Introduction
The bystander effect is commonly referred to as the inhibiting influence caused by the presence of other people, affecting how people behave towards those in need of help. The result has, in most cases, negatively affected how people react to people needing help in the presence of others. Essentially, most bystanders are less likely to offer support in the company of others, other than when they are alone (Hortensius & de Gelder, 2018).
The behavior has been attributed to the diffusion of responsibility, pluralistic ignorance, and the bystander effect, which primarily affect how bystanders behave. Social and cultural pressures, as well as personal beliefs, also influence bystander behavior. Therefore, the essay highlights how the aspects mentioned earlier influence helping behavior.
Diffusion of Responsibility
Primarily, how bystanders behave is attributed to the theory of diffusion of responsibility, which involves the subjective division of personal responsibility among bystanders in emergency situations. According to Hortensius & de Gelder (2018), bystanders are more likely to avoid helping in emergencies as the number of people increases, as they tend to feel less responsible and shift the responsibility to others. The phenomena revolve around three main ideas: moral obligations, blame, and beliefs.
Bystanders strongly believe that moral responsibility does not lie with individuals, but with the entire multitude witnessing the emergency. They insist that everyone share the blame equally, rather than shift it to one person. They also firmly believe that other people will help, hence they are obligated to let others help instead of themselves.
Pluralistic Ignorance
In addition, pluralistic ignorance significantly contributes to the bystander effect, where everyone strongly believes in other people’s norms, which no one endorses. According to Lytle et al. (2021), pluralistic ignorance is a decisive factor that fosters the introduction of unpopular standards, which affect how people react to people needing help in emergencies or accidents. For instance, pluralistic ignorance can lead to norms such as incorrect information processing (Lytle et al., 2021). The model can be evident where bystanders may not be willing to be the primary cause of alarm in an emergency.
In this regard, pluralistic ignorance may prevent bystanders from calling the police or ambulances, hence walking away, presuming that other people will relay the information to the relevant authorities in due time. Lytle et al. (2021) hold that social inhibition leads to pluralistic ignorance, where people may not be willing to be the only ones raising the alarm in the event of inevitable accidents. Therefore, people tend to shy away from being identified solely as the cause of panic, resulting in inaction and walking away.
Victim Effects
Moreover, victims’ effects influence how people react to situations, determining whether or not they will be offered help. The victim effect is related to certain individual aspects of victims, which trigger empathy and an urge to help from bystanders (Hortensius & de Gelder, 2018). Victims sometimes tend to walk away from emergencies involving adults and focus more on troubles, including children, who need more compulsive care than independent adults. Societal norms on victims’ effects also lead to a selection bias in deciding whom to help based on empathy and considering the available resources.
Social and Cultural Pressure
Additionally, social norms and cultural pressure significantly affect the bystander effect. Conforming to social standards is a reason why people do not intervene in some severe cases (Hortensius & de Gelder, 2018). Such issues include crime injustices, where some believe criminals should be punished, hence walking away. The bystanders ignore that the victim might be subject to misidentification or misrepresentation, and thus, they could be innocent.
Equally important, societal attitudes to cases such as sexual assault have received substantial backlash from many people, implying that they are more likely to walk away in the event of such claims. The phenomenon is based on the fact that if individuals witness other people doing nothing in a specific emergency, they are most likely not willing to do anything concerning the situation (Liebst et al., 2019). Furthermore, ambiguity towards certain conditions affects how people perceive situations, as some may view some situations as less severe based on societal norms and pressure.
Beliefs About “Self”
Furthermore, self-beliefs, prosocial behavior, and self-esteem significantly impact the bystander’s behavior in helping those in need. Bystanders with lower prosocial behavior tend to help victims, while those with high prosocial behavior and self-esteem often walk away from the scene (Ganti & Baek, 2021). Self-beliefs relate to how individuals perceive societal situations, such as crime, shootings, and mob justice. Some believe crime is horrific and should be dealt with severely; hence, the victims should be thoroughly punished (Ganti & Baek, 2021). In such an event, the bystander is more likely to walk away.
Conclusion
In summary, the bystander effect affects how individuals respond to people in need during emergencies or accidents when others are present. Typically, people are less likely to provide assistance in a group than alone. This tendency is explained mainly by factors such as the diffusion of responsibility, pluralistic ignorance, and victim effects, which shape bystanders’ actions. Additionally, social and cultural influences and personal beliefs also play a role in determining whether a bystander offers help.
References
Ganti, N., & Baek, S. (2021). Why people stand by. Journal of Student Research, 10(1). Web.
Hortensius, R., & de Gelder, B. (2018). From empathy to apathy: The bystander effect revisited. Current Directions in Psychological Science Journal, 27(4), 249–256. Web.
Liebst, L. S., Philpot, R., Bernasco, W., Dausel, K. L., Ejbye-Ernst, P., Nicolaisen, M. H., & Lindegaard, M. R. (2019). Social relations and presence of others predict bystander intervention: Evidence from violent incidents captured on CCTV. AACE Clinical Case Reports Journal. Web.
Lytle, R. D., Bratton, T. M., & Hudson, H. K. (2021). Bystander apathy and intervention in the era of social media. The Emerald International Handbook of Technology-Facilitated Violence and Abuse, 711–728. Web.