Revision of Expository Essay and 1000 Word argumentative Essay

The Bystander Effect

Expository Essay, Sasha Alba

The Bystander Effect

On March 13, 1964, a 28-year-old woman was stabbed in the Kew Gardens neighborhood of Queens, New York, a regular occurrence in that part of the city. The murder itself was not surprising, but the most surprising fact was that there were neighbors who witnessed the attack but none of them came to her rescue. One would conclude that the neighbors acted in an unethical manner, but even the most ordinary people are influenced by less obvious bystander effects. Research shows that the response of bystanders is greatly influenced by the number of people present during the event as well as the circumstances surrounding the situation.

The case prompted John Darley and Bibb Latane (1968) to come up with the term “bystander effect”, which refers to the reluctance of providing assistance due to the presence of others. Some of the factors that may affect the bystander effect include uncertainty and consequences resulting from offering help, urgency of the situation, cohesiveness and group membership. According to Latane and Darley (1968), a bystander goes through five phases before deciding to provide help. The first one involves the fact that the bystander needs to be aware that an event is occurring. Failure to notice would lead the bystander to take no action. Secondly, the identification of the event as being an emergency is required, so that the bystander may be prompted to take action. If not, the bystander may regard the situation as being ambiguous. Thirdly, the bystander ought to take responsibility for assisting, but this might not happen as in the case of the assumption that someone else will take responsibility. The fourth step entails the decision to select an appropriate reaction, though lack of self-belief in competency may inhibit a bystander from offering help. The last step involves implementation of a reaction, though an observer may decide against providing assistance in case their safety is not guaranteed.

Uncertainty and consequences resulting from assisting someone may lead to the bystander effect. A person may be unsure as to whether a victim requires help, and may consider their personal safety before attempting to offer assistance. Darley and Latane (1968) carried out a research that required participants to classify certain categories as being “definite emergencies”, “probably not emergencies”, and “not sure”. The results indicated that most of the activities labeled as emergency situations consisted of violence situations or illness incidents. On the other hand, non-emergency situations included daily activities such as someone asking for a cigarette lighter. In an ambiguous situation, an individual may not know how to react and may look for guidance from others. Some situations may require specialized skills and knowledge, and a bystander may hesitate to help if they do not have the ability to deal with that particular event. An example of this is the case of a drowning person, where a person may hesitate to assist a drowning individual if they cannot swim.

The urgency of the situation at hand determines the response to aid a victim. It is in human nature to want to avoid the suffering of others, and people may be more inclined to assist others during an emergency situation as they might feel that their actions will have an impact on the outcome of the situation. In a non-emergency situation, urgency may not be required, and a bystander may not feel obligated to assist as they may perceive that other bystanders should offer help (Weiner, Tenner, & Suls, 2012). The urgency of the situation also determines the time taken before a reaction. More urgent the situations take less time for bystanders to respond as compared to non-urgent situations.

Cohesiveness and group membership also affects the bystander effect. This factor is correlated with group conformity. This means that individuals who are acquainted with each other are less likely to assist a person who requires their help than people who do not know each other. This theory can be correlated with the social norms theory, which asserts that behavior is determined by cues from others that determine the decision on the appropriate reaction. So as to validate this theory, Rutkowski, Gruder and Romer (1983), discovered that friendship groups have greater cohesion, and an individual member may fail to take action during an event due to the expectations of the group norms and values.

Diffusion of responsibility is one of the factors that influence the bystander effect. In an emergency situation, people may refrain from taking action, as they believe that others are in a better capacity to assist the victim. They may also fear that they are not qualified enough to assist and may be afraid of looking foolish if they take the wrong action. This can be influenced by a factor known as moral diffusion that entails lessening of individual responsibility when an individual is a member of a group (Weitten, Dunn, & Hammer, 2012). Every member waits for the others to make a move and failure of the members to respond may lead to a non-reaction. That said, the larger the number of people, the bigger the diffusion of responsibility. The concept of diffusion of responsibility can be witnessed in everyday life during instances of social injustice. Though the general public has the capacity to talk out against such ills through means such as organizing protests or writing to the authority, they fail to do so as they are inclined to leave the protests to other people.

Another factor that may influence the bystander effect is gender. Men are more willing to help as compared to women. Additionally, women receive more help as compared to men. Ironically, women are thought of as being more helpful due to their naturally- caring attitude. However, it has been determined that women are less likely to help someone requiring their help. This theory was proven by John Davidio (1982), who carried out an experiment to observe the difference in helping behavior between men and women. It required asking for either 10 cents or 30 cents from men and women participants. It was observed that female requestors were assisted more than male requestors. This can be inferred to mean that gender determines the level of bystander effect.

In summation, it has been determined that the bystander effect depends on the environment of that particular situation. The theory may seem like an over-exaggerated concept, but it is evident in our day-to-day lives. Factors such as the ambiguity of the situation, gender, diffusion of responsibility, urgency of the situation, and group cohesiveness all determine the likelihood that a bystander will offer help. That said, effort should be made by all members of the society to not only be aware of surroundings so as to notice emergency situations, but also to provide much-needed help to those who desperately require assistance.

During the composition of this essay, the easiest step was the conclusion, as it only required the re-statement of the thesis, the summary of the main points, and my final remarks. The most challenging step was the introduction, as creativity was required in writing the first sentence to capture the reader’s attention. In addition, the relevance of the topic had to be determined, as well as coming up with the thesis statement. In the process of writing this essay, I have learnt that a topic sentence is important as it sets the pace for content to be included in the whole paragraph. In future, I will consider engaging in brainstorming of ideas, as it will present me with various ideas that I may pursue in the final draft of the essay.

References

Darley, J. M. & Latané, B. (1968). Bystander intervention in emergencies: Diffusion of responsibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8, 377-383.

Dovidio, J. F. (1982). Sex, costs, and helping behavior. The Journal of Psychology, 112(2), 231-236.

Rutkowski, G. K., Gruder, C. L., & Romer, D. (1983). Group cohesiveness, social norms, and bystander intervention. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(3), 545.

Weiner, I. B., Tennen, H., & Suls, J. (2012). Handbook of psychology, Personality, and Social Psychology. New York: Wiley.

Weiten, W., Dunn, D., & Hammer, E. Y. (2012). Psychology applied to modern life: adjustment in the 21st century (10th ed.). Australia: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.