During this week’s assigned readings in Applied Social Psychology, Understanding and Addressing Social and Practical Problems, by Schneider, Gruman, and Coutts, we learned about the bystander effect. The bystander effect is defined as a phenomenon that occurs when multiple witnesses of an emergency fail to get involved (Schneider, Gruman, & Coutts). There are three triggers related to the bystander effect: Audience inhibition, social influence, and diffusion of responsibility (Latane & Nida, 1981).
- Audience inhibition: A bystander may choose not to intervene in an emergency because they are afraid of embarrassing themselves in front of other people (Latane & Nida, 1981).
- Social influence: When bystanders do not know how to act in an emergency situation, they will look to other bystanders for cues on how to act in the ambiguous situation. Unfortunately, in an ambiguous situation, most of the bystanders will not know how to act and everyone will be looking for cues from each other. This results in none of the bystanders getting involved (Latane & Nida, 1981).
- Diffusion of responsibility: Bystanders believe they do not need to help in an emergency because someone else will (Latane & Nida, 1981).
Since I have learned about the bystander effect, I have been thinking of tragedies that could have been prevented if proper help was initiated. One tragedy that sticks out to me is the incident that occurred on February 2, 2017 at The Pennsylvania State University. Unfortunately, it is possible that the bystander effect influenced events that led up to the death of Tim Piazza.
FULL DISCLOSURE: THIS ANALYSIS IS BASED OFF OF INFORMATION FROM NEWS REPORTS. I DO NOT CLAIM TO KNOW EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED ON THE NIGHT OF FEBRUARY 2, 2017, AS ONLY THE PEOPLE WHO WERE THERE DO.
For those who do not know, Tim Piazza was a sophomore at Penn State University who died from a collapsed lung, lacerated spleen, and a fractured skull after a bid-acceptance night at Beta Theta Pi (Pallotto, 2019). Below, I will address the incidents that occurred (reported by Benjamin Wallace of Vanity Fair) and how they could have been influenced by the bystander effect:
Tim was extremely intoxicated and fell down the basement stairs. After some time, a few of his fraternity brothers carried him back upstairs. Tim was obviously unconscious and had multiple visible injuries, but they set him on the couch and carried on with the night. Every single person at the fraternity house physically saw Tim and the condition he was in, yet no one did anything. Finally, one of the fraternity brothers argued with another that they needed to call 911 and got shoved. 911 was not called and the party continued. The party eventually ended and everyone left, leaving Tim alone for the remainder of the night. Two fraternity brothers found Tim the next morning and did not call 911 for almost an hour after (Wallace, 2017).
- Audience inhibition: It is possible that the bystanders (fraternity brothers, other party-goers) did not call 911 or try to help Tim in any other ways because they were afraid they would be ostracized for it. In fact, this actually occurred when a fraternity brother wanted to call 911 and got pushed across the room for it.
- Social influence: It is possible that the emergency that occurred was ambiguous. Some of the fraternity brothers and other people at the party may not have understood what exactly was going on with Tim. It is also possible they thought he was just black-out drunk like they have seen hundreds of other college students. It is also possible that the bystanders were too intoxicated to fully understand the circumstances of the situation. With this being said, the bystanders most likely looked to other bystanders to know how to react to the situation, and everyone was responding by ignoring the emergency and going on with the party.
- Diffusion of responsibility: It is possible that the bystanders of the emergency thought that there were so many other people at the party, someone must have had called 911. Bystanders also may have assumed it was the president of the fraternity or the upperclassmen’s responsibility to get help.
Tragedies can be avoided if the proper help is initiated. However, due to the bystander effect, witnesses of an emergency often fail to get involved or get help because of audience inhibition, social influence, and/or diffusion of responsibility. Unfortunately, it is possible that the bystander effect contributed to the wrongful and premature death of Tim Piazza. As college students, it is important that we keep the bystander effect in mind if we are ever in an emergency situation like the one Tim and his fraternity brothers were in. Remembering the bystander effect could actually save a life.
References:
Latané, B., & Nida, S. (1981). Ten years of research on group size and helping. Psychological Bulletin, 89(2), 308-324. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.89.2.308
Pallotto, Bret. (2019). It’s Been 2 Years Since Tim Piazza’s Death at Penn State. Here’s What’s Happened Since. Retrieved from: https://www.centredaily.com/news/local/community/state-college/article225340915.html
Schneider, F. W., Gruman, J. A., and Coutts, L. M. (Eds.). (2012). Applied Social Psychology. Understanding and Addressing Social and Practical Problems. CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Wallace, Benjamin. (2017). How a Fatal Frat Hazing Became Penn State’s Latest Campus Crisis. Retrieved from: https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/10/penn-state-fraternity-hazing-death
Tags: audience inhibition, bystander effect, diffusion of responsibility, social influence
Incidents like this make me angry. There are so many bad things that occur that can’t be prevented, but when someone’s death could be prevented like in this situation, it’s even worse. Your analysis of the situation is well thought out. I can see all of those reasons applying in this case. Another psychological theory that comes to mind is groupthink, the mindset that people’s desire for unanimity and being like the group overrules their ability to think rationally (Schneider, Gruman, & Coutts, 2012). This relates to audience inhibition in that members of the group wouldn’t want to be singled out if they speak up. I think there’s a slight difference though. With audience inhibition, members see the problem, maybe do have an idea of what to do, but are afraid to speak up because of the social consequences. With groupthink, members would not even go there mentally. They would be so caught up in what the group is doing, how the group has decided to handle it, that they don’t even consider other better solutions. Within this dynamic, party attendees may have felt the illusion of anonymity (that they won’t be seen as responsible because there are so many people around they just blend in) and invulnerability (being part of a group adds to this feeling which would be compounded by being inebriated).
Milgram’s idea of stimulus overload may also be applied to the bystander effect. While there is diffusion of responsibility surrounding an event witnessed by many people, it’s also possible that stimulus overload creates a mental situation in which each person’s brain is going in so many different directions that they do not process the clear message that this particular emergency is of immediate importance over everything else. We may be thinking about the stresses of our job, our own family emergencies of the past week, the murder we just read about in the news, the disasters we just watched on television. In the midst of all that, we hear or witness cries for help and they may just add to the noise in our head. What is real? What is the most important? Which thing do we put our energy into at any given moment? Perhaps some people have learned to control this mental noise better than others. Learning skills such as controlling the amount of information we let in and the number of social circles we choose to be a part of, can lessen the many directions our brain is going in. Practicing coping skills such as meditation and mindfulness can create a peaceful sense of presence that can allow us to better focus on the present situation without all of the mental overload encroaching. I wonder if there is a common theme among bystanders that do step in to help in an emergency. What do they have that the rest don’t? Certainly they are choosing to push past fear and courageously act. But mentally, have they learned to be present and take in their surroundings better than others?
References
Schneider, F., Gruman, J., & Coutts, L. (2012). Applied social psychology: Understanding and addressing social and practical problems. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
I think you analyzed the situation, with the public information available, to the best of anyone’s ability, honestly. I thought the information you presented in the breakdown of the components of the bystander effect were spot on. Personally, I feel that audience inhibition, and as you said, the feeling of being ostracized for acting any differently than the other brothers, was the major influencer there. Social influence and diffusion of responsibility played a role, don’t get me wrong, I think your analyses of those were perfectly stated as well; however, I simply feel that audience inhibition and the sort of fear that came from that was what had the largest influence. Fraternities, in my opinion, carry that code of secrecy, which almost forces each member to act as the others are. Throughout the pledge and hazing experience, it’s almost as if they’re taught to cover for each other and do as the higher rank says. Unfortunately, when this event took place, I think the group of fraternity members who were present simply feared that if they didn’t act accordingly, then something horrific would happen to them. This, combined with the amounts of alcohol consumed, diffusion of responsibility, etc., absolutely destroyed the possibility of handling the situation as it should have been, sadly.
Hi there,
I think you picked a topic that hits close to home for a lot of us. I was still living on main campus when this happened I remember being so angry that no one did anything. Reading your post, though, and after this lesson, as awful as it is, I do understand better why they did what they did. That doesn’t make what they did right, but it makes more sense to me. I know I have witnessed uncomfortable confrontations that I didn’t deem dangerous enough to get involved in, but I have often wondered if things escalated once I left the scene and if they did, I could’ve prevented it maybe. What usually stops me is audience inhibition. I don’t want to look weird or crazy and embarrass myself or others. Excellent post, thank you for shedding some insight on this.
Hello,
Your post has a good integration of the material from this lesson with a real life example that many of us are familiar with. This scenario is tragic and it infuriates me because it could have been prevented and a life could have been saved. I think your explanation of the three factors: audience inhibition, social influence, and diffusion of responsibility were accurate for the situation. All of these factors with the addition of heavy drinking created the worst outcome possible, and it goes to show how detrimental the bystander effect can be.
Certain states (one of which is Pennsylvania) have medical amnesty laws, which grants someone immunity from prosecution of consumption or possession of alcohol if they call paramedics for the sake of someone’s safety. Although this can still be disregarded given the situational variables, it’s something that should be made clear on campuses where this law is applicable. I think this law is a step in the right direction to potentially reduce the bystander effect in certain situations, like underage drinking.
Reference
https://studentaffairs.psu.edu/health-wellness/alcohol-amnesty
I remember first hearing about this case a year ago, and feeling terrible for his parents. Of course, this tragedy could’ve been easily avoided if anyone present would’ve just called 911! But as you explained, diffusion of responsibility, audience inhibition, and social influence, played a deadly role in this incident. I believe that developing interventions with lasting effects, could help curb such tragedies from taking place. For this particular case, there are many other factors to consider; it was a party, and there was underage drinking taking place. I am almost positive, that they placed their own well-being ahead of Timothy Piazza’s.
Hi,
Thank you for your post.
The diffusion of responsibility phenomenon boggles my mind. No matter how much I study it, it always makes me confused as to why someone just won’t act in an emergency. Tim’s death could have been easily prevented had someone been thinking straight and got him the medical attention he needed. I think they might not have called 911 because they were drunk and incapable of thinking clearly. They also might not have wanted to get into trouble if they were drinking underage. I think the two fraternity brothers who did not call 911 until an hour after had done so because of the ambiguity fo the situation. They might have thought that since no one did anything last night Tim didn’t need medical attention.