The Bystander Effect and Why We Fail to Act

What is the Bystander Effect?

The concept of the bystander effect ¹ was popularized by social psychologists in 1964 following the infamous murder of Kitty Genovese. Kitty was brutally attacked outside her apartment in New York City. It was reported that dozens of neighbors either witnessed the attack or heard her cries for help, yet no one came to her rescue or called the police.

But, why did neighbors fail to take action? 

The bystander effect is attributed to two primary factors: diffusion of responsibility and social influence. ² Diffusion of responsibility is the phenomenon that occurs when multiple people are present during an emergency. Each individual assumes someone else will take action, leading to a decreased sense of responsibility. The more bystanders present, the less likely any one person will feel compelled to intervene. Social influence refers to how people tend to look to others in a group for cues on how to behave. If no one is helping, people are often to interpret this as a signal that action is not needed.

In the case of Kitty, neighbors assumed that in a busy city, someone else is likely to intervene, therefore there is no need for them to intervene. Being in a busy city with many bystanders acts as a situational factor that amplifies the bystander effect. There are several situational factors that amplify bystander behavior, making it less likely for people to help during an emergency like the number of bystanders, ² ambiguity of the situation, and the relationship between the victim and bystander. ³ The more people present leads to a greater diffusion of responsibility, reducing the likelihood of intervention. Additionally, people fear misinterpreting the situation and facing consequences or embarrassment for intervening. The more unclear the emergency is, the less likely people are to intervene. However, the bystander is more likely to help if they know the victim. The perceived connection to the victim can significantly influence the decision to act. 

Specific Challenges in Cases of Sexual Assault ⁴

Research shows that in situations involving sexual assault, certain factors further complicate the likelihood of bystander intervention. These challenges are multifaceted and deeply rooted in societal attitudes and individual perceptions. 

Gender and Sexist Attitudes

Those who are male or hold sexist attitudes are statistically less likely to intervene in cases of sexual assault. For example, at a nightclub a male patron sees another male aggressively dancing with a woman who appears uncomfortable. The male patron dismisses it, thinking she might “be asking for it” because of her choice of clothing. 

Substance Use

Individuals under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol are less likely to recognize the severity of a situation or may feel less capable of intervening. Impaired judgment and reduced inhibitions can significantly hinder the likelihood of bystander intervention. For example, at a house party several people notice a stumbling highly intoxicated woman being led upstairs by a man. Those witnessing this event may fail to assess the situation appropriately because they are intoxicated or they may feel too impaired to step in. 

Norms

Cultural and social norms ² in some cases may discourage bystander intervention. For example, you often hear your neighbors fighting in the evening. The fighting may have escalated and you hear your neighbor calling out for help and screaming. Influenced by cultural norms that discourage involving yourself in others’ “private” matters, you choose to ignore the situation. 

Fear

Witnesses may fear that intervening in a sexual assault could lead to personal harm or retaliation ⁵ from the perpetrator. For example, while walking home at night, a person sees a woman being forcefully grabbed by a man in a secluded area. The witness fears that intervening could lead to physical harm and decides to leave the area. 

Victim-blaming

If a witness believes the victim-survivor did something to invite the assault, they are less likely to offer help. For example, a student in a college dorm hears a commotion in the room next door and realizes a fellow student is being sexually assaulted. However, the bystander was at a party earlier that night with the fellow student who they saw flirting and dancing with another student. The bystander assumes that the victim’s behavior at the party earlier invited the attack and decides to not report. 

Uncertain Interpretations

A bystander may hesitate to act in situations where there is uncertainty about consent. A fear of misinterpreting the situation and the potential for social or legal consequences can create a significant barrier to intervention. For example, in a group of friends you notice a couple where one person seems to be unresponsive to the other’s advances. The bystander is unsure if it’s a case of non-consensual behavior or a misunderstanding, thus they decide to not intervene, worried about causing a problem. 

Overcoming the Bystander Effect ^{5, 6}  

Understanding the bystander effect is the first step toward overcoming it. By recognizing the situational and psychological barriers that prevent actions, individuals can be better prepared to intervene in emergency situations. Training programs, public awareness campaigns, and education on bystander intervention can empower people to act decisively and help those in need, potentially saving lives.

Learn more about Bystander Intervention with our free Bystander Intervention Course on PAVE University.

Sources

1. Hudson, J. M., & Bruckman, A. S. (2004). The Bystander Effect: A Lens for Understanding Patterns of Participation. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(2), 165–195. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1302_2 
2. Chekroun, P., & Brauer, M. (2002). The bystander effect and social control behavior: The effect of the presence of others on people’s reactions to norm violations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 32(6), 853-867. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.126 
3. Garcia, S. M., Weaver, K., Moskowitz, G. B., & Darley, J. M. (2002). Crowded minds: The implicit bystander effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(4), 843–853. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.83.4.843 
4. Labhardt, D., Holdsworth, E., Brown, S., & Howat, D. (2017). You see but you do not observe: A review of bystander intervention and sexual assault on university campuses. Aggression and violent behavior, 35, 13-25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2017.05.005 
5. Kistler, T., Stuart, G. L., & Cornelius, T. L. (2022). Barriers to Bystander Interventions for Sexual Assault: Impact of Personal History of Sexual Victimization. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 37(17-18), NP16727-NP16749. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260521102349 
6. Fischer, P., Krueger, J. I., Greitemeyer, T., Vogrincic, C., Kastenmüller, A., Frey, D., Heene, M., Wicher, M., & Kainbacher, M. (2011). The bystander-effect: A meta-analytic review on bystander intervention in dangerous and non-dangerous emergencies. Psychological Bulletin, 137(4), 517–537. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023304