Bystander Intervention: A Moral Responsibility

SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY

by

Robert Angelo T. Balcuba

Discipleship 2 Class of Saint Augustine of Hippo

A Final Paper

Submitted to Rev. Fr. Jason Laguerta

San Carlos Seminary

in Partial Fulfillment of the Final Requirements

for the course of Social Psychology

March 2023
 Bystander Intervention: A Moral Responsibility

People help each other because they want to gain as much as possible while losing as little as

possible. The social responsibility norm also explains helping behavior. Having empathy

increases the likelihood of helping others and showing compassion. Empathy is a broad concept

that refers to the cognitive and emotional reactions of an individual to the observed experiences

of another. The problem is, when everyone assumes that someone else will act, no one actually

does. A person is more likely to be a bystander is because of they are afraid for their own safety

or no one else seems to be concerned, and they choose to be not be concerned. Being a bystander

can be describe as alienating and dehumanizing, that there was no such thing as neighborhood or

community, that people were cold, cruel, selfish, indifferent. The question is, “Is it moral to

intervene or not?” or, “Are you going to help or not?”

Bystander Effect

The bystander effect is the name given to the phenomenon where people in a group fail to

offer help to someone during an emergency, even though they are witnesses to the event.

History

Kurt Lewin1’s contribution to theories on the motivational influences of behavior

in the 1950s has led social psychologists to speculate what motivates others to engage in

prosocial behaviors. This focus on motivational factors is characteristic of the “cognitive

1
Kurt Lewin, (born September 9, 1890, Mogilno, Germany [now in Poland]—died February 12, 1947, Newtonville,
Massachusetts, U.S.), German-born American social psychologist known for his field theory of behaviour, which
holds that human behaviour is a function of an individual’s psychological environment. Lewin studied in Germany
at Freiburg, Munich, and Berlin, receiving his doctorate from the University of Berlin in 1914. After serving in the
German army during World War I, he joined the faculty of the Berlin Psychoanalytic Institute. In 1933 he moved to
the United States and began work at the State University of Iowa’s Child Welfare Research Station (1935–45)
 revolution”2 that emerged in the 1950s and extended into the 1960s. The cognitive

method focuses on how individuals see themselves and the environment; this emphasis

on cognition was crucial for psychologists who were attempting to comprehend the

mental mechanisms influencing an individual's behavior in groups. While social

psychologists at the time were focused on the variables influencing a person's willingness

to assist others, the study issue shifted in the 1960s to focus on what makes a person

choose not to assist someone in need. This change was brought about by a terrible

incident in 1964, and Darley and Latané's landmark study on bystander involvement from

1968 makes this transition clear.

The murder case of Kitty Genovese3, a major inspiration for Darley and Latané’s
4
, the first psychologists to formulate and study the bystander effect, research was the

1964 murder of a New York City woman in which no bystander intervened to help.

According to Darley and Latané, many people at the time were trying to find a plausible

explanation for the inaction on behalf of all the bystanders (people viewing the violence

from their apartment windows). around the world when people fail to come to each

other’s aid in times of violence and trouble. Thirty-eight witnesses, and no one did

anything over the 35 minutes the attack was taking place. Not one called the police while

it was underway, even though Genovese was screaming, “Please help me. Please help

2
The cognitive revolution was an intellectual shift explaining the internal mental processes responsible for
determining human behavior. This interdisciplinary approach to understanding human thought included studying
language acquisition, memory, problem-solving, and learning.
3
28-year-old bar manager who had been robbed, raped and stabbed to death outside her apartment building in
Queens in 1964 while 38 people watched or listened to her screams outside their apartments but did nothing to
stop the attack.
4
John M. Darley (April 3, 1938 – August 31, 2018) was an American social psychologist and professor of psychology
and public affairs at Princeton University.[2] Darley is best known, in collaboration with Bibb Latané (/ˈlɑːtəneɪ/;
born July 19, 1937) is an American social psychologist., for developing theories that aim to explain why people
might not intervene (i.e. offer aid) at the scene of an emergency when others are present; this phenomenon is
known as the bystander effect and the accompanying diffusion of responsibility effect.
me.” And why not? “I didn’t want to get involved,” one neighbor said. Namely, many

people believed that apathy and indifference were the causes of inaction on behalf of the

bystanders, reflecting the idea that personal characteristics solely drive behavior.

However, Darley and Latané focused on the social conditions, such as the number of

bystanders, that may have had an influence on whether the bystanders reacted, which

reflected Lewinian theories on the situational determinants of behavior. Moreover, the

three reasons (i.e., diffusion of responsibility, diffusion of blame, and thinking that

another person is already taking action to help) that Darley and Latané gave for believing

that the presence of bystanders may influence an individual’s likelihood of helping

someone in an emergency consist of thinking strategies that are representative of the

cognitive era in the 1960s.

Lewin's research on group dynamics and social determinants of behavior laid the

foundation for future psychologists (e.g., Darley & Latané, 1968); and cognitive

psychology stressed the role of thinking and perception, which was used to explain

specific behaviors in group settings. To sum up the historical context briefly, the violent

murder of a woman in New York City along with all of the aforementioned historical

events prompted the research on the bystander effect.

Darley and Latané (1968) made the groundbreaking claim that the number of

people present in an emergency scenario affects how fast, if at all, each individual

responds. They postulated that the greater the number of individuals present during an

emergency, the lower the likelihood that someone will step in and provide assistance or

the longer it will take for them to do so. They developed a simulation of an emergency

situation to test this. Participants were misled into thinking they would be participating in
a research that required them to talk about their college-related concerns in order to keep

them from realizing they were going to be in a phony emergency. Darley and Latané

(1968) made the groundbreaking claim that the number of people present in an

emergency scenario affects how fast, if at all, each individual responds. They postulated

that the greater the number of individuals present during an emergency, the lower the

likelihood that someone will step in and provide assistance or the longer it will take for

them to do so. They developed a simulation of an emergency situation to test this.

Participants were misled into thinking they would be participating in a research that

required them to talk about their college-related concerns in order to keep them from

realizing they were going to be in a phony emergency.

In the two-person group, the majority of the participants believed they were the

only ones there with the victim, however in the six-person group, only 31% of the

individuals believed they were present with four spectators. Also, participants in the two-

person condition gave their responses more quickly than those in the six-person

condition. Darley and Latané came to the conclusion that those who believed they were

alone with the victim intervened when the victim was having a seizure because they felt

the greatest pressure to help because the burden of responsibility for not intervening

(experienced as guilt and shame) fell entirely on them. As a result, they quickly came to

an amicable agreement. The researchers further suggested that those who did not feel

alone while watching the crisis did not feel as compelled to intervene, and as a result,

they were less likely or slower to respond. Their findings strongly showed that the

participants' decision to refrain from intervening was not being driven, as previously

thought, by personality traits of apathy and indifference.

 Kurt Lewin's studies on group dynamics and factors influencing prosocial

behavior, as well as the rise of the cognitive revolution, laid the stage for historical

investigation of why no bystander stepped in to save a lady who was being stabbed to

death in New York City in 1964. Developed empirically by Darley and Latané in 1968,

the bystander effect revolutionized subsequent studies on prosocial behavior. The study

that came after Darley and Latané focused in particular on the various factors that affect

helpful behaviors.

21st century marked a time of increased awareness of the relevance of

psychological research to contemporary social issues, as evidenced by research on the

bystander effect in situations like online chat rooms and social media cyber bullying. All

things considered, it is clear that Darley and Latané’s classic study on the bystander

effect is still highly relevant to the field of modern psychology.

Psychologically, there are many causes of the bystander effect. They range from thinking

someone else is in charge, to not understanding the gravity of a situation because there are other

people not taking action. In fact, Emergency First Responders must be trained to ignore this

feeling and offer help whenever they see a situation they deem an emergency.

Diffusion of Responsibility and Social References

Diffusion of responsibility occurs for a straightforward reason: It's simpler to expect that

someone else will step up and take the initiative when we're in a group, thus we end up doing

nothing ourselves. The bystander effect arises as a result. The issue is that nobody actually takes

action while everyone anticipates that someone else will.

 Social references as a group, we can look to one another for guidance on what is and is

not acceptable behavior. In order to receive social signals in times of crisis when it's unclear

what to do due to confusion, we frequently observe what other people are doing. According to

earlier study by Latané and Darley, if no one is acting, we can infer that there is a cause for the

inaction and make the mistaken assumption that no action is required. When two individuals are

fighting but no one else seems to notice, we can assume it's simply a squabble and continue

going, even if the fight gets physical.

And here are some reasons why bystanders often do not intervene when faced with a

potentially risky situation:

 They are not positive about what is going on.

 They don't think it is any of their business.

 They are afraid for their own safety or reputation.

 No one else seems to be concerned.

 They don't really know what to do.

As I said, being a bystander can be describe as alienating and dehumanizing, that there

was no such thing as neighborhood or community, that people were cold, cruel, selfish,

indifferent.

Personal Experiences

We all have the experience of the social psychological phenomenon.

 1. In my earlier age, primary school, I was a victim of bullying. There was one student

who instigated it. He called me names. He stole my things and lunchables. He hurt me

physically. No one ever protected me, even my classmates and teachers. This student

was popular in the school. I think it is about social references. In order to receive

social signals in times of crisis when it's unclear what to do due to confusion, we

frequently observe what other people are doing. if no one is acting, we can infer that

there is a cause for the inaction and make the mistaken assumption that no action is

required. The teachers didn’t do anything even I was bullied right in front of them.

That is why, the other student didn’t act to intervene.

2. I was always in Manila every day because of my check-up. I have seen many poor

people begging for money and food. I really want to help them because I pity them

for what they have gone through, but my mother insisted that others will help. She

said that I shouldn’t help them or give them my money because it is not my business.

This is the diffusion of responsibility.

There are many example of bystander effect. You can be the bystander and, also, the victim of it.

However, the bystander effect in the age of social media not only diffuses responsibility, but

allows bystanders to take it to the next level by actively watching victims suffer, so they can

record the situation to post on their social media later.

Moral Responsibility
 A key and common component of our moral practices and interpersonal interactions is

making assessments of a person's moral responsibility for her behavior as well as holding others

and ourselves accountable for our own acts and their results.

A person's behavior is judged to have arisen (in the proper way) from the fact that they

have, and have exercised, specific powers and capacities. This is true, at least roughly, when

determining whether or not they are morally accountable for their actions.

According to Aquinas, all human actions are governed by a general principle or precept

that is foundational to and necessary for all practical reasoning: good is to be done and evil is to

be avoided. This principle is not something we can “ignore” or defy.

Thomas argues that only rational agents are capable of perfect knowledge, and that only

perfect knowledge leads to perfectly voluntary actions. Further, only perfectly voluntary actions

qualify and agent for praise or blame. Thus, free-will is a necessary condition of moral

responsibility. If they witness damage happening or about to happen, everyone has a duty and

obligation to act. Everyone in the neighborhood who witnesses or hears about activity that might

result in harm is considered a bystander. And I believe our intervention is necessary and “our”

responsibility. The others are our obligation. Their well-being is our responsibility and

obligation. It is our moral.

Bystander Intervention

According to Harvard University’s Office of Sexual Assault Prevention and

Response 2019 that Bystander Intervention is a social science model that predicts the

likelihood of individuals (or groups) willing to actively address a situation they deem

problematic. A bystander is anyone who observes a situation. We all observe numerous

 incidents and interactions daily, but usually do not acknowledge the situation as needing

our response. An active bystander is someone who acknowledges a problematic situation

and chooses how to respond.

By intervening, onlookers have the power to stop damage from happening. The

decision to interfere or to continue without attempting to change the situation is up to

each and every bystander. Bystander intervention is done in five phases. A person must

first become aware of the incident. Second, they must see it as an emergency requiring

action. Thirdly, they need to take accountability for intervening. Fourth, they have to

choose how to step in. They must also take action. Barriers may be encountered at any of

these phases, preventing a person from acting if they see someone being harmed.

In my Seminary Formation

Being a bystander in our community means two things, one positive, you observe and let

the people involve fix it on their own. Second, the negative, you are indifferent to those who are

involved. It is confusing but it is happening in our community here in Our Lady of the Pillar

Seminary. The two has their own wisdom and values but the two are not coinciding to each

other. When this has happened, I observe first if my intervention is needed or not because some

intervention might cause more harm. If my intervention is needed, that is the time I intervene. I

believe that intervention has its own right time and right place for things to be fixed properly

especially for issues and problems of other seminarian and people in our community. I know that

if an intervention is really needed. As a seminarian, we are to be more of peace than of what will

cause chaos or harm. We, church leaders, are the ones people are looking-up for peace. If there is
chaos we must act according to our moral responsibility. We teaching God’s love and His

commandment of Love. Let us be that God’s love as God is our moral image. Be not a bystander

but be a Bystander who intervenes for the good.

“Are you going to help or not?”