Bystander Effect occurs when the presence of others discourages an individual from intervening in an emergency situation Social psychologists Bibb Latané and John Darley popularized the concept following the infamous 1964 Kitty Genovese murder in New York City stabbed to death outside her apartment while bystanders who observed the crime did not step in to assist or call the police “I knew they wouldn’t do anything, people never do.” – Winston Moseley

attributed the bystander effect to the perceived diffusion of responsibility (onlookers are more likely to intervene if there are few or no other witnesses) social influence (individuals in a group monitor the behavior of those around them to determine how to act) each onlooker concluded from their neighbors’ inaction that their own personal help was not needed

Characteristics of Emergencies few positive rewards in an emergency – dangerous reactions are untrained and unrehearsed Emergencies come without warning with no practiced responses to fall back on. requires instant action & puts the potential helper in a lot of stress Model of the Intervention Process - intervener must make a series of decisions must notice the event and then interpret it as an emergency must decide if he has responsibility to act what form of assistance should be used – direct or call police or other first responder - must consider failure, getting sued, or attacked themselves

Social Determinants to Bystander Intervention ambiguous “situation” - the person may look to other’s behavior will judge situation as an emergency if others do; if others do not react, they do not react will not ALONE pluralistic ignorance people may react less to an emergency if they are in a group situation than if they are alone.

Some experiments to consider Experiment 1. Where There’s Smoke, There’s (Sometimes) Fire subjects began to fill out questionnaires in a room to which they began to add smoke Variable 1: subject was alone Variable 2: three naive (did not notice smoke) subjects were in the room Variable 3: one naive subject and two confederates who purposely noticed and then ignored the smoke (even when the room became hazy from all the smoke).

Variable 1: 75% of alone subjects calmly noticed the smoke and left the room to report it Variable 2: three naive bystander condition only 38% reported the smoke Variable 3: only 10% of the subjects with confederates reported it Conclusion: those that did not report at all concluded that the smoke was not dangerous or was part of the experiment no one attributed their inactivity to the presence of others in the room togetherness reduces fear even when the danger is not reduced less afraid (?) and thus less likely to act people were inhibited to show fear in a group situation clear that people did not act because they concluded the situation was not a threatening situation

Experiment 2: Lady in Distress subjects either waited alone, with a friend, with a passive confederate, or with a stranger in a room room was separated from another room by a curtain (which they passed on their way to their waiting room) experimenter who led them there returned to other room and left, turning on a tape recorded that simulated a fall and subsequent moaning about a hurt leg (total time 130 seconds) measured percentage who took action and how long it took them to act

Results Nobody went to report the accident 70% of alone subjects reacted only 7% of those with passive confederates reacted subjects with confederates became confused and frequently looked over at the confederate 40% of stranger pairs offered to help 70% of friend pairs helped (same as alone group) interveners claimed they acted because the fall seemed serious and it was “the right thing to do” non-interveners said they were unsure what happened but decided it was not serious people felt they were not highly influence by others in the room Results confirm results in the Smoke study - seems that the risk of inappropriate behavior is less with friends, and friends are less likely to develop “pluralistic ignorance”