Bystander Effect - An Overview

Introduction

The bystander effect, also regarded sometimes as bystander apathy, is a theory in social psychology that states that the probability of offering help is much lower in the presence of passive onlookers during an emergency or dangerous situation. People tend to be less willing to act when surrounded by others and end up watching events unfold until it's too late.

What Are Some Examples of the Bystander Effect?

It can come into play in various scenarios, such as a medical emergency, criminal acts of violence, cyberbullying, or even bullying occurring in educational institutions. When only one bystander is present, there are much higher chances of administering help. Other situations could include theft, simple email requests, or a flat tire.

What Are the Origins of Bystander Effect?

Several studies on the bystander effect have been conducted to understand helping behavior in human beings. Gruesome incidents from as far back as the 1960’s are believed to be the origins of the interest in the bystander effect. Reports included stories of violent, physical attacks on people that went unheeded by neighbors even when they were clearly aware the incidents in question were occurring. When questioned by the police, most witnesses tended to be evasive or state that their lack of response was born out of fear. Public outcries ensued, and researchers grew interested in the topic of unresponsive bystanders. This evolved into the phenomenon now referred to as bystander effect.

Why Does a Bystander Offers to Assist Sometimes and Not at Other Times?

To answer this question, Latane and Darley proposed a five-stage model called the decision-helping model. A "no" at any stage results in no help being given, whereas a stage-wise "yes" takes the observer closer to helping a victim. These include:

1. Noticing that something is amiss.

2. Identifying the situation as an emergency.

3. Assessing the degree of personal responsibility, one feels.

4. Deciding how best you can help.

5. Acting on the decision.

Although this model serves as a valuable framework for understanding bystander intervention and has been successfully applied to various situations, such as persuading someone to refrain from drinking and driving or a decision to donate organs, it has its shortcomings. For example, it does not consider emotional factors like fear and anxiety; the main focus is on why people do not help. It fails to reason why 'no' decisions were made at various stages, especially after designating a situation as an emergency. Hence it fails to paint a complete picture.

An alternative to the decision-making model is the cost-reward-arousal model proposed by Piliavin et al. This model evaluates the consequences of helping or not doing so. This model weighs the costs against rewards in deciding to help, unique to individuals and situations. Costs could be time, effort, expended resources, and the possibility of endangering oneself. Rewards could be appreciation, fame, self-satisfaction, and gratitude from the victim.

Studies have highlighted that the bystander effect occurs when a single person's intervention is sufficient. Contrarily, it was also found that inhibition to help was often not found in situations demanding the assistance of many in the place of one; when a bystander perceives their contribution as indispensable. In such cases, bystanders offered help more readily.

What Are the Factors Stopping a Bystander From Assisting?

Inaction is not always due to indifference. Latane and Darley proposed three main psychological processes to explain roadblocks to helping. They were:

1. Diffusion of Responsibility - When a group of bystanders is present, the responsibility to help or the blame for not doing so doesn't fall upon a single person but is shared amongst all present. Each believes that the other will take the initiative.

2. Evaluation Apprehension or Audience Inhibition - Fear of being judged negatively. Individuals may also fear feeling inferior if other bystanders offer better assistance and fear legal consequences. Questions gripping a bystander's mind could be - 'What if my assistance is unnecessary?' or 'What if my help causes harm rather than good?'

3. Pluralistic Ignorance or Social Influence - Reading the reactions of others and relying on it even if your personal view is not in line with what you perceive to be the popular opinion. A simple example is when a class is confusing or complicated, a student might hesitate to ask questions when the floor is open to queries, even when the student has doubts. This is frequently caused by the idea that everyone else comprehends the subject; therefore, nobody seeks clarification out of fear of appearing incompetent. The ambiguity of a situation also results in this misperception.

Another factor is the confusion of responsibility, where the bystander fears being perceived as the perpetrator. In some cases, the personal relationship between the perpetrator and victim may also cause hesitation; for example, domestic violence or intimate partner violence is a crime with mismatched prevalence and reporting rates.

Is There a Neurological Basis for Bystander Effect?

Neuroimaging evidence from experiments shows less activity in brain regions that facilitate helping others, such as the pre and post-central gyrus and medial prefrontal cortex when a participant is exposed to emergencies. Thus, the first biological response is personal fear paralyzing action. This wave of fear is followed by sympathy, which gives rise to the desire to help. The decision to allow is hence reflexive and not reflective.

Conclusion

The bystander effect is a pervasive phenomenon, and many real-life incidents over the years stand testimony to this fact. When bystanders are strangers, they often act unfazed by the situation and remain inactive. The possibility of assisting reduces with the number of onlookers present, and when the need for assistance is unclear.

However, given the recent studies, a one-size-fits-all generalization cannot be made since one needs to consider an individual's personality and circumstances. The decision to help is often a tussle between personal fears and sympathy for the victim, and the victor shall decide whether help is administered. That said, being responsible bystanders and administering aid whenever possible is essential.