We’ve all been in situations where the bystander effect may play a role in our actions. The text defines the bystander effect as a phenomena that states “people are less likely to help in an emergency when other bystanders are present.” The authors continue to explain that there is a diffusion of responsibility occurring. Others believe that with so many bystanders present, someone would assist someone in danger or in some other kind of emergency.
Either way, as I read various stories and anecdotes in the chapter on the criminal justice system, I couldn’t stop asking myself the moral calculus when these psychological principles are at play. Is someone afflicted by the bystander effect simply following their hardwired fight or flight mechanism or are people simply less inclined to engage with strangers compared to humans in past centuries?
I feel as if there has to be some sort of understanding on the part of those not intervening. The text tells the story of Matti Baranovski. Baranovski was killed by robbers in a playground in 1999. The playground was surrounded by busy roads and multiple witnesses reported hearing screams for help while the attack occurred. However, no one intervened and the situation ended tragically. One witness stuck out to me who was quoted in a newspaper report as saying she thought there were weapons involved and was traveling with her two children. Can we really blame this woman for not physically intervening and potentially adding to the victim count? The bystander effect seems to be a natural self-protection mechanism. I’m curious however if more people would intervene if they were the only bystander in a situation like Matti’s killing.
Gruman, J. A., Schneider, F. W., & Coutts, L. M. (Eds.). (2016). Applied social psychology : Understanding and addressing social and practical problems. SAGE Publications.