The term ‘Bystander effect’ can be defined as ‘the finding that an individual is less likely to intervene in an emergency situation when other people are present’ (Byford, 2014, p. 232).
There are two approaches to explaining the Bystander effect, experimental and discourse analysis. This essay will explore both of these approaches, comparing and contrasting them, using case studies that represent the two methods.
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
The experimental approach to explaining the bystander effect came about after the infamous Catherine Genovese case. In 1964 Catherine was attacked and killed on her way home from work, the ordeal, which lasted more than half an hour and was witnessed by 38 people, took place in the midst of a residential street. Out of all 38 people who witnessed the crime, only one person called the police and no one intervened to help Catherine during the attack. This prompted American psychologists Bibb Latan and John Darley (1970) cited in Byford (2014, p.228) to investigate why the 38 bystanders failed to intervene and stop the attack and explain what determines when someone will help.
Latan and Darley’s research involved a series of controlled experiments, each consisting of a simulated emergency situation that was staged in a laboratory with participants who were unaware the experiment was taking place. In each of these scenarios, they would manipulate the experimental situation by adding or taking away different variables, including how many other bystanders were present at the time of the emergency. One of these experiments named ‘lady in distress’ involved participants who were under the impression that they were invited to take part in a market research study. In the scenario they were given a fake questionnaire by a woman who knew about the experiment, she would then leave the room and a recording would be played which was made to sound like the woman had fallen over and hurt herself. ‘They heard a loud crash and a woman scream as the chair fell over. ‘Oh my God, my foot’¦,’ cried the representative. ‘I’¦I’¦can’t move’¦it. Oh, my ankle. I’¦can’t’¦can’t get this thing off’¦me’ (Latan and Darley (1970) cited in Byford (2014, p.229). With numerous variations, this scenario was repeated over a hundred times. One variation of the experiment contained 26 participants who were alone in the room when the emergency occurred, while the other had 14 participants plus one additional person who pretended to be a participant but was actually ordered not to assist in the emergency situation. In the third variation, the participants were put in pairs, both unaware of the experiment that was taking place. The results of Latan and Darley’s study showed that when students were alone in the room, 70% offered to assist the woman; however, when they were filling out the questionnaire with a stranger, 40% of participants offered to assist her and when in a room with a passive individual who was in on the experiment, only 7% of participants intervened; suggesting that individuals are less likely to step in when they are accompanied by an observer. These results indicate that an individual who witnesses an emergency alone is ‘ten times more likely to intervene than someone who witnesses the same event in the company of another unresponsive bystander’ (Byford, 2014, p.232).
People's respect for privacy, according to Latan and Darley, could also be a significant element in these results. People are generally afraid of interfering in other people's business or private lives; therefore, they do not become involved or intervene in circumstances that don't involve them directly. This is explained perfectly by Latan and Darley saying that ‘the injunction to help other people is always qualified by the requirement not to meddle in other people’s business’ (Byford, 2014, p.233). They also explained how, when confronted with an emergency scenario in the presence of other people, each individual will look towards others assuming someone else will help. This is known as the ‘diffusion of responsibility effect’ (Byford, 2014, p.233). Which is when a person feels less obligated to assist because the responsibility seems to be divided between all those who are present.
Many years later in 1993, three-year-old James Bulger was abducted by Jon Thompson and Robert Venables in Merseyside, Liverpool. After they took him out of the shopping mall where he was abducted, they walked James through the suburbs of the surrounding area for over two hours and eventually killed him on an isolated section of railway track. The murderers, who were both ten years old at the time, were seen by 38 witnesses as they were walking around the local streets with James. The majority of the witnesses testified they were aware that James was in distress at the time and some even described the improper behaviour towards him from Jon and Robert, describing them as being ‘rough’ with him and even mentioned how they ‘dragged’ James (Byford, 2014, p.226). Much like the Catherine Genovese case, not one of the eyewitnesses stepped in to help. This led to social psychologist Mark Levine (1999) cited in Byford (2014, p.235), to put forward another approach to explaining the bystander effect, discourse analysis. Levine believed that the bystander effect, as proposed by Latan and Darley, could not explain specific facts or evidence in the infamous case of James Bulger. There was a substantial variation in the experiences of each of the 38 witnesses; some were alone and others were in a busy street amongst other people. Despite the fact that the bystander effect predicts a change in reaction based on the number of individuals present, none of these witnesses intervened; causing Levine to propose that there is another reason besides the bystander effect that explains why the witnesses reacted this way.
Levine, like Latan and Darley, was curious to find out why there was no intervention from any of the 38 witnesses. However, Levine was primarily concerned in the Bulger case, unlike Latan and Darley, who were interested in bystander intervention in general. Levine studied and analysed the case's evidence, specifically the 38 witness testimonies from the trial. He found that the main reason given for the lack of interference was due to the perceived relationship between the young boys, with many believing they were brothers and linked their improper behaviour to poor family care. The findings of Levine's study suggested that the lack of action by onlookers was attributable to how each individual perceived what they saw, rather than just the number of bystanders present. This is very similar to Latan and Darley's point about respecting a stranger’s privacy and not meddling in something that does not involve them directly.
The main difference between the experimental method and discourse analysis is the type of evidence each approach uses to establish their hypotheses. The experimental method allows the researcher to test multiple scenarios with varying circumstances while still identifying how one factor affects another. Whereas, discourse analysis examines the meanings and connotations individuals give to their experiences using qualitative data obtained from real-life events, such as interviews and statements given by each individual witness. As the experimental method can be replicated with many different variables, studies can easily be compared to one another, while the discourse analysis method cannot be replicated due to the focus being on one case; it therefore is not comparable to any others as the results and circumstances are unparalleled. The results from both of these studies are also very different from one another, Latan and Darley found that individuals were less likely to intervene if another bystander was present. However, Levine’s study showed that the number of people present at the time did not make a difference in influencing someone’s decision not to act, as some were alone and others were in a crowded street.
This essay has outlined the two approaches to explaining the bystander effect; comparing and contrasting the research methods used, results found and hypotheses formed. By looking at the tragic cases of both Catherine Genovese and James Bulger it is clear that the bystander effect, however you may explain it, is embedded in our society. Both approaches to explaining the bystander effect have had a huge impact on social psychology as a whole and continues to provoke further research into this area of study.
Stuck on your essay?
