Bystander Effect

Because the “bystander” effect is such a prevalent problem today, I have many different things to say about it.

In my opinion, the greatest factor that prevents someone from stepping in and helping a victim in a time of danger is fear - fear of what may happen to them if they were to step in and help, fear of getting involved with the police, etc. Another factor that prevents one from stepping in and helping is that we all have this common thought in our minds: “someone around me is bound to help (the victim), so I don’t need to”. The problem with such a thought is that we are all thinking it, resulting in absolutely nothing being done.

In the article you linked by The Guardian, it mentions the story about a homeless man named Hugo Tale-Yax who helped a woman who was being repeatedly knifed by an assailant. He eventually saved the woman, but was unfortunately greatly injured himself. As he lay there in his own pool of blood, nobody cared to assist him in any way. People walked by and stared. Others recorded the incident – something that happens A LOT in today's society. Recording an unjust event (and posting it on social media) is great for raising awareness, but it’s also a first-hand example of the bystander effect: the recorder is not helping the victim. Rather than recording the event, the recorder should step in and help, in my opinion.

Right now, at rest, we would think that if we ever witnessed an unjust act, we’d surely help the victim with no hesitation. This calculated decision is being made with reason because we are calm and perhaps not actually experiencing the event. In the event of the actual happening, one’s anxiety and fear (our emotions) inevitably come into play and push our reason out of the window. We suddenly let the uncertainty of what would happen to us if we were to step in haunt us. This fear and uncertainty is preventing us from making a good decision (to help the victim).

One way to solve this problem is to encourage the bystander to (if the incident allows such time) think carefully before acting, but to definitely ACT. If stress and anxiety prevents us from helping the victim, perhaps taking a moment to formulate a rational decision to help the victim would help. We must remind ourselves that, regardless of the danger it may put us in, the right thing to do is to help the victim.

The bystander apathy I have never fully experienced when it comes to emergency situations. However, I have witnessed it on a small scale. The most I am aware of it is at school during school projects. I feel during group projects the work is never equally distributed. Instead, people tend to rely on other group members to get the grade that they desire. Normally the majority of the work ends up being given to the student who cares the most about the grade, or who knows the most about the subject. People less interested tend to slack off and and let others take over for them. Although group projects are very different than someone someone reporting a crime, or stopping a murder, it is still the same idea of not doing an action because there are others involved. If the assignment is individual, people are required to complete the work or else it wont get done. Similarly, if there is only one witness they must intervene or else the crime will continue.

I think when it comes to more serious situations it is hard to tell how people will react unless they are actually experiencing the event. Personally, I would like to think I am the type of person that would intervene. However, if in the moment I feel unsafe, I cannot confidently say that I would. I think it really depends on the situation and how comfortable someone feels in the exact moment on whether or not they will respond. That being said, it is not a safe bet to assume that other people are responding. So if someone is comfortable they should act on it.

I've watched videos on other social experiments as well that have tested people's reactions to public rape, suicide attempts, or catcalling. It's definitely interesting to see in which situations people are most willing to step in and why this may be so. I think people would be more willing to help in situations in which they are least likely to be physically harmed.

While I can't currently think of a specific situation in which I've experienced bystander effect, I'm sure I have experienced it before. I agree that bystander effect can occur on a smaller scale in our daily lives.

In response to Clifford, I may be able to answer your question regarding whether or not a doctor MUST help in a medical emergency because my dad is an orthopedic surgeon. While I do not know if this applies to all doctors, my dad has told me that he would never turn away a patient that is in a life or death circumstance. He believes that as a doctor, it is his obligation to help those in need. In fact, during my parents' honeymoon he saved a woman's life. The woman was lying on the beach behind a mound of sand. Nearby, two men were throwing a javelin to each other, but one threw it too hard and it went over the mound of sand directly into the chest of the woman on the beach. The man who went to retrieve the javelin was stunned to see it had impaled the woman and immediately yelled asking for the help of a doctor. My dad was quick to join the scene and assist the woman until a helicopter rescue came to take her to the nearest hospital. The rescue team said that if my dad hadn't taken the actions he did to help the woman, she might have lost her life. Then, the hotel bought him a drink at the bar as a thanks. True story.

Paola's post made me think about the contribution of social media to the diffusion of responsibility. The example I am going to give does not apply necessarily to emergency situations but more generally to anything that requires action from participation in a political rally from adoption of a puppy. In my country (Turkey) when something outrageous happens such as a corruption scandal or a case police violence everyone post about it on their Facebook pages. I would guess that the number of people who actually go to protests are smaller then the people who post about it. In cases like this, sharing something on social media can be contributing to decrease our sense of responsibility. When we post something we actively include bystanders in the event and according to the results of the experiment we become less likely to act.

The bystander effect is a really interesting because it shows the dissociation of responsibility among the members of society when faced with a dilemma. In the Kitty case, the people were exposed to the murder of some stranger and since they saw that others were observers of the murder, the result was that no one bothered to do much about it. Some may say that the reason no one responded with care was not only because other people were watching, but also the fact that the people didn't have much of an emotional connection with the person and therefore they were less likely to act on the situation. Im more interested to know how a group of friends would react to witnessing a fellow friend experiencing a seizure. Would the bystander effect still apply and would the responsibility be dispersed among the friends, or would the variable be dependent on the kind of relationship held with the friend. In the situations presented in the experiments, is the fact that the person in danger is a stranger relevant in any way? Im sure the response to act diminishes as there are more people present in witnessing the situation, but my question is whether this still applies in a group where everyone knows each other and a friend or family member acts as the subject being affected. Its just interesting to see to what extent the bystander effect works and how culture, class, family and friends may be possible factors that may contribute to overall effect.