
A new study uses camera footage to track the frequency of bystander intervention - aaronbrethorst
https://www.citylab.com/life/2019/07/bystander-effect-stranger-danger-crime-public-safety-video/593755/
======
goto11
The infamous murder of Kitty Genovese in 1964 was reported the medias as 38
witnesses in an apartment block saw or heard the murder but none did anything
to save her, not even call the police. In 2007 someone digged into the story
and discovered that this was wildly exaggerated. Only a few witnesses has seen
the violence and they did in fact call the police - the police just didn't
respond in a timely manner.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Kitty_Genovese](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Kitty_Genovese)

Of course the original story resonated because it played into the eternal
narrative that people "these days" don't care about each other, society is
falling apart etc.

~~~
kartan
> people "these days" don't care about each other, society is falling apart
> etc.

Interesting point.It was 1964. The same people that complain about the current
generation.

I think that it's great that this myth of debunked. People wants to be good.
Give people education and means and they will run a society smoothly.

~~~
Wohlf
Every generation thinks they invented casual sex, every generation thinks the
new generation is ruining the world. This has been true as long as history has
been recorded.

~~~
bradknowles
/insert lyrics from "We Didn't Start the Fire"

------
pure-awesome
I had a realization the last time we had a fire drill:

It wasn't scheduled, so when the alarm went off, we all looked at each other
for a few moments like "is the siren just on the fritz or should we walk out?"
After awhile we decided we'd better get going so we all lazily strolled
outside.

On the way, I noticed one of my coworkers in a fire marshal uniform, in the
corridor, calling out for people to evacuate.

I realized this is a perfect way to prevent the bystander effect: just give a
random person a "uniform" (a whistle, a badge, a hat, or a vest, anything
simple like that works) and tell them that when the alarm goes off, they are
responsible for telling people to leave.

It's as simple as that. Instead of us staring at each other trying to decide
whether the group considers it serious enough to go along with, just having
that person singled out as the "official" one was enough to get the momentum
going.

~~~
ohazi
Relatedly, if you ever need to delegate something like a 911 call, you're
supposed to single out a person and tell them, specifically "you, go dial 911"
rather than shouting "someone call 911!"

Apparently this makes it far more likely to actually happen.

~~~
bkor
Interestingly the standard procedure in The Netherlands for medical
emergencies (the ones where you find someone on the ground) changed to
actually calling yourself over asking a random bystander. Aside from calling
you should also put the phone on handsfree and lay it next to the person (on
the ground).

This as 112 (911) asks loads of questions. Age of the person, conscious
yes/no, what does the skin look like, feel like, etc. If it's about CPR it'll
be way easier of course... but procedure is also to call asap. Meaning right
after you find the person on the ground.. not after you checked.

I had to call 112 this week. In practice things are often different than any
procedure ;)

~~~
diydsp
I find this approach of taking individual responsibility much better than
handing over authority to a "person in a uniform" as the GP stated. Sure it's
easier to blindly trust the "official" one, but it sets up a disempowering
dynamic where the group is clueless and only looking for a charismatic leader
to point them in the right direction. For something cut as clearly as a fire
alarm, there is no reason why everyone over 10 years old can not respond
properly as single unit.

> Instead of us staring at each other trying to decide whether the group
> considers it serious enough to go along with, just having that person
> singled out as the "official" one was enough to get the momentum going.

~~~
rurp
Authoritarian structures work quite well in crisis situations, where acting
quickly is imperative. It's why the military has such a rigid command
structure and political leaders have emergency powers.

Democratic processes work better for longer term planning when there is time
for debate, compromise, and developing a deeper understanding of the issues.

------
feanaro
Two things:

\- Cameras may have caused the Hawthorne effect:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawthorne_effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawthorne_effect)

\- The article (the news one, haven't read the original yet) talks about the
increase of probability that _some_ bystander will act, with increase in group
size. The bystander effect study talks about the decrease of probability that
_a particular_ individual will act, with decrease in group size. These two
things may very well both be true and there may be some non-linear effect at
play (i.e. after a certain group size, the increase in the probability of
someone acting wins out over the decrease in any one person acting.

~~~
NegatioN
We should also consider that if there's a larger crowd of bystanders, an
individual will feel more sure that others will help them as long as they act.
"Safety in numbers" so to say.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
My first experience I put down to bystander effect:

I was giving first-aid to a guy with severe lacerations to his hand/arm and
didn't want to leave him (partially panic on my behalf) - in a UK city, albeit
a side-road, with shops and people walking past - but needed to call for an
ambulance.

Nobody would stop and help:

"Help! I need you to call an ambulance."

and people just carried on walking.

In the end I was able to makeshift a bandage with some clothing and leave the
guy sitting on the floor long enough to use the phone in the shop I was
working at.

The ambulance, despite having the address and business name, drove past and I
ended up running after it down the street ... overall an awful experience and
very eye-opening.

My takeaway is that I'd give up much sooner seeking help from others,
depressing as that is, and - contrary to my first-aid training - leave the
patient and call an ambulance myself.

Aside: I wonder if there's a villager/townie effect too?

------
squirrel
A relevant, classic bystander-effect experiment (Darley and Latane 1968) put
several participants, all subjects of the experiment, in a waiting room. Smoke
began to come into the room through a vent. In most groups, no one acted for a
very long time, even after the smoke led to breathing problems for
participants. By contrast, when only one person was in the room, not a group,
that person would almost always leave the room or call for assistance.

Differences from the OPs (very interesting) study: 1\. In the smoke room,
participants know they are in an experimental setting, though they do not know
that the waiting room is part of the experiment. 2\. The entire group is
visible in the waiting room. (In a crowd outside, you don’t know who else
might be acting or watching. In the waiting room you can see that no one else
is doing anything.) 3\. The threat is to you personally as well as to the
others in the group - an injury or a fight involving others is less personally
affecting than smoke that is making you cough in an enclosed room. 4\. D & L
experimented with small groups including a single person and saw dramatically
different results in the latter case. I’d be interested in seeing what happens
late at night when there are just one or two people around - what do the
camera show then?

Of these I suspect 2) has the greatest effect. If I see that literally no one
in the room is doing anything, I may figure that the situation is probably
under control or isn’t a big deal. In a big crowd outdoors I can’t draw that
conclusion as clearly.

~~~
watwut
Could it be that in 1968 you felt social pressure to keep cool and calm and
unafraid? In that experiment, the presence of "confederates", people who
cooperated with experimenters made everyone much more passive.

In 2019 you feel social pressure to act to look responsible and less pressure
to look unafraid, so we think differently.

------
Tharkun
This is all anecdata, but the article and the study are totally contrary to my
experience.

Over the years I've witnessed a variety of incidents where bystanders did
nothing -- however once someone makes the first move, it seems to become
easier for others to lend a hand.

When I was a teen, I dated someone who was a red cross volunteer, which
prompted me to take a couple of first aid classes. This has easily been the
most useful subject I've ever studied.

I've been witness to a suicide attempt, a cardiac arrest in a bar, an elderly
lady who fell down the stairs at the opera, several cases of guys beating on
their wives in public, two drunken attempted robberies, a variety of (literal)
gay bashing, random subway violence, and oodles of shit I can't recall. The
latest was two weeks ago: a hit and run with a teen victim with a very nasty
headwound.

In every one of those cases, no one did anything. The old lady at the opera
was the worst, I hadn't seen it happen, but I noticed a crowd of people on the
staircase on my way out. Maybe 20 people standing around her in a circle. I
asked if anyone had called for an ambulance yet, and no one even gave a
coherent response...

I've also been the victim of a random assault, in a very busy park in broad
daylight, and no one helped out. No one even dialed the emergency number, no
one even approached me to ask whether I was ok afterwards. There were probably
around a hundred witnesses.

I don't know whether this is a regional problem; most of these incidents
occurred in Belgium. Belgians aren't the most outgoing or the most eager to
take risks in general, but still.

Don't count on others to make the first move. Learn first aid and help out
whenever someone is in trouble. Even if it does mean you'll be late for that
important meeting or you could get blood on your shirt.

Violence is a bit trickier; what's worked well in my experience is to walk up
to the aggressor, but to pick someone else from the crowd and plainly tell
them "give me a hand". That gets the ball rolling.

Edit/addendum: every time something like this happens, I get an adrenaline
rush and am scared out of my mind. I'm sure this happens to the other
witnesses as well. I get it, it's hard to push through that, but do it anyway.

~~~
GordonS
> several cases of guys beating on their wives in public, two drunken
> attempted robberies, a variety of (literal) gay bashing, random subway
> violence, and oodles of shit I can't recall. The latest was two weeks ago: a
> hit and run with a teen victim with a very nasty headwound.

Wow, I had no idea Belgium was so violent!

~~~
scottishfiction
And you still have no idea. These are anecdotes collected over a long period
from which you can infer nothing.

~~~
Tharkun
Indeed. I certainly did not mean to imply that Belgium is particularly
violent. These anecdotes span about two decades. Having spent most of that
time living in dense population centres, usually in the poorer parts of town,
has certainly added some bias to my sample.

------
Jerry2
It's quite shocking to me how many social science and social psychology
experiments have been debunked in recent years. It's as if the whole field is
filled with false research. They should do what psychology has done and start
a massive replication effort of most cited results. [0] That should bring back
some credibility back to the field.

[0] [https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/scientists-
rep...](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/scientists-
replicated-100-psychology-studies-and-fewer-half-got-same-results-180956426/)

~~~
Iv
Social psychology is very hard. Making correct experiments is hard, costly,
often unethical and highly culture-dependent.

You can only get so far with questionnaire handled to middle-class/high-class
university students...

~~~
cm2187
Plus I would expect it would also be a function of the legal system. Some
countries like France are typically hostile to self-defence / vigilanties as
opposed to a country like the US. If you intervene and the assaulter gets
hurt, you might be in significant legal troubles.

~~~
cf498
I was shocked to learn about the difference a while back, especially
concerning first aid. In Germany you are facing criminal charges if you dont
aid injured people, by either first aid or calling an ambulance. Then you have
countries where not even dragging a person out of a burning car is protected
under good Samaritan laws.

------
blauditore
Besides the dangers of getting involved, it's sometimes hard to tell whether
something is a serious incident or just people fooling around. I've seen both
sides of this: Guys I assumed to be friends jokingly greeting each other while
in fact one was starting a serious fight and the other one was too drunk to
react appropriately. At some other time, I saw a woman yelling at a man, while
he was somehow holding her. Seconds later, they were laughing and walking off
side by side.

------
mcqueenjordan
I know this is an "armchair academic" comment, but I wonder if `places that
are likely to have active surveillance` strongly intersects with `places that
the bystander effect is less likely`. In other words, I wonder if there's a
crippling selection bias.

The reason I think this is possible is because I'm way more likely to help
someone if I don't think I'm endangering myself by doing so. Areas that are
actively surveilled are probably more likely to be safe areas for me to do so.

~~~
eridius
Surveillance cameras do not correlate with "not in danger". It's not like
people are watching these things in real time and jumping to action when they
see something. After all, if that were the case, then there'd be no reason for
bystanders to even get involved in these incidents at all.

~~~
mcqueenjordan
I'm not as confident as you that they "do not correlate with not in danger."
And I'm much less confident that they don't correlate with "perception of
danger."

They definitely correlate with a lot of things. They correlate with buildings
and power lines. And other things. And I think some of those things correlate
with perception of safety.

------
inlined
The article only uses footage from a few cities of Western culture. Good
Samaritan laws are not universal and the lack of one can have a chilling
effect on whether people will help. This is especially prominent in China
where there are a number of famous cases where the victim sued the Good
Samaritan claiming they caused the damages. It’s so prevalent that Alibaba is
trying to help promote social good by offering insurance in case you help the
elderly and are sued for it: [https://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-
china-good-samari...](https://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-china-good-
samaritan-insurance-20151020-story.html)

~~~
thereare5lights
That's not the bystander effect though. In China, they're afraid of legal
repercussions. In the bystander effect, it's diffusion of responsibility. Same
effect but different causes.

~~~
inlined
Fair and interesting point. The same outcome is irrelevant to the supposed
phenomenon that causes it, though the study wouldn’t be able to tell the
difference.

------
woliveirajr
> Instead of more bystanders creating an immobilizing “bystander effect,” the
> study actually found the more bystanders there were, the more likely it was
> that at least someone would intervene to help.

Perhaps with more people around one person considers that he will gain
support, so the danger of acting will be minimized.

~~~
intended
Or simply that in this case, the bystander effect didn’t occur.

It’s also why today when something goes wrong, people are told to look
directly at specific people and say “call the cops”/ “hold their head” and so
on,

~~~
Nition
Or that the bystander effect _did_ occur, but that X% of people aren't
affected by it, and in a larger group it becomes more likely that one of those
X% of people will be around.

~~~
scarejunba
Or maybe we all learnt about the bystander effect and were inoculated against
it! :)

------
throwaw8
If the bystander effect did exist, even the ambient possibility that you might
be under surveillance at any given moment (as might be felt increasingly
around the world, in 2019, regardless of who you are, time or place) seems
like it would make dramatically less likely that the effect would actually
occur.

------
wnevets
isn't it also possible the fact that alot of people have heard of the
bystander effect they more willing to do something because they believe no one
else will?

~~~
eridius
You could also argue the opposite: That because the bystander effect is well-
known now, surely that means other people in the crowd will be more willing to
act, and therefore you don't have to.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
Or your lack of helping is normal and so is excusable and one motivation (fear
of doing wrong) is depleted.

------
c3534l
This article incorrectly claims that the bystander effect is when a group of
people are less likely to help than an individual, when in fact the bystander
effect is when an individual becomes less likely to act in the presence of a
crowd. The article repeatedly makes this claim, but it's not hard to look up
how the bystander effect is described and defined to see how completely wrong
this is.

~~~
stupidcar
Um, what? The article doesn’t do this at all. This is straight from the 2nd
paragraph:

“The “bystander effect” holds that the reason people don’t intervene is
because we look to one another. The presence of many bystanders diffuses our
own sense of personal responsibility, leading people to essentially do nothing
and wait for someone else to jump in”

It’s clearly talking about individual behaviour in the presence of a crowd.
You basically restated this exact point, then claimed the article didn’t make
it!

~~~
Nevermindmyview
But does it really debunk that effect?

The article essentially claims that the more people there are the more likely
it is that _someone_ will intervene. Which isn't the same as no one feeling
less inclined to help since there are other people around.

~~~
eridius
The whole point of the "bystander effect" is that this diffusion of
responsibility leads to nobody intervening. Nobody cares if the chances of a
_specific_ bystander intervening goes down when there's a crowd, all that
matters is whether someone intervenes, and the bystander effect claimed that a
crowd meant the chances of intervention would go down overall.

~~~
pessimizer
I'm understanding that's not the finding, although that's the popularly
understood point. You would expect each person to be individually less likely
to help when there are other people around. Somebody else _might_ have already
intervened, and you might just be getting in the way. Not everybody can help,
at least not at once. I mean, in some situations, people actually fear to
intervene, and have a legitimate fear for their own safety, but if they can
call the police once they're secure (or if they are clearly secure e.g.
viewing from a distance), people do it. A lot of people called about Kitty
Genovese as it was happening, watching it from their apartments. That became a
newspaper article - which was basically typical right-wing linkbait: it wasn't
slow police response, it was the heartless crowd that killed Kitty.

That Slate dot com tier take became a theory, developed experiments, and
discovered something that was obviously mathematically true: if not everybody
in a group helps someone that they see in distress (only a subset do), but
individuals always help when alone, then in groups, the average time before
response _for each individual_ is going to go up, and the average likelihood
of any response at all from a particular individual is going to go down.

This would be true even if people were _always_ helped faster by groups rather
than individuals, and a subset of every group _always_ intervened. The types
of people that bystander experiments found to be likely interveners could just
adhere to the stereotypes that people think of as physically authoritative and
look to when something occurs. People look to them to intervene (large, male,
athletic, maybe ethnic or rough looking in criminal/street situations) maybe
those people intervene because there no one for them to pass the
responsibility off to.

------
irjustin
I'm confused here. What is the Bystander Effect?

> The bystander effect, or bystander apathy, is a social psychological
> phenomenon in which individuals are less likely to offer help to a victim
> when other people are present. The greater the number of bystanders, the
> less likely it is that one of them will help. Several factors contribute to
> the bystander effect, including ambiguity, group cohesiveness, and diffusion
> of responsibility that reinforces mutual denial of a situation's severity.

Does that mean each individual is like likely to help _individually_ or does
it mean that each _situation_ have less intervention?

Because if we're measuring individual response, then sure, I agree - if I'm
hurt, I don't want 10 people rushing to me anyway.

i.e. if 1 bystander with 1x persons intervening = 100% response and then 2
bystanders with 1x persons intervening = 50% response...... I think this is a
terrible way to measure it.

[1][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bystander_effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bystander_effect)

~~~
jacobolus
The claim is that when there are several people standing around and some
emergency arises, everyone will just assume someone else is going to help, and
no one will end up helping.

~~~
inlined
I’ve been taught multiple times that due to the bystander effect, should you
take command of a situation and need to delegate you should always delegate
specifically (e.g. tell one person to call 911 rather than shouting that
someone should)

~~~
eridius
While that's certainly good advice, I don't think that's really a "bystander
effect" correction as it is if there's multiple people and nobody takes charge
then nothing gets organized, and if you don't delegate specifically then
nobody knows who you're talking to and this produces confusion.

~~~
swish_bob
The last two times I took a first aid course I was told to do this
_specifically_ to override the bystander effect. Both times, the instructor
named and explained the bystander effect, and said the best way to overcome it
was to assign tasks to specific individuals.

------
vhollis
There are two issues with how this study is discussed and it may not be a
reproducibility issue exactly. 1) published in american psychology - samples
europeans and south africans... Without sampling Americans where the effect
was first displayed I don’t think we can call it ‘largely a myth’. There are
huge potential cultural factors here for why someone might intervene or not.
2) There’s a sampling issue. Looking at police reports means committed crimes,
while something intervened may not be reported to the police

------
ptero
Cultural background probably has a lot of influence on this.

Where I grew up (a small city in Eastern Europe) it would be unthinkable not
to intervene in many cases (although some things like gang or drunk fights
would be excluded). The mentality in a capital would be completely different.
As people move their habits can significantly influence prior "general
findings".

~~~
simonh
And yet this study took place in a capital city, a major urban centre and a
country tow, but found no significant difference in the results between them.
That's despite big differences in the local crime and violence rates (I expect
Cape Town being the outlier).

~~~
xyproto
Cape Town has some areas that feel like an European town and some areas just
filled with home-made sheds. I imagine that the crime rates are different in
the places where there are actually cameras.

------
miguelmota
Are the surveillance cameras clearly visible and the bystanders are aware of
them? I wonder if the bystanders would react differently if they weren't aware
that they are being recorded. Another thing I wonder is if they refuse to help
then maybe they think there'll be repercussions like being ostracized when the
footage goes public.

------
aravindgp
Its absolutely amazing finding....it teaches to trust more and be little more
secure someone out there will take care of me if in trouble. That kind of
gives so much sense of hope and debunk that "fear stranger" or "no one is
gonna help you" myth which pertuated for decades.

------
your-nanny
Just noting here that there is no necessary contradiction between the
probability of at least one bystander helping increasing with number of
bystanders, and the individual propensity of helping going down with an
increasing number of bystanders, even assuming that people have the same
propensity function.

------
jbverschoor
I do think the bystander effect is true. But not always. It’s part of the
zeitgeist. In the past, people were more assertive. Then we became sheep
somehow. And recently I noticed that people know they have to do something.

------
your-nanny
Does the paper account for whether bystanders knew the individuals involved?
You can't treat a group of people on the street as an unstructured independent
sample...

------
whazor
Most people I know are conceptually aware of the bystander-effect. It could be
that awareness stops the effect.

------
leptoniscool
Faith in humanity: restored.

------
36268
Great

------
blondin
totally un-scientific but i just feel like things like "identitism",
"communitism", nationalism, etc. have been on the rise in the past decade for
some reason. and by protecting the group they belong to, people also end up
protecting individual making up these groups.

------
ganesh7
Of course the real problem is the uplifting attitude that is written.

Where really violent crime is happening as now in Western European cities,
London, Berlin, etc. people got to know the very real consequences of
'intervening' frequently resulting in seriously harming oneself or even
getting killed. There have been instances where the police was not able to
help. There are regular occurances of rescue teams being attacked to prevent
them rescuing the victims of attacks. The even started a campaign to promote
not attacking rescuers.

Also, in a democracy the use of force is supposed to lie with the
administration only and of course there should only be very limited room for
'bystanders' 'to self-police to protect their communities and others'
unfortunately we know the opposite is true.

~~~
semi-extrinsic
Hmm, searching around for the type of statistics you are talking about, I get
articles to a couple of anecdotal stories that are frequently repeated on
sites like Jihad Watch, Voice of Europe, RT, etc.

Unless you can provide some actual statistics, I would dismiss this as
unfounded far-right propaganda.

~~~
thinkingemote
It's conflating a couple of recent examples (london bridge knife terror attack
trial reports is one) where the police protect themselves and wait for backup
but the public try to intervene against their orders and trying to imply
there's an agenda by the police to let these things happen.

