What is Bystander Effect?
The Bystander effect is a situation where individuals are not likely to offer any means of help to a victim when other people are present.
The phenomenon of the bystander effect was first described by two psychologists named John Darley and Bibb Latané in 1968.
Darley and Latané found that as the number of people increased around a person in an emergency, those people would be less likely to assist the person in need.
The model developed by Darley and Latané to interact with the bystanders allowed social psychologists to observe the behaviour of individuals in lab settings.
Real-Life Examples of Bystander Effect
- The Kitty Genovese Case
- The Richmond High School Case
- Kevin Carter’s Photograph
- Khaseen Morris Case
- Ilan Halimi Case
- Shanda Sharer Case
- Raymond Jack Case
- The Digital or the Modern Bystander
Real-Life Examples of Bystander Effect
1. The Kitty Genovese Case.
The Kitty Genovese case is the most prevalent example of the bystander effect in psychological research. The Kitty Genovese incident occured in Kew Gardens, Queens, New York. A girl named Catherine Genovese was walking to her home after work at 3:15 a.m. on March 13th 1964.
When she was approached by a heavy machinery operator named Winston Moseley, he stabbed Genovese and she collapsed and started screaming for help. Several neighbours living in the building heard her cries for help, but no one went to help her.
Reportedly, one man looked out his window and yelled at Moseley to leave the girl alone. This scared him for a short while, but then he left. Genovese was then crawling across the street to her apartment while no one helped her at all either.
According to witnesses, after around ten minutes, Moseley returned, killed Genovese, then raped her as well. He also stole her cash and fled the scene.
This entire incident took place in around thirty minutes. This story was published on the front page of the New York Times and it was reported that around 37 people witnessed the attack, but no one ever assisted her.
When the perpetrator was asked why he had committed the crime he simply said he had wanted to kill a woman that day, and when the bystanders were asked why they did not assist the girl, they all said they didn’t want to get involved and that they assumed someone else had already helped.
2. The Richmond High School Case.
We’ll refer to this case as the case of the 15 year old girl (name not provided); on October 24, 2009, she was brutally raped and viciously beaten by approximately 10 men for about 2.5 hours, during a Homecoming dance party at the high school.
Reportedly, those 10 other people were standing around the crime scene with no regard for the girl’s safety, instead they were capturing photos and videos of the incident on their mobile phones.
Throughout the duration of the crime, people began to accumulate around the crime scene (the number was eight people and some estimate 15), but no one called the police for assistance.
No one notified the security staff from the campus (the victim would later learn the incident started when someone knocked on the window of the security officer’s office).
The CCTV footage later showed the school’s assistant principal observing from his office window with the clear view of about 12 to 15 men gathered to watch the crime being committed.
Interestingly, none of those men were wearing identification badges or any other identifying characteristics, which was required on school property; in fact, none of the men appeared as teenagers in the video; and the assistant principal did not alert the security or police, and went back to his work.
Later, when a neighbor learned of the brazen act occurring in the school park, they called the police – the police, then transported the girl to the hospital. It was alarming for those involved and social researchers alike, at the amount of people who just stood by and did not assist the victim.
When a bystander was later asked about what they saw, they claimed –
“They were kicking her in her head, they were beating her up, robbing her, and ripping her clothes off; it’s something you can’t get out of your mind.”
“I saw people, like, dehumanizing her; I saw some pretty crazy stuff. She was pretty quiet, I thought she was like, dead for a minute, but then I saw her moving around. I feel like I could have done something but I don’t feel like I have any responsibility for anything that happened.”
The suspects were ultimately prosecuted for the crime and sentenced after their arrest.
3. Kevin Carter’s Photograph.
The bystander effect also can be considered via the story behind a Pulitzer winning photo by South African photojournalist Kevin Carter. He clicked this photo in March 1993. This photo depicts the brutality and suffering of the people of Sub-Saharan Africa.
In this photo a female toddler is attempting to crawl to a near by rescue centres for food and shelter, and a vulture is siting behind her waiting to eat the toddler once she dies.
Carter claimed that he waited around 20 minutes to get the picture of the vulture with its wings spread that he thought would be the better picture, but that never happened, so he took the picture.
The female toddler wanted the food and was trying to reach the aid station, but Kevin Carter did not help her, he waited there for 20 minutes to get the shot of the vulture with its wings open.
After he took the shot he did scare the vulture away from the girl and left her as is. Later, when asked Carter why he did not help the girl, he said:
“I did not want to get involved.”
4. Khaseen Morris Case.
Khaseen Morris, a 16-year-old high school student, received information from his friends to visit a mall at a certain time on September 17, 2019.
When Khaseen arrived, he was surrounded by a group of teens. He was stabbed multiple times in the chest by the group.
The wounds were so severe, he died in the hospital that evening. It happened in broad daylight and multiple videos of the entire event surfaced on the internet.
No one intervened to help the boy – they only filmed the incident on their phones. This is an obvious reflection of a lack of humanity and the bystander effect.
5. Ilan Halimi Case.
A French Jew, Ilan Halimi had been abducted by a Moroccan Barbarians in Paris on January 21, 2006. During his time of captivity, Ilan was beaten by roughly 20 people; his head was totally wrapped in duct tape leaving just his mouth free to eat and to breathe.
He was burned with lighters and cigarettes, they broke his fingers and he was cut with knives. He received brutal torture for 24 days, they then poured gasoline on top of him and set him on fire. Finally, he passed away on February 13.
The neighbours heard the screams of Ilan, some even came to watch but no one bothered to help him. His body was recovered tied to a tree with the nylon rope. He was over 80% burned; and had serious damage it was hard to even recognize him.
6. Shanda Sharer Case.
Four teenage girls, Melinda Loveless, Laurie Tackett, Toni Lawrence, and Hope Rippey, kidnapped 12 year old girl Shanda Sharer.
Laurie Tackett was the leader of the group, she was the one who got the other girls into witchcraft, satanism, and other similar activities. Laurie was planning the kidnap and murder of Shanda Sharer for revenge because she thought that Sharer had stolen Melinda’s girlfriend.
The girls invited the Sharer girl to meet a mutual friend Amanda, the girlfriend that Melinda thought that Sharer had stolen. Once the girl entered the car, Melinda pressed a knife against Sharer’s neck and started to ask her about Amanda.
After a short ride the girls took Sharer to Laurie’s house, they tied her up there, and then Melinda and Laurie started to discuss how they were going to kill Sharer. At this time, Melinda had also started to beat Sharer viciously.
During the reading of the evidence, Toni and Hope, claimed that they were afraid of the situation and wanted to get away from Sharer but they neither ran away or contacted police.
Afraid of passing headlights, they took Melinda to a wooded area, which is where Melinda tried to slit Shanda’s throat. But she could not get the cut because the knife was not sharp. The girls thought that Shanda was dead, and left her in the trunk of Laurie’s car.
The girls then went to Laurie’s house for a bath. Laurie and Melinda then heard Shandar scream, and saw Sharer trying to escape. Laurie then beat Sharer with the tire iron.
Laurie also called over Toni and Hope, and they too were shocked at what they saw, but still did not try to leave the girls.
The girls then took Shanda back to the woods, and Melinda laid Shanda on a blanket, poured gasoline on her, and lit her on fire, alive.
Toni was frightened at this point to call police, but told another friend the entire story of the crime. Melinda was also feeling disgusting about what she had done, and called Amanda to tell her what she had done.
Amanda did not believe Melinda until she saw the trunk of Laurie’s car with Shandar’s socks and blood stains. Later on, Shandar’s body was discovered by two hunters who contacted the police.
7. Raymond Jack Case.
This is the story of 53-year-old Raymond Zack, a resident of Alameda, California. On Memorial Day 2011, he walked into Robert Crown Memorial Beach and stood neck deep in the water for about an hour. His foster mother, Dolores Berry, called the police and told them that Raymond was trying to commit suicide.
The police arrived, along with firefighters, but they didn’t enter the water. According to the police reports, the police were waiting for firefighters to enter the water.
When they were asked to help, firefighters said they were not trained. There were many civilians there, but nobody entered the water. Why? Because they were waiting for public safety to step in.
The firefighters called the United States Coast Guard. Raymond then was face down in the water, likely because of hypothermia, when a bystander went in and pulled Raymond out of the water. After that, he died at a local hospital..
8. The Digital or the Modern Bystander.
As social media’s impact on people’s lives grows, so does the influence of the bystander effect, which seems to have become digital. Social media is a place for us to become aware of acts of injustice, whether they are happening in our backyard or across the globe.
The bystander effect has an even greater impact on social media as it removes the physical reaction of how other people respond to the situation at hand. The impact of this virtual bystander effect can be illustrated from the example of a case in 2017.
This case involved the sexual assault of a teenage girl by a group of five men, Live on broadcast on Facebook. Reportedly, 40 people watched this horrendous act play out and did not want to contact the police.
Another notable case was a man with a mental disability being tortured by a group of people while being broadcast on Facebook live. Although some comments disapproved of the action, none of the bystanders contacted the police.
There are many examples, whether it be cyberbullying or cyberloitering that we see on social media, but we as digital bystanders tend to do nothing.
Explanation of the Bystander Effect
There are various factors that are responsible for the bystander effect. Let us discuss the important factors that affect the bystanders in taking decisions that whether they want to help someone or not.
1. Pluralistic Ignorance.
The choices that a person makes before they help someone are not a simple yes or no. The person actually considers a variety of questions prior to deciding how to respond.
In some cases a person needs to help because they have to and in other cases the circumstances are ambiguous and the helper can take their time before they decide whether they can help the person or not.
For instance, someone jumps off of a subway platform to help a person who fell onto the subway track. In these ambiguous circumstances, potential helpers mainly check what others are doing and then make their decision.
In reality, almost everyone was looking around to check what others were doing, inaction is critical in these scenarios. In situations where everyone is relying on the others to define the situation and determine how to act (or whether to act) is what is known as pluralistic ignorance.
Because of pluralistic ignorance people are less inclined to help others because everyone is waiting on others to act first. Let’s say, for example, you are alone in a laboratory and one day, when you are there, there is suddenly an explosion outside.
When you are there alone, there is a good chance at first you will just be somewhat afraid (scared) but the fact that you are alone means you behave differently than if you are in a boardroom, with a group of people. The likelihood is that you would eventually go and investigate the explosion.
However, if you are in a group environment and those people are also witnessing the event, likely what will happen is that instead of investigating the situation on their own, they all start at looking to define the situation and check what other people are doing.
If the other people are also looking at others and not reacting, it is likely that no one goes to check out whichever caused the explosion. The bystanders interpret each other’s action to mean that the event is not an emergency; therefore no one is going to help.
In pluralistic ignorance the most important defining factor is the visual access to the other people.
2. Social Influence or Social Inhibition.
One of the main causes of the bystander effect. People care about how people around them perceive them.
People do not help people in need, especially because they do not want the people around them to pay attention to them. A study has shown that people do not want to feel judged by others, and that fear is stronger when the people around them are strangers.
Thus, they usually will not get involved in a situation where they have to make different choices than the people surrounding them.
3. Diffusion of Responsibility.
Unlike, Plutarlistic ignorance, the diffusion of responsibility does not require that the other person be in direct view of each other. All that is needed is a belief that the other people present are there to assist the one who is in need; as in the situation of Kitty Genovese and her murder as it played out on her street.
If the person in need is alone in their vicinity the responsibility for helping based solely on that situation, rests solely on one individual.
What may appear to be a better chance of receiving help because more people are present, article suggesting the opposite is actually the case.
It is because of the individuals belief that others will assist, thus minimizing their personal desire to assist or help the individual in need. The result is that the group of bystanders does not intervene either interpreted by the bystanders.
They believe their responsibilities were understood as they would think unless the victim is bitten by a poisonous snake perhaps. (in terms of consideration)
4. The Cost and Rewards of Helping.
According to psychology professor John F. Dovidio, The analysis of the decision-making in the situation depends on the individuals’ cost-benefit analysis. Generally, people are more likely to help if the perceived costs with helping are less, than the other options; including money, time, risk, and other resources.
Dropping off your friend at the train station is a lot less risky than confronting a murderer to save someone’s life. The perceived potential rewards of helping also come into play.
An individual is more likely to help if other people observing the helpful behaviour will take notice; they are usually more likely to help if there is the potential for other people to appreciate their help or provide any potential for an additional reward (cash or other).
It may sound strange, but every potential helper goes through the economy of helping process (Dovidio, 2016), when considering whether to help; that is, the helper will weigh the costs against the potential benefits when deciding on whether to help or not; if the perceived costs to the helper exceed the perceived benefits than the individual is less likely to help; and if the perceived benefits exceed the costs the individual is more likely to help.
5. Cultural Differences.
Cultural factors are often present in situations as well. There are many well-documented examples that show people of the same caste, religion, or ethnicity will be more inclined to help each other; and chances of helping someone are typically less when the bystander and victim have different cultural identities or nationalities.
6. Understanding of the Environment.
Another factor that might determine whether the bystander acts is how familiar that individual is with the location where the action occurs.
If the bystander is familiar and knows where help can be secured from, then the bystander will probably assist.
If the individual does not know much about his/her surrounding environment, then, chances are that person is unlikely to be involved.
For example, if you have just arrived in a foreign country and you saw a thief just take a wallet from a lady, and he is running away, if you were familiar with the surrounding environment, then you might follow the thief, however, since you are not familiar with the surrounding environment, that event is generally ignored.
7. Ambiguity.
Another factor that influences the behavior of the bystander in an emergency situation is ambiguity. In emergencies that are more ambiguous, individuals take about five times longer to take action than in emergencies that are less ambiguous.
In high ambiguities all know that they are experiencing a risk and it typically causes the bystander to think about their own safety first. People typically intervene in situations of low ambiguities.
8. Emergency vs Non-Emergency Situations.
To investigate the behavior of bystanders in cases that are not crises, Latanné and Darley conducted three experiments.
The researchers were able to demonstrate that the bystanders’ decision on whether or not to help, depended on how the bystanders would be requested to help. In one experiment the subjects requested the names of the bystanders.
The researchers demonstrated that most of the bystanders did not give their names until the subjects provided their names first.
In another study, the subjects asked for money from the bystanders.
The researchers demonstrated that when the subjects gave a brief explanation on why the asked for money, when they said their wallet was lost or they wanted money to eat, it led to an increase in the percentage of people that gave them money.
In this case, there were about 72% of people that gave them money. However, when the subjects did not provide any reason for the approach, it resulted in approximately 34% of people giving them money.
According to Latanne and Darley, factors that determine providing help were the following:
- Situations that involve harm
- Rare and unusual emergencies
- The nature of help required is different in different situations
- One cannot predict and/or expect the emergencies
- Immediate action needed in emergencies.
Decision Making by the Bystanders
Latanne and Darley found that bystanders undergo a series of behavioral and cognitive processes prior to making a decision. The processes that are essential to the bystanders decision making characteristics are: notice, interpretation, degree of responsibility, form of assistance, implementation.
1. Notice
Latanne and Darley (1968) conducted an experiment to particularly understand what they referred to as “noticing”. They conducted a smoke experiment with the students of Columbia University.
The ‘smoke experiment’ had students complete a questionnaire either alone in a room, with two strangers with them, or with three strangers with them. As they were filling out the questionnaire, they had smoke introduced into the room by the experimenter.
Results showed that students who were alone in the room, reported the smoke in about 5 seconds from the time the fog was introduced in the room, which was right at the moment it started pumping into the room.
Students who were not alone in the situation, reported the smoke in about 20 seconds.
They concluded individuals are aware of what is going on around them and notice things more accurately when they are alone, and because they are in a group, they become less aware of their surroundings. An individual is more likely to notice and offer help to a person in distress.
2. Interpretation
Once a bystander notices the situation, they then interpret the situation as an emergency or a non-emergency. In the smoke example above, the students interpretation of the smoke situation being an emergency or not, was dependent on the Social influence factor.
The strangers who were sitting with the subject, were instructed by the experimenter not to do anything when they see smoke, and because they did not do anything, the students, in this case, noticed their actions, and did not react as they interpreted it as a non-emergency situation.
Results showed that ultimately, only one subject reported the smoke in the first couple minutes, and even five of the eight groups had not even reported the smoke.
Upon asking students they gave explanations such as it could have been an AC leak, and they thought the smoke was not from a fire.
3. Degree of Responsibility
According to Latanne and Darley, the degree of responsibility a bystander feels in a situation depends on three factors:
- Their assumption of the person in distress as deserving or non-deserving of help.
- The bystanders ability to provide help that is in demand and is required.
- The relevance of the bystander to the person in distress.
4. Form of Assistance
Form of assistance describes how the bystander will first be willing to help. We can categorize the form of assistance in two ways, Direct and Detour.
Direct assistance is when the bystander is willing to help the victim directly whereas, in Detour assistance, the bystander is willing to seek help from others ineffective intervention.
5. Implementation
The final step is implementation of action that the bystander has decided to take after going through all the above steps.he bystander reports about the emergency or the victim to the concerned authorities, i.e., police, hospital, or fire department.