Bystander Effect: Weird Reason You Fail At Helping Others

The bystander effect is a psychological theory that studies why individuals are less likely to offer help to a victim in the presence of other people. It was proposed in 1964 after the murder of Kitty Genovese, when a newspaper reported that 38 bystanders saw or heard the attack without coming to her assistance—an attack of rape and stabbing. If a single individual is asked to complete a task on their own, there will likely be a positive response and strong sense of responsibility. Whereas when a group is asked to complete a task together, the responsibility diffuses, and the potential of the group not utilized.

This phenomenon is one of the most replicable and strongest effects in all of social psychology. In typical experiments, the participant is either alone or in a group of confederates. An emergency is then staged and researchers measure how long it takes for the participants to intervene—if they do intervene. For instance, a study around a woman in distress where subjects were either by themselves or with a friend showed that 70 percent of those alone called out or went to help the woman, but only 40 percent when paired with a stranger.

The intervention of bystanders is often the only reason bullying or crimes cease. And the social paralysis induced by the bystander effect can stop us from providing that help. According to the researchers who identified the effect, there are five factors that affect bystanders: the emergency involves threat of harm or actual harm; the emergency is unusual or rare; the type of action in the emergency differs from situation to situation; the emergency cannot have been predicted or expected; the emergency requires immediate action. Evidence even shows that folks can be bystanders when they do not see the person in distress: in online chat rooms with many members, bystanders are less likely to offer a hand or take longer to do so.

Notable real-life instances. The murder of Kitty Genovese: on March 13th, 1964, a 28-year-old bartender was stabbed, sexually assaulted, and murdered while dozens of witnesses watched the event and did not intervene. The Jane Doe case: on October 24th, 2009, a female student of Richmond High School was gang-raped and beaten after a classmate invited her to a courtyard outside the school’s homecoming dance, while as many as 20 people watched the event, several reportedly cheering and videotaping it. Jane Doe was hospitalized with scrapes and bruises all over her face and body, scars of cigarette burns on her back, and hips popped out of place. The murder of Piang Ngaih Don: in July 2016, a 24-year-old Myanmar citizen was abused and murdered by her employer in the presence of a police officer.

At the core of this model is the diffusion of responsibility. When more than one person is present, the perceived responsibility of each individual diminishes. The so-called “Someone else might…” state of mind. People monitor the behavior of those around them to decide how to act. When most others are not acting, this creates a low-urgency bias. A social norm of inaction. Further, we fear being judged negatively or making a mistake, like by offering help when it is not needed. These elements stack themselves, and we find ourselves paralyzed, unable to help those in need.

Real life implications of the bystander effect:

• Emergencies: if you are a victim or observer, address individuals directly; instead of “Somebody call 9-1-1!” shout “You in the red shirt, call 9-1-1!” as people in crowds wait for leadership to encourage action;

• Workplace: in team settings, responsibilities become diluted, so it makes sense to clarify roles to reduce the bystander effect during projects in lieu of giving vague requests to departments;

• Advocacy: large-scale problems, like climate change or social justice, often demonstrate the bystander effect, as the masses feel their contributions are insignificant; highlight how impactful individual actions—voting, recycling, donating—are to combat collective inaction;

• Education: anti-bullying initiatives should address the bystander effect, urging students to speak up or intervene in lieu of staying silent.

How you might employ the bystander effect as a thinking tool: (1) cultivate awareness, recognizing the presence of the bystander effect in group settings, whether at work, in public, or your social circles; (2) take initiative, realizing that personal action disrupts the cycle of inaction, like by stepping forward instead of waiting for others because leading might inspire the masses; (3) create a culture of responsibility, encouraging your subordinates and peers to take ownership of their tasks by delegating clearly and responsibly; (4) help others by raising awareness of the bystander effect for those who might benefit most, such as schools, empowering people to act decisively.

Thought-provoking insights. “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” reminds us of the consequences of inaction, often attributed to Edmund Burke. The Biblical story of the Good Samaritan highlights the importance of individual responsibility, as while others ignored the injured man, the Samaritan offered assistance. “He who saves one life, saves the world entire.” is a Talmudic saying that emphasizes the profound impact individual actions have on situations. “If not me, then who?” is a great question to ask to urge yourself to overcome inertia. The bystander effect is not insurmountable. Help those in need. Remember having read this in that critical moment.