One concept that writers need to understand when writing fictional works that involve an emergency situation is the bystander effect. Writers sometimes create unrealistic emergency situations because they lack an understanding of the bystander effect. In other cases, writers sometimes struggle to justify why their characters do not provide help to other characters.

The bystander effect is when the presence of other people reduces the probability that people will help in an emergency situation (Darley & Latane, 1968; Chekroun & Brauer, 2002). In an emergency situation, the presence of multiple witnesses to the situation serves to diffuse the sense of responsibility that each witness has to take action due to the belief that someone else will act (Beyer, Sidarus, Bonicalzi, & Haggard, 2017). When it comes to the bystander effect, there are two main variables or forces that influence whether a person responds in an emergency situation.

The first main variable is group size; Darley and Latane (1968) conducted an experiment that a person is less likely to respond or provide assistance in an emergency situation if they perceive there to be a large group of people who also witnessed the emergency. The smaller the group of people who see or are involved in an emergency situation the more likely it is that those people will call 911 and/or take additional action. The second main variable is the lack of knowledge. Regardless of group size, people that have frozen or not acted in an emergency have reported afterward that they took no action because they did not know what to do or what was going on (Darley & Latane, 1968). Those that fail to respond in an emergency have been found to sometimes do so due to indecision and conflict concerning whether they should take action or not. In these situations, often the person or people who witnessed the situation did not consciously choose not to act but rather were caught up in attempting to choose if they should help or not.

A well-known example of the bystander effect is the situation that occurred in New York City where a young woman was stabbed to death in a residential area. The event was witnessed by 38 people who did nothing (Rosenthal, 1964). The bystander effect is not present in only emergency situations, but also in everyday life in the form of bullying. Typically when bullying occurs there are witnesses and it is the action of these witnesses that determines if the bullying is likely to continue or to stop (Kärnä et al., 2008). In bullying situations, bystanders are not just faced with two decisions, but instead three choices: do nothing, provide help, or to join in on the bullying (Takami & Haruno, 2019). If those witnessing the bullying situation join in on the bullying, it makes the situation not only worse but also increases the likelihood of the situation continuing.

References

Beyer, F., Sidarus, N., Bonicalzi, S., & Haggard, P. (2017). Beyond self-serving bias: diffusion of

responsibility reduces sense of agency and outcome monitoring. Social Cognitive & Affective Neuroscience, 12(1), 138-145. Retrieved from http://doi-org.ezproxy.snhu.edu/10.1093/scan/nsw160

Chekroun, P., and Brauer, M. (2002). The bystander effect and social control behavior: the effect

of the presence of others on people’s reactions to norm violations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 32(6), 853-67

Darley, J. M., & Latane, B. (1968). Bystander intervention in emergencies: Diffusion of

responsibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8(4, Pt.1), 377–383. https://doi-org.ezproxy.snhu.edu/10.1037/h0025589

Rosenthal, A. M. (1964). Thirty-eight witnesses. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Takami, K., & Haruno, M. (2019). Behavioral and functional connectivity basis for peer-

influenced bystander participation in bullying. Social Cognitive & Affective Neuroscience, 14(1), 23–33. https://doi-org.ezproxy.snhu.edu/10.1093/scan/nsy109