regardless of the severity or nature of the situation. By being aware of the reasons why this phenomenon occurs, it is preventable; three essential causes of the bystander effect are the diffusion of responsibility, pluralistic ignorance, and social inhibition. The diffusion of responsibility heavily decreases the chances of a person intervening in an emergency. When bystanders believe there are others around, the obligation to help is significantly reduced compared to a solitary bystander who believes they are the only one who witnesses the incident. Their obligation is distributed among others within the crowd, therefore having less to bear for each person.

This is demonstrated with the Kitty Genovese murder case of 1964. Kitty Genovese, a young woman, was attacked and killed in New York City, with 38 witnesses present and not one person contacted the police. According to police reports, “Neighbors at their windows were aware that other neighbors' were also witnessing the event” (Darley). Due to their awareness of other witnesses, they justify their own actions by assuming and convincing themselves that someone else has or will call the police. The attack lasted almost an hour. The witnesses certainly had time and multiple opportunities to report it. If there was one witness, instead of 38, the chances of survival for Genovese would have greatly increased. When one is observing a critical event alone, they know they are the only one who is able to provide help. Therefore the sense of responsibility is stronger. Diffusion of responsibility is further proven after analyzing a meta analytic study about helping behavior of people in urban areas and rural areas. Within the 65 tests, organized by psychologist Nancy M. Steblay, “Results demonstrated a significantly greater helping response by nonurban people” (Francis). Due to cities being highly populated, more citizens witness an emergency in the city compared to the countryside. Urban citizens feel the diffusion of responsibility among other bystanders, which in turn reduces the helping response rate. In addition to the results, the tests found this effect occurring in various situations and different subjects. This concept also occurs within simple, everyday tasks, such as helping someone pick up their belongings after dropping them on the floor. Within the presence of others, the likelihood of receiving assistance decreases, which proves the diffusion of responsibility is one of the many causes of the bystander effect. Conformity to the inaction of others, also known as pluralistic ignorance, strongly dictates an unresponsive bystander’s interpretation of a situation and their decisions on how to react. Many people instinctively look for others’ reactions as a way to justify their own and gain assistance in interpretation. If no one acts as though there is an emergency, the brain assumes there is not one.

Thus, they refrain from acting. American scientists, John Darley and Bibb Latané further prove this theory with one of their experiments. Participants were placed into a room while waiting for an interview to begin, when smoke appeared coming out of an air vent. They were either alone, or with two other people who were pretending to be waiting along with the subjects. The shocking results showed “75% of the participants who were in the waiting room alone reported the smoke to the experimenter, whereas only 10% of the participants did so when in the waiting room with two other confederates” (Garcia and Harrison). The participants waiting with the confederates notice the smoke, but infer it is not a problem to worry about based on the calm expressions of the confederates. This leads them to conclude the smoke is normal. Whereas when alone, there is a significant difference in reports and actions. In another experiment, conducted by psychologist Solomon Asch, individuals were asked to match different line lengths to each other. All but one were told to match incorrectly. When analyzing the results of the uninformed individuals, “One third of the participants yielded to the obviously erroneous judgment of the majority” (“Conformity”). Although one decision is clearly more accurate than another, people will still lean towards the majority decision. This is a result of the lack of confidence in one’s own judgement, causing them to mimic the crowd with the thought that their own judgement is mistaken or incorrect. The way one interprets a situation is heavily based on the surrounding individuals’ reactions.

When faced with the dilemma of deciding whether to intervene, many people attempt to prevent attracting negative attention, which is also called social inhibition. As an individual observes an incident, there are many levels of uncertainty as to what exactly is happening. As a result, groups tend to inhibit their natural reactions due to fear of misinterpretation or overreacting. Both are accompanied with backlash of judgement. In 2002, a young girl was gang raped at a party in front of six bystanders. When the bystanders were interviewed about the crime, “the reason none of the bystanders intervened was because they did not want to be considered 'wusses” or be made fun of” (Carlson). Normally, reputation is extremely valuable to society and often overcomes morals. The witnesses are too terrified of dealing with public embarrassment to take action, even though they are fully aware what the criminals were doing is wrong. Many individuals believe they are not capable of helping the victim, and may make circumstances worse. In 1964, Darley and Latané, conducted an experiment where a man pretended to have a seizure over the intercom by showing verbal signs of an epileptic episode. According to the case study, subjects responded with, 'I didn’t know what to do' (18 out of 65 subjects), 'I thought it must be some sort of fake' (20 out of 65), and 'I didn’t know exactly what was happening' (26 out of 65) ” when asked why they did not inform anybody (“Bystander Intervention”). The assumption that there are better people suited for the job prohibits many individuals from helping. Furthermore, there is a possibility of the blame being put onto the responder if anything were to go wrong in the attempt to help.

Due to fear, lack of abilities, and ignorance discourages their impulse to provide aid. In order to prevent the bystander effect from occuring, one must be aware of the causes; Diffusion of responsibility, pluralistic ignorance, and social inhibition all play a significant role. Within a group, the more individuals who witness an emergency, the less obligation there is for each to bear. When each person does not act against the diffusion of responsibility, it further encourages the passivity of others and becomes the majority decision. This passivity is driven by the fear of overreacting or misinterpretation. The bystander effect has the potential to occur in almost every situation, both critical and trivial. Being aware provides the opportunity to consciously counteract the effect and make a difference.