We hear regularly in the media of facts and situations that appear to us to be senseless. For example, people who are abused, attacked, or who are injured or even killed in the street or in a public place without anyone around reacting or doing anything to help or save the victim of these heinous acts. We wonder how, this kind of thing can happen without anyone acting and we say willingly that “me in their place I would do something”, ” I would not let make these acts”; but in reality? What would happen if we were faced with this kind of situation ?
This societal phenomenon is the bystander effect also called bystander apathy. It’s a social psychological phenomenon concerning emergency situations in which the help and the behavior of help of person is inhibited by the presence of the other people on the scene. The probability to help a person in distress is higher when the individual is alone that when he is in the presence of one or several people. In other words, more the number of people who attend a situation requiring a help is important, more the chances on which one of them decides to bring his help are low. The probability of help is inversely proportional among present witnesses. Although many studies of help behavior have been conducted since the 1950s, it was the Kitty Genovese case that is considered like the starting point of research about bystander effect. On March 13th, 1964, in the middle of the street in New York in a residential area of Queens, Kitty Genoves was violated and murdered. According to press which related this case, despite her numerous shouting and calls for help, nobody helped her or called the police although a dozen of inhabitants living in buildings surrounding and heard her. For their nonintervention they answer that they didn’t know or that they didn’t want to be involved. The circumstance of the murder has attracted the attention of the American citizens. Indeed, the indifference reactions of neighbors during the aggression shocked the public opinion. This have generated important controversies in United States. Many hypotheses are then developed concerning the reasons of the inactivity of witness, some evoked the concepts of apathy or also dehumanization. However, it was a detailed analysis of the situation by two social psychologists, John Darley and Bibb Latané, who led them to wonder about the psychosocial conditions which had pulled the inactivity of witness and to consider other factors which come into play.
Therefore, the experience of Darley and Latané in 1967 is at the origin of the fundamental work of this subject. They have made a series of experiments that have highlighting one of the most stable and robust effect in the field of social psychology.
The classic paradigm of the bystander effect
All the studies concerning the bystander effect are based on one and same classical paradigm. A study of the bystander effect is always the same. Participants work on a supposedly important task, alone or in the presence of one or more other spectators.
During the task, they attend an emergency situation (for example: thief enters in the room, someone is painful …). Their responses to these emergencies are recorded. Then, the results in the multiple spectator condition are compared to the results in the solo spectator condition. Applying this classic paradigm, bystander effect has been found in many areas.
The Bystander effect and the scientific literature
Darley and Latané (1967) in their article on the bystander effect postulated that when the spectator is in the presence of other spectators facing a situation with help or intervention, this person will tend to not act, especially if the situation is threatening and dangerous for either the victim or the spectator himself. Thus, the presence of passive spectators reduces the likelihood that individuals will intervene and help a victim in critical situation.
However, many authors and researchers like Fischer, Greitemeyer and al. (2011), for example, with their meta-analysis that group several research and studies, prove the opposite. Indeed, these authors have highlighted that more the situation is dangerous and menacing, more the spectator will help the victim, especially if the presence of other spectators is a strong social support. Thus, Fischer, Greitemeyer and al. (2011) show that there is a consensus of different studies on the subject in recent years. Many studies show that the bystander effect doesn’t occur when the emergency is dangerous or when the spectators are competent to act. The classic research for the bystander effect, which considered that the spectators present evaluated the situation as “something negative”, which in their opinion reduced the probability of a pro social intervention is, therefore, called into question.
This idea that in a dangerous situation, there is no bystander effect, is also found in the article of Fischer & Greitemeyer (2012). This study examined the interaction between the presence of a passive spectator (absent or present) in a bicycle theft and the expected negative consequences (high vs. low) related to the intervention behavior. These authors find an effect of the negativity of the perceived consequences on the intervention behavior. Thus, the more the consequences are perceived as negative, the more the subject will tend to intervene against the theft of bike and more if there is another spectator. This study hence reports an inverse effect of the bystander effect as it is classically described since the presence of other increases the help behavior in certain situations.
Thus, we see that
in particular situations the bystander effect is not found as Darley &
Latané (1967) predict, the first authors having worked on the subject.
In addition, many factors have a
significant impact on intervention behavior and modulate the bystander effect
itself. This is demonstrated by two studies: one of Levine & Crowther
(2008) and another of Leone, Parott, Swartout and Tharp (2015). Social group
membership and group size as well as gender and sex are all factors that can
influence support behavior and thus encourage or prevent intervention in
situations requiring help. Indeed, according to the classic bystander effect,
the size of the group seems to inhibit the help behavior. However, studies by
Levine & Crowther (2008) have shown that when other viewers are imagined as
friends or part of our social group, then the larger the group size, the more
willing the participants are to get involved or intervene directly. Also, Leone
and al. (2015), established that the more a man adheres to the different
dimensions of traditional masculinity (strength, courage, virility) the more he
will act and will help, however the more this masculinity is threatened, the
less he will feel able to act and the less he will help the victim in distress
situation.
Why don’t we intervene?
According to Darley and Latané, there are many reasons for the non-intervention of the spectators. Indeed, in the face of a dangerous situation, fears may arise concerning what could happen to the person who intervenes. These fears may relate to physical damage, embarrassment or public shame, lost time ….
In addition, these authors postulate that when multiple viewers are present, many underlying factors influence non-intervention. The main process is the diffusion of responsibility. When multiple witnesses are confronting at the same emergency, everyone’s responsibility to act is shared with others. Thus, everyone says, “there is someone who will act” or “if I do not act and the others too, this is not entirely my fault if something happens to the victim.” This effect disappears when a witness is alone to be able to act since the feeling of responsibility is such that it pushes to the intervention.
There are also other secondary factors that can cause non-intervention, such as group belonging. Indeed, as shown by Levine & Crowther (2008), the psychological relations maintained between the spectators but also the victim can prevent the intervention. In fact, the less the victim becomes part of our reference social group, the less likely we are to help her.
The attenuation of the bystander effect and explanations
In some situations, the bystander effect is not found. This is explained by Fischer & Greitemeyer (2012). Thus, when the situation is considered dangerous and threatening, the subject will help the victim regardless of the number of spectators present.
Fischer, Greitemeyer and al. (2011) have highlighted several facts that explain the intervention of spectators in dangerous situations. The first explanation is that emergencies or dangerous situations are perceived more quickly which increases the cost of not helping the victim. To cope with the negative affects engendered by the possibility of being allowed to do so, the spectator will act independently of the presence or not of other spectators. The second explanation is that the spectators can be perceived as a support against the fear and thus to encourage the individual intervention of each one. The third and final explanation provided by the authors is that individuals who witness a dangerous scene may decide to act together to help the victim when he or she may not have done so because of the dangerousness of the situation.
Laura JARNY.
Words I have learned: likelihood, witness, distress
THE REFERENCES
Darley, J., & Latané, B. (1967). Bystander Intervention in emergencies: diffusion of responsibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8, 377-383.
Ficher, P., Greitemeyer, T., & al. (2011). The Bystander-Effect: A Meta-Analytic Review on Bystander Intervention in Dangerous and Non-Dangerous Emergencies. Psychological Bulletin, 137, 517-537.
Ficher, P., & Greitemeyer, T. (2012). The Positive effect: Passive Bystanders increase helping in situations with high expected negative consequences for the helper. The Journal of Social Psychology, 153 (1), 1-5.
Leone, R. M., Parrott, D. J., & Swartout, K. M., & Tharp, A. T. (2015). Masculinity and Bystander Attitudes: Moderating Effects of Masculine Gender Role Stress. Psychology of Violence, 6, 82-90.
Levine, M., & Crowther, S. (2008). The Responsive Bystander: How Social Group Membership and Group Size Can Encourage as Well as Inhibit Bystander Intervention. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 1429-1439.