[Science] Bystander effect: Famous psychology result could be completely wrong – AI

Won’t somebody stop him?SolStock/Getty By Grace BrowneIf you were being attacked, would anyone stop to help you? A famous result in psychology known as the bystander effect says probably not, but now a review of real-life violent situations says this commonly-held view may be wrong. The bystander effect purports that in situations such as in a robbery or a stabbing, bystanders are less likely to intervene if there are a large number of people in the area. If there are more people present, the likelihood of intervention decreases. The idea has its roots in the 1964 case of Kitty Genovese, a 28-year-old woman who was raped and murdered in the early morning in her quiet neighbourhood in Queens, New York. The New York Times reported at the time that 38 people had watched for more than a half-hour as this young woman was attacked. Advertisement It turns out that the number of observers in that case was an exaggeration, but the incident has become part of psychology legend. The bystander effect, first proposed by social psychologists Bibb Latané and John Darley, has been replicated in numerous experimental studies. Potential explanations for the phenomenon include that individuals may feel less responsibility to intervene when there are a large number of others around, as well as fear acting inadequately when being observed by onlookers. It may also be that if no one else seems to be reacting or taking action, then we may fail to perceive the situation as an emergency. Read more: Why so much science research is flawed – and what to do about it Now Richard Philpot of Lancaster University in the UK and his colleagues say the effect might not actually be real. They looked at surveillance footage of real-life violent situations across the UK, South Africa and the Netherlands, and found that, in 90 per cent of cases, at least one person (but typically several) intervened and tried to help. In addition, they found that the likelihood of intervention increased in accordance with the number of bystanders – which directly contradicts the bystander effect. Philpot says he hopes that members of the general public will find the results of the paper to be reassuring. “The more people around, the greater number of people who have the potential or the willingness to do something.” The researchers were surprised to find that the likelihood of intervention was similar across all three nations, despite South Africa having on record significantly lower perceptions of public safety, as well as higher levels of violence, on average. Philpot says it shows that people have a natural inclination to help when they see someone else in need. Why smart people make stupid mistakes: meet author David Robson at New Scientist Live in London this October Jay Van Bavel of New York University says the results are “very striking”. The Kitty Genovese case is one of the core studies taught in undergraduate psychology classes, and the fact that this study contradicts a lot of the previous research is shocking, but exciting for the field. Philpot and his colleagues are interested in looking at how specific factors such as the size of the perpetrator or whether they have a weapon influences people’s likelihood of intervening. “I wouldn’t say in every single situation it’s a 90 per cent likelihood, but as a base rate, it’s something new that we didn’t have before,” he says. Journal reference: American Psychologist, DOI: 10.1037/amp0000469 More on these topics: psychology