The Bystander Effect is Probably Bunk
The Bystander Effect is Probably Bunk
A new paper questions the veracity of the bystander effect. They used CCTV footage of violent interactions from three different countries and found that the likelihood of someone stepping in was positively correlated with the number of bystanders and that the likely hood was 9 in 10.
Re: The Bystander Effect is Probably Bunk
Oh that's cool. I always instinctively hated those "we are sh.t" psychology tropes that perpetuated from the 60s and 70s and I've always worried they did significant harm to our culture etc.
Re: The Bystander Effect is Probably Bunk
I think this is interesting:
This research establishes that interventions increase with the number of other people present, but:The knowledge that an individual’s likelihood to intervene reduces in the
presence of others does not establish, however, the aggregated likelihood that at least
someone will help.
Even so, I've always wondered how strong the bystander effect really is, and how much it depends on the type of emergency. This study focussed specifically on acts of aggression (so no accidents, fires, or sudden illnesses for example) but even there I imagine there might be a difference between cases where there is one aggressive person or a gang.our research does not evaluate whether bystanders are less likely to provide help when in the presence of other bystanders compared with when they are alone
Jaap's Page: https://www.jaapsch.net/
- Stephanie
- Stummy Beige
- Posts: 2900
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:38 pm
- Location: clinging tenaciously to your buttocks
Re: The Bystander Effect is Probably Bunk
There are quite a few interesting critiques of Bystander effect and others from that time (Zimbardo, Milgram) in social psych. I had to read "Kitty Genovese and culturally embedded theorizing" by Frances Cherry for my degree.
"I got a flu virus named after me 'cause I kissed a bat on a dare."