1. 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

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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.

5. 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).

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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”