A well-known psychological finding often taught as part of introductory psychology is the ‘bystander effect’ which proposes that a person is less likely to intervene to assist someone in need if there are other bystanders present than if they are alone.
The basis of the effect emerged in research that began following an incident in 1964 where a woman, Kitty Genovese, was raped and murdered in a central district of New York, reportedly in the presence of 38 people. While the accuracy of the number of bystanders has since been challenged and is likely to be much lower, the case has led to research spanning over a quarter of a century investigating the bystander effect and potential explanations for it.
A recent paper published in American Psychologist (Liebst, Bernasco, & Lindegaard, 2019) sought to investigate the likelihood of the bystander effect in real-life emergency situations. Described as the largest systematic study of real-life bystander intervention, naturally occurring conflictual incidents captured in video surveillance footage in inner-city public areas identified a total of 219 aggressive incidents (a conflict between at least two people but no related incident, for example, robbery, traffic accident) across three countries (United Kingdom [n=95], Netherlands [n=63] and South Africa [n=61]). Conflicts ranged from mild disagreement to serious physical violence.
Study aims
- To determine the proportion of conflicts captured by public cameras where at least one bystander intervenes.
- To investigate any differences in intervening across the three countries.
- To assess whether the likelihood of intervening increases with additional bystander presence.
Did anyone help?
In investigating a high number of real-life acts of conflict in public places the authors found that in nine out of 10 cases, at least one bystander stepped in, although it was typically more than one bystander. This finding challenges the long-held view that bystanders are reluctant and unlikely to help, particularly if there are a number of others also witnessing the incident.
The likelihood of an individual intervening did not vary across the three countries from which the video footage was sought. This came as a surprise to the authors who anticipated differences, particular when comparing findings for South Africa – in this case the city of Cape Town – where perceptions of safety are much lower than in the Netherlands and United Kingdom.
Finally, in this study, contrary to historical reporting of the bystander effect, the number of bystanders present was positively associated with the likelihood that an individual will intervene. Each additional bystander increased the likelihood of intervention by an odds ratio of 1.1.
The authors conclude, with a reassuring message given their findings, that in emergency situations it is likely that someone will come to a person’s aid. They recommend a refocus of future research away from investigating resistance to helping to further understanding when and why a person decides to help.
dx.doi.org/10.1037/amp0000469