The Bystander Effect and Different Human Reactions on Events

In the first article, “Why and How Do We Help”, by Susan Krauss Whitbourne, the author takes a look at the various reasons as to why bystanders act the way they do. She explains the theory of “diffusion of responsibility”. Bystanders don’t help in a situation because of the distribution of responsibility between a group of onlookers.

When there is more than one person witnessing a situation, bystanders feel that it is not their responsibility to help the victim, since there are other people there. Whitbourne says, “The theory states that people ask themselves: ‘Why should I help when there’s someone else who could do it?'” (2). People’s sense of responsibility weakens when they are amongst a large group of people. However, not all people turn a blind eye. “In the hundreds of bystander studies, a few anomalies stood out when bystanders actually didn’t just stand by, but actually helped the victim” (2). Bystanders are more likely to help the victim if they know them, compared to if the bystander was a stranger. “They were particularly likely to help when the person in need of help was also a friend or is someone they see as similar to them in an important way” (2). Whitbourne also states, “People will help others in emergency situations the more closely they identify with the victim as a member belonging to their own group” (2). Empathy is another factor that plays a role in a bystander’s decision-making. “Social psychologist Robert Cialdini points out that empathy is directly tied into feelings of ‘oneness’ with the person in need. Others point to the importance of ‘we-ness’, feeling that another person is a member of your own group…”(2).

The second article, “The Bystander Effect: Why We Do Nothing When a Stranger Needs Our Help”, by Stephanie Wood, claims that in any situation where someone needs help, as the number of bystanders grows, the probability that any one bystander will help decreases. The time taken to help the victim also increases.

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

Place Order

Dr. Helen Paterson, a senior lecturer in forensic psychology at the University of Sydney, reasons that it’s not a lack of caring, it’s not knowing what to do. The bystander effect is also known as the “Genovese syndrome”, which is named after a situation where people stood by while someone was in grave danger. Kitty Genovese was stabbed to death in the streets of New York in 1964. Neighbors who were aware of her situation did nothing while she screamed for help. Peterson explains, “If people can see that there are others around who are witnessing the incident, everybody thinks, ‘well perhaps I’m not the best person to help them, that person there looks stronger, or maybe that person there is more capable’ ” (2). “Pluralistic ignorance” is used to describe these situations. Sometimes, certain situations are “unclear” or “ambiguous”, and the bystander does not know how to respond. So, they look at the other bystanders to see how everyone else is responding. If the others aren’t doing anything to help, Paterson says people will think, “oh well, they’re probably not doing something because there’s no reason to do something, it’s not a real emergency” (2). What they don’t know is all the other bystanders are doing exactly what they are doing, and seeing how the other people would respond to the situation.

Earlier this year, an incident occurred involving a woman named Aida on Railway Street in Liverpool. She tried to fight off a man who “tried to drag her into a car”. Three other men were inside the car and there were “dozens of people around” ignoring her situation. Despite her screams for help, no one helped her. Many people shared their opinions on the matter over Twitter. The Christian Democratic Party said, “Shootings, bashings, and now abductions all caused by a lack of morality and values” (2). Reverend Fred Nile tweeted, “A real loss of empathy and humanity” (2). Other users of the site scold the bystanders for their actions, saying “bystanders were too cowardly, too busy recording the event on their phones or taking selfies, or too concerned about getting bashed up or sued” (2).

Wood also reasons that bystanders don’t respond to certain situations because they fear for their safety if they get involved. There are many situations that have occurred where the bystander becomes severely injured or dies because they intervened in dangerous events. Brendan Keilar was shot dead in Melbourne in 2007 when he tried to stop a biker from assaulting a woman. Daniel Christie, another man, died on New Year’s Eve after he tried to help a victim who was being assaulted. He “tried to be a good Samaritan in the face of an assailant’s attack on someone else” (2). Both articles give insight and explain people’s reasonings as to why they do/don’t react in a situation. Also, both articles point out that the more people witnessing a situation, the less likely someone will step in. Either everyone thinks someone else will step in eventually, or they reason that if no one else is reacting to the situation, there is no emergency. However, the first article states that people are more likely to help out if they have a connection with the victim. They are less likely to help if the victim is a stranger to them. The second article states that bystanders don’t help the victim because they don’t know what to do. They don’t know how to respond when the situation is unclear.

I think that having a large group of people in an area does play a role in expectations of someone actually helping the victim. Some people just don’t want to risk their health getting involved in violent situations. I also believe that if the bystander has a connection with the victim, he/she is more likely to help the victim because they will feel that it is their obligation. They will feel guilty if they don’t and the victim gets hurt.