The Psychology of The Bystander Effect

On a cold February day in 1993, a two-year-old child, James Bulger was abducted from a busy shopping center in Bootle, Merseyside, by ten-year-olds Robert Thompson and Jon Venables. Holding James’ tiny hand, the boys led him through streets, over a canal, and past rows of houses. James, the little boy was visibly distressed, crying, and injured—a bruise already marking his forehead. Along the way, 38 people saw the trio. Some noticed James' tears; others questioned the boys briefly, asking if he was lost. Each time, the abductors lied and got away. Astonishingly, not one person followed up or called for help. They saw, they wondered, but they moved on.

Hours later, the two ten year olds subjected little James to unimaginable violence near a railway track. The horrific outcome left the nation reeling. Yet, amidst the shock and grief, one haunting question persisted: How could 38 different people see a distressed child and every single one of them fail to act?

This case is a tragic reminder of the bystander effect—how in moments of collective uncertainty, responsibility can dissolve into silence, with devastating consequences.

Want to know more about The Bystander Effect? We got you. This week we understand the psychology of The Bystander Effect.

THE BYSTANDER EFFECT

The bystander effect refers to a phenomenon in which the greater the number of people there are present, the less likely people are to help a person in distress. Why you ask? According to a 2011 study from the Psychological Bulletin, the presence of other people leads us to think that we have less responsibility to help the person in question. In turn, each person assumes someone else will take action—and often, this results in nobody actually stepping in to help at all

The term “the bystander effect” was formed following the violent attack and murder of a woman named Catherine “Kitty” Genovese. Similar to the previous one we discovered, approximately 38 neighbors heard Kitty’s cries for help, but not one called the police.

A 2018 research about The Bystander Effect revealed that a lone witness would offer help, but only 62% of people would intervene when they were part of a group of five bystanders.

There are several suggested causes behind The Bystander Effect, here are a few-

• Diffusion of Responsibility

  • When in a group, individuals feel less personal accountability because the responsibility to act is perceived as shared among all present. This leads to a sense that someone else will intervene, making each person less likely to take action themselves.

• Evaluation Apprehension

  • People often hesitate to help because they fear being judged by others in the group. They worry about how their actions will be perceived, especially if their intervention turns out to be unnecessary or inappropriate. This fear of negative social evaluation can paralyze decision-making and action.

• Pluralistic Ignorance

  • In situations where nobody is acting, individuals may mistakenly believe that others interpret the situation as non-urgent. This creates a collective inaction, as everyone looks to others for cues, reinforcing the idea that no help is needed, even if they personally feel concerned.

• Situational Ambiguity

  • Uncertainty about whether an event truly constitutes an emergency can cause hesitation. People may feel unsure about the correct course of action and prefer to wait for clearer signals before intervening, especially if the situation appears ambiguous or non-threatening.

• Group Dynamics and Size

  • The larger the group, the less likely it is that any one person will step forward to help. Social cues from the group, such as others’ hesitation or passivity, can further discourage action. In contrast, smaller groups often foster a stronger sense of individual responsibility and action.

AN INTERESTING CASE STUDY

The Smoke-Filled Room Experiment (1968)

Conducted by Latane and Darley, this study examined how the presence of others affects individuals’ likelihood to respond to an emergency.

Method:

Participants were placed in a room under the pretense of completing a survey. During the session:

1. Condition 1: The participant was alone.

2. Condition 2: The participant was in a group with two confederates (people pretending to be participants).

3. Condition 3: The participant was in a group with two other genuine participants.

While participants worked, harmless smoke began seeping into the room through a vent, simulating a potentially dangerous situation.

Results:

• When alone: About 75% of participants reported the smoke within a few minutes.

• In a group with two confederates (who ignored the smoke): Only 10% of participants reported the smoke, as they assumed it wasn’t an emergency since others weren’t reacting.

• In a group of three genuine participants: Around 38% of participants reported the smoke, suggesting hesitation increased with group size but was less extreme than with passive confederates.

The study demonstrated how pluralistic ignorance and diffusion of responsibility contribute to the bystander effect. When individuals see others remain calm or inactive, they assume the situation is not serious, even if they feel otherwise. This reliance on social cues can delay or prevent action in emergencies.

HOW TO UPSTAND NOT BYSTAND

Counteracting the bystander effect is crucial because it directly impacts the ability to save lives and provide timely assistance during emergencies. When individuals fail to act due to the bystander effect, critical help is delayed, potentially worsening outcomes for those in need.

Upstanding in 5 Steps (Rodenhizer-Stämpfli et al., 2018; Nelson et al., 2011)

The "Upstanding in 5 Steps" model, as outlined by Rodenhizer-Stämpfli et al. (2018) and Nelson et al. (2011), provides a structured framework to encourage proactive intervention in discriminatory or emergency situations. This approach emphasizes moving from passive observation to active involvement.

• Notice and Interpret the Situation

  • Recognize when a discriminatory or emergency situation is unfolding and understand its significance.

• Evaluate the Problematic Nature

  • Assess whether the incident is harmful or unjust and decide if intervention is necessary.

• Assume Responsibility for Intervening

  • Overcome the tendency to rely on others and accept personal responsibility to act.

• Know and Decide How to Intervene

  • Determine the safest and most effective way to approach the situation, whether through direct action or seeking help.

• Take Action

  • Act decisively to address the issue, whether by stepping in, supporting the victim, or rallying others to assist.

That is all for this issue of Mindset Matters. The Bystander Effect reminds us that acting decisively in emergencies isn't just an individual responsibility, it is a collective imperative to foster a more compassionate and responsible society. If you are further interested in the bystander effect you can check out a few resources that we recommend, below. See you next time!

~The Mindset Matters Team