61. Bystander Effect
The Bystander Effect is a social psychological phenomenon that occurs when the presence of others discourages an individual from intervening in an emergency situation, against a bully, or during an assault or other crime. The greater the number of bystanders, the less likely any of them is to provide assistance. Experiments show that people are more likely to take action in a crisis when there are few or no other witnesses present.
The theory was first proposed in 1964 after the rape and murder of 28-year-old Kitty Genovese outside her apartment building in the Kew Gardens neighbourhood of Queens, New York. A few weeks following the murder, The New York Times reported erroneously that thirty-seven people saw or heard the attack and not one of them called the police or went to her assistance. Whilst many admitted to hearing her cries, most claimed not to realise the severity of the situation.
This stigma stuck to the people of New York City for decades after the event, with many, including other Americans, believing that you could die of a heart attack in Times Square and no one would even blink an eye. Meanwhile, six days after the murder, Winston Moseley, a 29-year-old man from Manhattan, was arrested during a burglary and confessed to killing Kitty whilst in custody. At his trial, Moseley was found guilty and sentenced to death, but his sentence was commuted to life behind bars. He died in prison at age 81.
Psychologists Bibb Latané and John Darley (1970) proposed the concept of the Bystander Effect following the murder. They identified three different psychological processes that might prevent a bystander from helping a person in distress: (i) diffusion of responsibility, (ii) fear of being publicly judged, (iii) the tendency to rely on the overt reactions of others when defining an ambiguous situation.
These researchers subsequently launched a series of experiments that resulted in one of the strongest and most replicable effects in social psychology. Typically, the participant is either alone or in a group when an emergency situation is staged. Researchers then measure how long it takes the participants to intervene, if at all. These experiments have found that the presence of others inhibits one from helping.
If one individual is prompted to complete a task alone, the sense of responsibility will be strong; however, if a group is required to work together on the completion of a task, there is a weak sense of responsibility, with most recoiling at responsibilities. Diffusion of responsibility refers to the tendency to subjectively divide personal responsibility to help, by the number of bystanders present. One experiment showed that 70% of people helped when they were alone, but only 40% within a group.
It is not unusual to go into shock when seeing someone having an emergency or being attacked. Fear leads to misunderstanding the context and seeing a threat where there is none, or that intervening will put one's own life in danger. With sexual assault against women, research has shown that witnesses who are male, hold sexist attitudes, or are under the influence of drugs or alcohol are less likely to actively help a woman who seems too incapacitated to consent to sexual activity.
What would you do if you saw a teenager being bullied? What about a seemingly drunk person falling over? What about someone physically abusing their partner? What if an adult was trying to convince a lost child to go with them? Would it matter if there was no one around? What if you were surrounded by thousands of people? What if it was nighttime? Would you call the police? Do you think it would matter if the individual were male or female? Black or white? Or if they were dressed as a businessperson or homeless person?