Study: bystanders actually help…
…much more often than previously thought:
Researchers watched footage and coded the nature of the conflict, the number of direct participants in it, and the number of bystanders. Bystanders were defined as intervening if they attempted a variety of acts, including pacifying gestures, calming touches, blocking contact between parties, consoling victims of aggression, providing practical help to a physical harmed victim, or holding, pushing, or pulling an aggressor away. Each event had an average of 16 bystanders and lasted slightly more than three minutes.
The study finds that in nine out of 10 incidents, at least one bystander intervened, with an average of 3.8 interveners. There was also no significant difference across the three countries and cities, even though they differ greatly in levels of crime and violence.
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.
Fascinating, and heartening.
The article doesn’t say (and I can only find an abstract of the study) whether the cameras were visible, but my guess is that they were not easily visible and that bystanders did not know they were being filmed. Awareness of the cameras might have influenced the results, however, if the cameras were obvious.
In addition, I’d like to know much more about the typical situation and typical intervention, as well as characteristics of those who intervened. Young or old, for example? More men or more women, and did the different sexes intervene under different circumstances? Did it matter if there was a perceived danger to the person intervening, of if physical strength was needed? Did it matter if the dispute was between adults, a man-woman couple, two men, two women, or if teens or children were involved?
The murder of Kitty Genovese in 1964 with 38 witnesses who did nothing became a standard proof of the Bystander Effect. Later, like so many psychological narratives, it was debunked:
While there was no question that the attack occurred, and that some neighbors ignored cries for help, the portrayal of 38 witnesses as fully aware and unresponsive was erroneous. The article grossly exaggerated the number of witnesses and what they had perceived. None saw the attack in its entirety. Only a few had glimpsed parts of it, or recognized the cries for help. Many thought they had heard lovers or drunks quarreling. There were two attacks, not three. And afterward, two people did call the police. A 70-year-old woman ventured out and cradled the dying victim in her arms until they arrived. Ms. Genovese died on the way to a hospital.
–New York Times, via https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Kitty_Genovese
But at least Phil Ochs got a good folk song out of the Genovese story:
Look outside the window, there’s a woman being grabbed
They’ve dragged her to the bushes and now she’s being stabbed
Maybe we should call the cops and try to stop the pain
But Monopoly is so much fun, I’d hate to blow the game
And I’m sure it wouldn’t interest anybody
Outside of a small circle of friends.
–Phil Ochs, “Outside of a Small Circle of Friends”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ta_iKeH4tsg
Have you seen the London Bridge terror attack video:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-49009486/london-bridge-attacks-unseen-footage-from-the-scene
Gosh, with all the questions in the last two pragraphs, one might think that
“Latest published academic studies, by alleged experts, OFTEN intentionally disingenuous!”
….or something like that.
CaptDMO:
Actually, because I was only able to see the abstract (a short summary of the report, that is) and the article for the layperson rather than the actual research, I have no idea whether the research answered those questions or not. It may have, and that part just wasn’t reported on. I’d prefer to read the entire research article before I dismiss it as meaningless.
Huxley: “The murder of Kitty Genovese in 1964 with 38 witnesses who did nothing became a standard proof of the Bystander Effect.”
Very true. I read the book about Kitty Genovese and one of the things the author debunked was that high number of witnesses. It turns out that high number the Press was reporting as “witnesses” was actually the number of neighbors that the police interviewed over the next few days – almost all, except for handful who did something, did not hear a thing. They were NOT witnesses as the press claimed.
Ha! The Press, even back then, was creating “False News.”