Introduction
In the presence of two or more people, a victim of an emergency is subject to more suffering compared to the case when only one person is present. This introduces the issue of the bystander effect, otherwise known as Genovese Syndrome, a psychological problem that affects one’s ability to take an action. Worth noting is that making a decision, especially of doing what is right and required of a person at a particular time, is one of the most challenging tasks. Before an action is taken for or against another, there precedes a good deal of controversy within one’s conscience. Whether to have the action implemented, when, with or without what, and by whom, remains the root behind the controversy. These observations continue to manifest themselves through the day-to-day occurrences. For instance, emergency cases dominate most of the peoples’ dialogues and in all cases, reports reveal that as the emergency occurs, there is at least one person present in the area surrounding the incidence. It is expected that the more the people are present, the less tragic the emergency. On the contrary, this is not the case. The rate at which people turn up to rescue a victim of an emergency is inversely proportional to the number of people present. The fewer they are, the more the help and vice versa. This paper checks into detail the bystander effect: its effect on the individuals, the consequences therein, as well as the possible lessons that people need to learn. Standing and watching can take place when an emergency occurs.
What Takes Place
There exist at least four possible options for bystanders in case of an emergency; standing and staring is one of them. Charles (2009) asserts, “If something is happening, it is normal for people to go and see what is going on” (p.346). Several factors on the other hand fuel this choice. Firstly, because of curiosity, bystanders may decide to watch the incident. They are eager to know why and what the situation is about. Secondly, excitement plays a major role behind their standing and watching because any scenario featuring peoples’ emotions is always eye-catching. Fear of being hurt also explains this option. Bystanders can as well opt to take sides. For instance, in the case of a bully engaging in a fight, bystanders may choose to support him/her. They can also decide to vacate the place of the emergency or else intervene to help both sides. However, one can ask, “Why does this happen?
Why this Happens
Fear is the major reason behind the choices that bystanders make in times of emergency. The majority of them do not just decide to sit and stare at suffering people. Given the chance, these people can assist a lot but none bears the courage to do so. Fear of being hurt or being blamed as a result defines their decisions. Addressing this issue of fear, Darley (1968) observes the most common question that brings the fear is “what if that person being hurt was me?” (p.379). The relationship between them and the victim(s) is another reason that brings in their failure to participate. If the victim is their friend or an acquaintance, the bystanders will find it easy to offer the best and possible assistance. However, if enmity prevails between the two sides, then the bystanders will opt not to intervene. It is against one’s conscience to let go of the life of any other in his/her presence when he/she can help. This does not regard the cause of the emergency that involves the victim. However, the notion that there must be a link between the victim and the bystander inhibits the decision of the latter. For instance, if the victim is a thief, any person will withdraw from assisting because he/she does not want to be associated with the theft activities. Researchers on the subject of the bystander effect have formulated many theories and reasons as to why bystanders fail to show up in emergency scenes. The availability of other more powerful and experienced bystanders is a reason for the failure to act.
Reasons for it happening
Police officers and doctors are believed to be the best people participating in some emergency cases like sickness, robbery, or accidents. Therefore, if they are accessible, other bystanders will not act until the relevant people intervene. Researchers reveal that the number of people around an emergency zone influences the individual’s decision to act. “These experiments virtually always find that the presence of others inhibits helping, often by a large margin” (Hudson, 2004, p.166). Each of them wants to wait until the other leads in the helping. As a result, none begins the rescuing process making the rest follow suit. This failure arouses the assumption that the need to assist was not necessary for that situation. In addition, the failure to act results from the so-called ‘Bystander apathy,’ a case where people show a lack of emotions and is thought to emerge from some complicated unconscious mechanisms within the mind. Diffusion of responsibility comes in handy in explaining the bystander effect. The bystanders assume that it is their collective duty to participate in the emergency. Therefore, it is possible that the more the people present, the harder it gets for one of them to single him/herself out of the crowd to participate alone. Though bystanders might seem unrefined, worth noting is that the bystander effect bears its positive consequences. One will remain safe by the end of the day.
Positive Outcomes
As a fact, some emergency cases expose bystanders to dangers thus rendering them inactive in their pursuit for safety. If several armed thieves break into one’s neighbor who in turn screams for help, him/she can suffer to the level of death since none would tolerate the shootings. Therefore, for security purposes, the bystanders will refrain from the emergency. In addition, cases exist where the contributions of bystanders end up victimizing them. For instance, a bystander who fails to act in an emergency case involving gangsters as the victims, cannot be a victim of the same, compared to the one who participates. However, negative outcomes are still evident. Bystanders suffer losses of relationship.
Negative Outcomes
Failure to show up in emergencies has seen the end of relationships for many bystanders. Regardless of the underlying cause, whether fire, robbery with violence, or even an attack by a fierce animal, the victim always requires the help of his/her friends. Their failure to turn up, whether based on security reasons or not “…can mark the end of their relationships” (Levine, 2004, p.234) Bystanders suffer revenge too. When struck by an emergency, they suffer alone because they too do not assist.
Conclusion
The bystander effect carries with it many life lessons. Christians claim that one is supposed to treat others the way he/she would like them to treat him/her. Though being a bystander is not wrong, they are advised to think beyond their noses. What the future holds is uncertain. Therefore, if it has ever unfolded an emergency for some, then a bystander should expect such someday. To be secure, it is good for people to do what they can when they can. If it calls for their help in emergencies, let them participate to the best of their abilities. Otherwise, no man is an island, and bystanders are not an exception and as they demand the help of others, they too should help.
Reference List
Charles, D. “Bystander Training within Organizations.” Journal of the International Ombudsman Association 2.1 (2009): 342-344.
Darley, J. “Bystander Intervention in Emergencies: Diffusion of responsibility.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 8.2 (1968): 377–383.
Hudson, J. “The Bystander Effect: A Lens for Understanding Patterns of Participation.” Journal of the Learning Sciences 13.2 (2004): 165–195.
Levine, M. “Identity, Place, and Bystander Intervention: Social Categories and Helping after Natural Disasters.” Journal of Social Psychology 144.3 (2004): 229–245.