Now that we have understood what the phenomenon entails, let us have a look at the factors that affect and in lieu, make the effect what it is. Latané and Darley (1970), the social psychologists that first demonstrated and talked about the bystander effect, identified three different psychological processes that might prevent a bystander from helping a person in distress: (i) diffusion of responsibility; (ii) evaluation apprehension (fear of being publicly judged); and (iii) pluralistic ignorance (the tendency to rely on the observable reactions of others when defining an ambiguous situation). Let us have a deeper look into each of these factors.
Imagine you're in a bustling market, and someone accidentally drops their groceries. In a smaller group, you might instinctively rush to help. However, in a larger crowd, something curious happens. The more people present, the less likely each individual feels responsible for taking action. It's almost like passing the responsibility around, assuming someone else will pick it up—hence the term "diffusion of responsibility."
This diffusion occurs because, in a group, the sense of personal responsibility diminishes. It's as if everyone is waiting for someone else to be the hero. Psychologists have studied this phenomenon and found that when people believe others are around to help, they're less likely to take action themselves.
Think about a time when you held back from sharing an idea or answering a question, not because you didn't know, but because of the fear of how others might perceive you. It's a common human experience we've all encountered.
Now, imagine you're in a classroom, and the teacher asks a question. You know the answer, but there's a sudden pause. Why? It's not because you don't know; it's the fear of what others might think. This fear of being judged or evaluated by those around you is what we call evaluation apprehension.
Evaluation apprehension is like a shy companion that whispers, "What if you're wrong? What will others think?" It's the worry that expressing your thoughts might lead to judgment, making you hesitate even when you have something valuable to share.
Ever found yourself in a situation where everyone seems to be thinking the same thing, but nobody says it out loud? Or have you ever been in a group where everyone seems to be cool with a decision, but deep down, you're not? You might hesitate to voice your opinion, thinking everyone else is on board. Meanwhile, everyone else is doing the same thing, assuming you're all in agreement. Here, everyone may appear just as uncertain, yet no one speaks up. Why? That's the magic (or, in this case, the confusion) of pluralistic ignorance.
Pluralistic ignorance happens when individuals privately reject a norm or belief but go along with it because they think everyone else accepts it. It's like a collective hush, where people assume others are on the same page, even though they might have different thoughts or doubts.
The bystander effect occurs when all of these elements combine. To illustrate, consider a person collapsing in a crowded street. Onlookers observe the incident, but instead of running to help, a strange dynamic takes place. Because of the distribution of responsibility, each individual feels less inclined to act, expecting that someone else in the bustling crowd will step in. Meanwhile, pluralistic ignorance fuels the collective quiet, as everyone turns to each other for cues and, seeing no quick response, wrongly assumes that the situation isn't as dire as it appears. Simultaneously, evaluation anxiety creeps up, with each potential helper fearful of being scrutinized or judged by others if they are the first to intervene. With this convergence of events, the once-simple act of delivering assistance becomes a scenario in which, despite several witnesses, the crowd pauses, collectively locked in the bystander effect, waiting for someone else to break the loop of inaction.
Disclaimer: This website is for information purposes. This is NOT medical advice. Always do your own due diligence.