When someone is in trouble, one would hope that people nearby would help them but unfortunately that is not always the case. The bystander effect occurs when a number of people witness the same emergency event but fail to take action and help (Schneider, Gruman & Coutts 2012, pg.280). In many cases diffusion of responsibility can be to blame. This is when people witness a situation and they do no intervene because they believe that someone else will. Research has suggested that the more people present during an emergency event, the victim is less likely to receive help (Schneider, Gruman & Coutts 2012, pg.280).
How could this happen? One would think that the more people around means that someone would step in and offer help. This goes back to the idea of diffusion of responsibility; the more people present during an event may make an individual feel less responsible to take action, therefore diffusing responsibility to others. It is scary to think about. All these people witnessing the same event, aware that a person is in need of help but do not intervene because they believe that someone else will.
The first time I became aware of the bystander effect was during my high school psychology class when discussing the murder of Kitty Genovese. It has been said that in New York 1964, there were 38 people who watched and heard a woman being killed from their apartments and failed to intervene (Manning, Levine & Collins, 2007). How could people possibly just sit there knowing what was going on and not call the police? This case brought awareness to the bystander effect and diffusion of responsibility. People did not take action because they all assumed that there must be someone else who already has called the police. This also goes along with the idea that the more people who witness an event the less likely a victim will receive help.
In order for the bystander effect and diffusion of responsibility to occur less it is important for people to be aware of these types of situations. People should not assume that because there are other people present that someone else is going to help. Take action yourself! If you cannot physically help or if the situation is too dangerous at least call the police. The worst thing that could happen is that police get numerous calls about the same event, but at least you intervened and did not assume someone already helped.
References
Manning, R., Levine, M., & Collins, A. (2007). The kitty genovese murder and the social psychology of helping: The parable of the 38 witnesses. American Psychologist, 62(6), 555-562. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.62.6.555.
Schneider, F. W., Gruman, J. A., and Coutts, L. M. (Eds.) (2012). Applied Social Psychology: Understanding and Addressing Social and Practical Problems (2nd ed.).
The murder of Kitty Genovese is not something that I was ever to familiar with however I do grasp the concept of what happened. It is horrible to think thank people could let something like this take place without immediately calling the police. The by standard effect occurs more often then it should due to people thinking in terms of diffusion of responsibility. Although it is horrible to think that 50 people could be aware of something bad happening and not one person makes a phone call I do understand how people let this happen. For instance, I once was in my backyard enjoying a fire and our neighbors started fighting. There were a lot of people around and I know of at least two that said they were going to call the police therefor I did not. I was showing exactly what I think is ridiculous to happen. Even though this was not a really dangerous situation, had it have been and I thought someone else was going to call I probably would not have.
I am also CPR certified for my job. I think to myself if I were in a public place and someone was under cardiac arrest or something would I immediately help? Sadly enough I probably would not. I am the type of person the exempts diffusion of responsibility therefor I would be thinking that someone else could better help them than me. Ideally we think that people should just take action right away but there can be consequences or at least thought to be consequences for taking action right away. Take CPR for example, if you give it to someone without their consent they can sue you. Very rarely would this ever even pass in court but there still is a chance. So if someone hears someone being murdered they might be afraid to call thinking they could be thought as a suspect or maybe nothing is happening and they will get in trouble for false calling the police. Although it sounds crazy to make up excuses for people letting this like what happened to Kitty happen, you always have to look at situations from everyone’s side not just the one you think is right.
The murder of Kitty Genovese was the beginning of my understanding of the bystander effect and diffusion of responsibility. Although this an example of the bystander effect, it’s important to know there are less severe and tragic forms of the effect and diffusion of responsibility. I can recall a time when I heard female screams and that’s all I heard; I did not see anything but thought someone needed help. Therefore, I called the police the moment I knew they were screams. I did not know the specific address but was able to tell them a street name. Later on, I found out it was nothing, just a female trying to get her boyfriend in “trouble.” I did not know if anyone called the police and what the exact situation was, but diffusion of responsibility did not interfere with my decision making. I would have felt terrible if I found out the female was later found dead and knowing I could have done something like making a phone call.
As members of society, we need to take these precautions. To know people watched someone getting murdered is very disheartening. Also, aside from decision making, the bystander effect and diffusion of responsibility demonstrates how others can influence our behavior. For example, someone watching Kitty Genovese may have thought they aren’t going to help because no one else it helping. These teachings and attitudes need to be reduced. They can be reduced by developing a sense of community within and around the neighborhood. Sense of community refers to the idea and degree to which members of the community feel a sense of belonging and membership and is interdependent and attached to community members (Schneider, Gruman, & Coutts, 2012). By forming a sense of community, the members will take the responsibility, want, need, and desire to help those in need. I feel within and around my neighborhood, we have a sense of community. As previously stated, I did not hesitate to make a simple phone call that could have saved a life. We need to take a pro-active stance in reducing the bystander effect and diffusion of responsibility.
References:
Schneider, F. W., Gruman, J. A., and Coutts, L. M. (Eds.) (2012). Applied Social Psychology: Understanding and Addressing Social and Practical Problems (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. ISBN 978-1412976381
Although we have discussed real world incidents when the bystander effect has taken place, it’s also important to touch on this phenomenon in the context of the virtual world. (Dao, 2003) Although we are establishing effective group support systems online through the use of various forms of social media, we still are able to fall victim to the bystander effect. (Dao, 2003) There are several factors that can prevent an individual’s ability to help in an emergency situation. (Schneider, et al, p. 247, 2012) These factors can also very easily be applied to social media and the virtual world. (Dao, 2003)
Researcher P.M. Markey did a study that found the amount of individuals in an online group chat room can influence the speed of assistance. As the numbers in the chat room increased it took longer for the individual in need to receive assistance. (Markey, p. 183, 2000) These findings reflect that factors like group cohesiveness and the size of the group can prevent individuals from offering assistance. (Markey, p. 186, 2000) Markey’s research also shows a great example of diffusion of responsibility. In the context of social media there are could be thousands of individuals interacting and sharing information, which can create the perfect environment to deflect responsibility. (Dao, 2003) An individual could very easily assume that someone else more qualified could come to the aid of the person in distress. (Dao, 2003) Another factor that is easily displayed in a virtual environment is ambiguity of need. (Markey, p. 184, 2000) It could be difficult for an individual in an online setting to discern whether or not someone is in need of assistance or just utilizing social media as a way of getting attention. When a situation is ambiguous, an individual may look to other chat members to find cues as to what is taking place; if other members believe it to be a joke, then everyone else may just fall in line instead of offering assistance.
Social media has given us all a platform to voice our opinions and connect with people all over the world. Even though we may still fall victim to the bystander effect in an online setting, it’s important to utilize the same vigilance that we would use in the real world to prevent and assist individuals in need.
Markey, P. (2000). Bystander intervention in computer-mediated communication. Computers in Human Behavior, 16(2), 183-188.
Schneider, F. W., Gruman, J. A., & Coutts, L. M. (2005). Applied social psychology: understanding and addressing social and practical problems. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: SAGE Publications.
Social Media and the Bystander Effect. (n.d.). Brian Solis RSS. Retrieved April 4, 2014, from http://www.briansolis.com/2013/11/social-media-and-the-bystander-effect/
The murder of Kitty Genovese, was a tragic yet very realistic example of the bystander effect. Unfortunately, this effect can be seen in the simplest of situations such as helping an old lady pick up the groceries she has dropped or in serious situations such as Kitty’s. It has been several decades since the identification of this phenomenon and yet, it is still an issue in society.
Van Bommel, van Prooijen, Elffers, and Van Lange (2012) studied the bystander effect and evaluated ways to reverse this phenomenon. This team of researchers conducted two experiments testing the process of diffusion of responsibility and possible accountability cues to raise awareness (van Bommel et al., 2012). By using a simple color coordination of names on a computer screen, van Bommel et al. (2012) were actually able to reverse the bystander effect and raise public awareness. Why did this occur? According to van Bommel et al. (2012), individuals are more likely to engage in helping behaviors when their identity within a group becomes more noticeable or important, such as their name sticking out in a series of color coded names. Furthermore, using the cost-reward model, helping behaviors increase reward if the individual’s reputation will benefit (Dovidio et al., 1991). In this sense, bystanders can actually encourage and promote helping behaviors (van Bommel et al., 2012). Van Bommel et al. (2012) argued that being surrounded by more people can increase an individual’s likelihood of helping others as it benefits their reputation and can be used to fulfill the human need to impress others. The more bystanders around, the more people to impress and the better one feels about themselves (van Bummel et al., 2012). This idea is known as public self-awareness and is quite striking as the positive benefits of bystanders is rarely addressed (Prentice-dunn & Rogers, 1982). Public self-awareness can explain the human need to worry about their social impressions and strive for social approval (Solomon & Schopler, 1982). Van Bommel et al. (2012) point out however, that in order to use public self-awareness to overcome the bystander effect, individuals must feel that they are being judged by others rather than anonymous in a crowd. This can be done by using “accountability cues” – cues such as cameras and name tags that can cause individuals to feel less anonymous and more self-aware (Prentice-dunn & Rogers, 1982; van Bommel et al., 2012).
Van Bummel et al. (2012) highlighted the importance of public self-awareness and the cues needed to trigger a sense of responsibility rather than the diffusion of responsibility. Using this concept, increased awareness and accountability cues can in fact, be the key to understanding how to reduce the bystander effect. How would you recommend dealing with this issue of the diffusion of responsibility?
References
Dovidio, J., Piliavin, J., Gaertner, S., Schroeder, D., & Clark, R. (1991). The arousal: Cost-reward model and the process of intervention: A review of the evidence. In R.D. Clark (Ed.), Review of Personality and Social Psychology, Prosocial Behavior. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Prentice-dunn, S. & Rogers, R. (1982). Effects of public and private self-awareness on deindividuation and aggression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 503-513. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.43.3.503.
Schneider, F. W., Gruman, J. A., and Coutts, L. M. (Eds.) (2012). Applied Social Psychology: Understanding and Addressing Social and Practical Problems (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Solomon, M. & Schopler, J. (1982). Self-consciousness and clothing. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 8, 508-514. doi:10.1177/0146167282083018.
Van Bommel, M., van Prooijen, J., Elffers, H., & Van Lange, P. (2012). Be aware to care: Public self-awareness leads to a reversal of the bystander effect. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 926-930. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2012.02.011.