It is not uncommon for people to go over situations in their head beforehand in order to prepare. Some imagine being superheroes that help police officers catch an armed robber or sprinting into action to save a drowning child. But of course it rarely seems to go according to plan. It’s hard to know exactly what a person, even yourself, would do when a situation arises. Instead scientists describe likelihoods of reactions and try to predict what the average person might do.
Predictions of behavior are useful for designing things like houses, parks, schools, etc. o everything is structured where it should be in case of what might happen when a panic arises. The bystander effect is how a group of people will react when a social situation (usually emergency or panics) requires them to choose whether or not to help. Basically, it helps us understand who helps who and what circumstances. The main prediction is the more people present when a situation is occurring the less likely any one of them is to help out. That’s a prime example of diffusion of responsibility.
People automatically assume that someone else present will address the issue therefore each individual feels less responsible to act on the situation. This is a dangerous mindset to have in emergency situations. If someone passed out and there’s only one person in the room, that person will assume responsibility and either start CPR or call for help. Now on the other hand, someone passes out in a room of ten people everyone expects, maybe even hope that someone else will intervene first. Unfortunately this could mean that the person who passed out won’t receive the help they need as fast or at all.
History of the Bystander Effect In 1964, Catharine “Kitty” Genovese was murdered outside her home in Queens, New York. Kitty’s neighbors heard her screaming for help and heard her cries and they did nothing to help her. This case will give you insight on the bystander effect and why her neighbors didn’t help. The murder of Genovese would be the spark of social psychologist studying the bystander effect. It was the New York Times and there head line “37 who saw murder didn’t call the police” that raised a controversy and made people think. People wanted to know why nobody took the initiative to help Kitty.
Kitty was murdered on March 13, 1964 at 3:00 am. As Kitty was walking home from parking her car a few blocks from her home she noticed somebody following her. Kitty started to run and was stabbed in the back twice while screaming for help. People across the street looked outside and yelled the attacker decided to flee in fear of being caught due to being under a street light. Kitty then found the strength to get up and find a building she could get into, in hopes of getting away and receiving help. Not a single soul came down to make sure she was okay or even called the police.
The attacker then came back 10 minutes later and found Kitty in the building, attacking her once more. As he stabbed and rapped her he noticed people that stayed just above the stairs in the hallway opening their doors and peeping out twice but did nothing. Genovese tragedy brought awareness that this happens on a daily basis. Many inactive witnesses viewed a crime and did nothing about it. It was the Times article that opened people’s eyes to the bystander effect. Shortly after the murder of Kitty known psychologists, Latane and Darley, began to work on the demonstration of the bystander effect.
They wanted to know and understand why nobody didn’t help Kitty. Latane and Darley (1975) started their own experiment using vapor and wanted to see how people would react in a scenario if they were alone or in a group of people. They gathered a group of 24 people and had them come in individually for an interview. Once in the room the vapor started pouring out the vents, the person would then get up and leave and look for help. When they put a group of 3 in the room there reaction was quite different. So in conclusion to their experiment they thought that if fewer people were around when Genovese was being attacked she would still be alive.
They noticed that the more people in a scenario the less likely they would do something due to the fact of seeing other doing nothing. Seeing other doing nothing makes you feel like doing nothing is the right thing to do. The Bystander Effect An interesting look on the bystander effect is shown on YouTube, a video uploaded by a journalist overseas. Matthew (2009) filmed two scenarios involving a male and a female. In the first scenario the male is dressed in casual clothing and is playing a drunk. He appears to in crucial pain, slouched over on the floor begging for help.
The man lay on the floor helpless for over 20 minutes. Not one single person stopped to ask him if he was okay or if he needed any help. In their mind, helping him would be an inconvenience to their daily routines or a risk at the least. Everyone walked passed him, bypassing his screams, as if he was a howl in the wind. The second time around they dressed the male as a respectable city gent. He lays on the ground in a business suit. It took 6 seconds for someone to stop and approach him. A woman asked if he was okay, even referred to him as sir. Once she stopped to help him others started to stop and help him as well.
A few minutes after the police even decided to show up. The second scenario a female actress was used as a prop. Ruth, as she was referred too, was not dressed as a drunk nor a city gal, just casual clothing. She lays there lifeless, for about 4 minutes on the top of steps. Roughly, 34 people passed her by and no one stopped. The craziest part is that there was a guy sitting a few steps away reading a newspaper and he did absolutely nothing, just sits there and watches other people by.
One woman spotted Ruth laying there, she stops for a few seconds but does nothing. A few minutes later a guy stopped to ive Ruth a lending hand and asked her if she was okay. The women then returned and found herself helping the man assisting Ruth in making sure she was okay. They then switched Ruth with the male actor once more. They changed his business suit and put him in regular clothes and told him to act as if he was in pain. He laid there for 20 minutes and as people continued bypass him, the world kept going. Stereotypes and Prejudice Continuing on from the previous section, the same video on YouTube entitled “Bystander Effect” displayed a common stereotype that is shown across all nations.
In the first scenario, you had a guy in casual clothing playing drunk and then you had a guy in a business suit just lying there. Everybody walked passed the guy in casual clothes with a beer in his hand. People didn’t even think twice to help him but as soon as a guy in a business suit lays on the floor people come to his aid to make sure he is okay. People feel that a person that is drunk is responsible for their own situation and doesn’t deserve help. The lack of sympathy leads to less assistance being offered in this circumstance to those who seem less responsible for their actions.
For instance the male in the business suit is viewed as a respectable man who may be sick or have a medical condition which makes him less responsible for his actions. The appearance of the males made a difference in them receiving m others. As well as the males circumstances weather he was a drunk or an ill person determined the help they would receive. A male laid on the floor in pain for 20 minutes in casual clothing and received no help, but a man in a suit laying on the floor received help in 6 seconds.
As for the woman she laid on the floor in casual clothes for 20 plus minutes before she even received help from a single person. It was like everybody that walked passed her formed this bond to not help. As a women you would expect her to receive help instantly. Her gender and appearance played a role into why she didn’t receive any help. If she would’ve been in business attire she would’ve been more likely to receive help from others. She would have been given the opportunity to be seen in a certain light, perceived as a respectable working woman.
Scholarly Article There are multiple factors that come into play when deciding whether or not a person should indulge themselves into an emergency situation. The presence of others, the appearance of the victim, and the guilt of wanting to turn the other check plays a big role in the bystander intervention. In this article, Lancaster University conducted several different studies attempting to see the effect of group size on the likelihood of individuals taking the initiative to lend a help to a complete stranger in a time of need.
They then conducted the same study with people who shared similar traits with these same individuals. The results of the research study indicated that the bystander effect is not a common consequence of increasing group size. When bystanders share group-level psychological relationships, group size can encourage as well as inhibit helping (Levine & Crowther, 2008). It is more likely that a person would help someone they never met but attend the same school with before responding to a complete stranger crying for help on the sidewalk. Conclusion
If I’m walking pass someone who is laying on the floor, in danger or just needs help in general, I would stop to assist them and make sure there okay. To me it doesn’t matter whether there’s a large group of people or if I’m by myself. What you do for others shouldn’t be determined on the people surrounding you. People deserve to be helped if there incapable of helping themselves. You have to look at a situation as if that was you in their predicament. You would want somebody to stop and help you. We can’t change the world or break barriers if we don’t start within ourselves and lead by example.
