Explanations for Bystanderism (DP IB Psychology)

Diffusion of responsibility hypothesis

• The term bystander refers to any person who is present at the scene of an emergency or event but does nothing to help or participate in any way, for example:

  • Walking past someone who is slumped on the pavement

  • Smelling smoke in a building but not leaving the building, alerting others or pressing the fire alarm

  • Witnessing a violent altercation but doing nothing to intervene or try to resolve it

• The bystander effect is a phenomenon proposed by Latane & Darley (1968), based on the idea that circumstantial factors can override an individual’s distress, concern and motivation to help at the scene of an emergency

• Latane & Darley were not suggesting that all bystanders are uncaring, indifferent or callous, more that if certain environmental conditions are in place then almost anyone can become an unresponsive bystander

• One of the main factors explaining lack of help in situations where help is clearly needed is diffusion of responsibility (DOR):

  • DOR rests on the idea that the more bystanders there are present at the scene of an emergency then the less likely it is that help will be given

  • DOR may occur because the individual does not perceive that is their own, personal responsibility to take charge and offer help for various reasons:

    • lack of competence (e.g. ‘I don’t know first aid’)

    • following cues from others (e.g. ‘no-one else is helping so why should I?’)

    • lack of knowledge (e.g. ‘is this actually an emergency?’)

• DOR is a type of conformity in that it involves adherence to what the individual believes to be the group norm, for example:

  • a fire alarm goes off in a shopping centre followed by a lack of action in exiting the building – each individual fails to exit because nobody else does

  • a man lies on the pavement, moaning ‘Help me’ but as nobody goes to help the man then each individual conforms to the group norm which appears to be ‘offer no help’

The cost-benefit analysis

• Bystanderism may be influenced by a cost-benefit analysis covering whether to help or not to help:

  • The costs of helping may include:

    • Being late for an appointment

    • Putting oneself in danger

    • Fearing embarrassment or ridicule from others

  • The benefits of helping may include:

    • Feeling good about one’s prosocial behaviour

    • Enjoying the praise and admiration of others

    • A possible reward for helping

  • The costs of not helping may include:

    • Feeling guilty/ashamed for not helping

    • Others thinking that you are selfish and uncaring

    • Fearing that if you ever need help in the future then no-one will help you

  • The benefits of not helping may include:

    • Not being late or inconvenienced

    • Keeping safe and away from possible sources of danger

    • Feeling secure in that one is part of a larger group that did not help

Just world hypothesis

• The Just World Hypothesis (JWH) was proposed by Lerner (1966) as an explanation of bystanderism

• The JWH works along the premise that there is rightness/fairness in the world and that people are rewarded or punished according to what they deserve, for example:

  • ‘That guy lying on the floor moaning is probably drunk so it serves him right’

  • ‘No wonder that woman was attacked, her dress was very provocative’

  • ‘If people don’t want to lose their homes then they shouldn’t live in hurricane-prone areas’

• Essentially the JWH is a form of victim-blaming: people do not like to think that anyone could find themselves in need of help so it is easier and makes people feel reassured to blame the people in need rather than the situation itself  

• When applied to bystanderism the JWH explains why some victims are given help (they are ‘deserving’ of help) over others (who have clearly brought their misfortune upon themselves)

• A victim who appears innocent or blameless is more likely to be helped than a victim who seems to have invited their fate

• Examples of ‘undeserving’ victims who are less likely to be given help are:

  • someone who is drunk 

  • someone who has taken drugs

  • someone who has spent all their money gambling

  • someone who keeps going back to their abusive partner

• The JWH is a type of cognitive bias:

  • it does not consider the wider situation or the explanatory factors which have contributed to the person’s misfortune

  • it takes a mental short-cut to produce a knee-jerk reaction

  • it is easier to use this form of bias as it requires little cognitive effort

Research which investigates explanations for bystanderism

• Latane & Darley (1968): diffusion of responsibility increases as group size increases

• Piliavin et al. (1969): type of victim determines extent of help given

Latane & Darley (1968) and Piliavin et al. (1969) are available as ‘Two Key Studies of Bystanderism’ – just navigate the Social Responsibility section to find them.