The Bystander Effect

Introduction

The bystander effect occurs when the presence of others discourage an individual from

intervening in an emergent situation. The concept was popularized by social psychologists Bibb

Latane and John Darley after the murder of Kitty Genovese (Pictured below) in New York City

in 1964. Genovese was stabbed to death outside of her apartment while her neighbors observed

the crime but did not step in to offer assistance or to call the police. Latane and Darley attributed

the phenomenon to a perceived sense of diffused responsibility. In other words, bystanders are

more likely to

intervene if

there are fewer

or no other

witnesses to an

event. The

theory also states that individuals in a group monitor and observe the behavior of those around

them in order to determine how to act. In the case of Kitty Genovese, each onlooker concluded

that the lack of activity and interference from their neighbors meant that their own personal

assistance was not needed either.

Latane and Darley created several different social experiments to test the bystander effect

in different situations.The first experiment dealt with the reactions of individuals when a room

began to fill with smoke. Subjects began to fill out a questionnaire in a room that slowly was

filled with smoke. In one condition, the subject was alone in the room. In another, three subjects

were in the room together. In the final condition one innocent unknowing subject was placed in a
room with two other individuals who had been instructed to notice, and ignore the smoke and

continue to fill out the questionnaire as if nothing was wrong. The final results showed that

roughly 75% of subjects who had been left in the room alone calmly left to report the smoke to

someone. Surprisingly in the condition with three naive subjects, only 38% reported the smoke.

Unsurprisingly, only 10% of naive subjects who were in a room with two other informed

individuals reported the smoke. Other studies similar to this one have shown that togetherness

reduces fear, even when the immediate danger, in this case smoke, is not reduced.

Latane and Darley’s second experiment titled, “Lady in Distress,” tested the reaction time

of subjects to respond to the sound of a woman in pain, due to a broken leg. In the experiment

subjects waited either alone, with a friend, with a passive confederate, or with a stranger in the

room. The room in which the subjects sat was separated from another room by a curtain which

all of the subjects saw as they were led to their waiting room. The test proctor then returned to

the room behind the curtain and turned on a tape recording that simulated a fall, followed by a

woman moaning about an injured leg. The experimenters then watched and measured the percent

of people who took action, and how long it took them to respond. The results of the experiment

showed that 61% of test subjects pulled back the curtain to check on the experimenter, 14%

entered through another door, and 24% of subjects simply called out. No one went to report the

supposed accident. 70% of subjects who sat in the room alone reacted and offered to help, while

only 7% of subjects who were placed with a passive confederate responded. The subjects placed

with the passive confederate were reported to look concerned and confused and frequently

looked over at the confederate. 40% of people paired with a stranger responded to the stimulus.

70% of people paired with a friend offered help (the same percent as those who were alone). This

shows some inhibition from test subjects because given the 70% alone rate Latane and Darley
expected a 91% rate with no inhibition. Subjects who intervened reported that they acted because

the situation seemed

serious and it was the

right thing to do.

Those who didn’t

intervene said they

were unsure about

what had happened but

that it didn’t seem too

serious. Others said

that they didn’t want to

embarrass the experimenter. Test subjects felt that they were not influenced by others in the

room. The test results of this experiment confirm the results of the smoke study. The risk of

inappropriate behavior is less with friends, and friends are less likely to develop a “pluralistic

ignorance.”

Our Experiment: Procedure

In order to test the bystander effect, our group is going to set up a social experiment to

see if the results of Latane and Darley’s original experiments hold up. We will be taking an eight

year old boy and instructing him to wander, in a specific pattern, around a crowded area, looking

around as if he is searching for his parents. He will be instructed to call: “Harris! Harris? Where

are you?” repeatedly. He will continue to wander for a maximum of 45 minutes or until someone

stops to offer assistance. If after the allotted time no one has offered to help, we will move to a
location with fewer people (A group of 4 people). The same procedure will be followed for the

same amount of time or until someone offers assistance. Finally, we will move to a more remote

location where there is only one individual present. The same procedure will be followed. If any

individual in any location offers assistance to the child, the rest of the group will approach and

inform the test subject of the

experiment and have them

sign the appropriate consent

forms. The reaction times of

test subjects in each location

will be closely monitored and

recorded. Video cameras will

be used to capture every part

of the experiment.

Anticipated Results.

We anticipate that the results of this social experiment will closely follow the results of

Latane and Darley’s various experiments. In the crowded location, we believe it will take a

significantly longer time for someone to offer assistance to the child. When an individual is faced

with a potentially emergent situation, we believe they will act at a much more rapid pace than

someone surrounded by others. In context to our experiment, we believe that an individual will

offer assistance to the child almost immediately if they are the only person within the vicinity of

the child and have no other passive people to influence their decisions.
Experiment Results

The results of our experiment were not as consistent with our original hypothesis as we

had thought they would be. After completing the experiment, we found that neither groups of

people or individuals offered assistance to the child after an extended period of time (30-45

minutes). After we concluded the experiment we developed some possible reasons for the

results that were produced from our experiment. After the trial was over, we took a verbal survey

of a few of the people in the area at the time as we were testing. One couple said, “we did see

the kid walking around,” but when we asked if they heard him yelling for help, they said they did

not hear him. Another couple denied seeing or hearing Braeden (the child) even though, we all

witnessed him walk directly in front of the couple.

Now, there are some possible explanations as to why our experiment did not replicate the

same results as the original tests performed by Latane and Darley. First, we did not have total

control of the environment. There were several groups and individuals who were involved in

other activities that could have made them oblivious to the child. Second, the area in which our

test subject was roaming would have been a typical area for a child to be without his or her

parents in sight. Thirdly, passive confederacy could have had influence on the experiment. This

means that because we were not “associated” with the child, and did not try to offer assistance

we contributed to the sense of diffused responsibility.

While our recreation of the bystander effect experiments did not yield the same results,

we did find evidence that people are only aware of what they are looking for or involved in, and

perhaps a difference in generational culture and social expectation has changed the results of this

effect for us today.