Counter example
In 2019, a large international cultural anthropology study analyzed 219 street disputes and confrontations that were recorded by security cameras in three cities in different countries—Lancaster, Amsterdam, and Cape Town. Contrary to bystander theory, the study found that bystanders intervened in almost every case, and the chance of intervention went up with the number of bystanders; "a highly radical discovery and a completely different outcome than theory predicts."[68]
This study is the first large-scale test of the bystander effect in real-life. Up until now, this effect was mainly studied in the lab by asking study subjects how they would respond in a particular situation. Another striking aspect of this study is that the observations come from three different countries including the violent country of South Africa where intervening in a street dispute is not without risk ... Nevertheless, peacemakers do draw a line according to a follow-up study ... In the case of armed robberies, bystanders intervene far less.[68]
If I'm reading the statistics in the study correctly [0], most of these 80 incidents (70%) were pulled from CCTV footage at a "night time drinking setting." Groups of 18 people on average standing around bars, presumably outside. In 20% of cases someone de-escalated, 5% of the time a bystander joined in to escalate the violent encounter, and 4% it was a mix of escalation/de-escalation. Presumably the rest of the time no one intervened.
This is not an ideal setting to analyze the bystander effect. People are drunk. People know each other. People may have just met but started bonding over alcohol (and cigarettes, if we are outside the bar). Seems more like a study of the behavior of drunk people than anything else.
Fair warning, I'm not great at interpreting statistics nor reading sociological studies, I prefer to read about medicine. I'm open to being corrected.
Yeah but we re talking about the real world. If we re honest, when do most conflicts arise with bystanders ready? When people are drunk at night... (or similarly mentally impaired maybe? why do people have open conflicts in the streets in the first place should be part of the theory).
So you might say that if the theory didnt take alcohol, nights and all your factors into account, then it was as useful as considering investors as rational in an econ theory and predicted nothing worth predicting.
Bystander effect is more than just street fights at 1am.
When I saw the title of this piece, my first thought was an emergency situation (eg - automobile accident, building on fire).
Did the study even determine whether bystanders were independent individuals or had a prior relationship to the belligerents? If the second one then it feels like the study is invalidated.
Intervention by a drunk to stop the fight of more-drunks is part of standard bar protocol, plus inhibitions are lower thanks to alcohol
Doubtful it represents most real bystander situations where you actually need to make a choice, like situations in daily life where you are busy going about your business (rather than being in a bar literally for this sort of fun), or low key stuff like bullying, harassment, etc etc.
I think people realize too the bar scene attracts shady characters who may retaliate and drag you into an escalating drama you don't want to stick around and find out and have to start dodging bullets or knifes or something outrageous.
I'm inclined to agree simply because humans are way too complex to be defined in that way.
But I have a story of a pretty horrible case of bystaderism that I saw 10+ years ago. A man suddenly had an epileptic fit, or something of that effect, in the street. I was about 30 meters away and saw hos this man just fell to the ground suddenly. On a busy downtown street in Sweden's 4th largest city. People who were walking behind him literally stepped over him and kept walking while I ran towards him to see what was wrong.
But I wasn't the only one who ran to him. The stand out thing was specifically a couple who were walking at his pace behind him and just stepped over him and kept walking, a young couple too in their 20s. Very strange and forever stuck in my head.
But both me and several others rushed to his aide and stayed with him, held him in the side position, until he regained consciousness.
Anyways, about 10 years later I find out I have mild autism.
The wikipedia page seems slightly one-sided, not mentioning recent high profile cases where people who intervened in public violence or threats of it were severely punished. The perception that this rate might be changing surely contributes to the actions of everyday people.
Quite oddly, the bystander effect is biggest in countries that celebrate collective action, and the smallest in countries with strong individualist bents.
the narrative about the bystander effect is not real either. two of Kitty Genovese's neighbors helped her, one even confronting her attacker. there were also several calls to the police.
Maybe the knowledge of the bystander effect makes people consciously avoid it. Plus all those set-up shows where they get people to do "off" shit and see how people react.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bystander_effect#Counter_examp...
even wikipedia has updated saying