The Bystander Effect
P1 Good people often fail to act. Although people like to think that they think for themselves, most are greatly influenced by the effects of group dynamics. When people are in a group, they feel a pressure to conform to the group’s values and social norms. Solomon Asch showed that most people will conform to a group’s answer despite being certain it was the wrong one. Humans have evolved to live in groups. When acceptance means survival, conformity can be a beneficial trait. The bystander effect is a phenomenon where the number of people in a group is inversely related to the likelihood of a person intervening. A person is more likely to get help if only one person sees them than if hundreds of people walk by them. When a person is alone, they feel a greater responsibility to help another. When multiple people are able to help, each feels less responsible because others have the ability to help. A person in a group looks to others for the appropriate response. If others are passing by, then refusing to help seems to be the proper response.
P2 The murder of Kitty Genovese may have inspired the research on the bystander effect but it is a poor example of the bystander effect. Ten days after the murder, The New York Times published an article with the memorable title, “37 Who Saw Murder Didn’t Call the Police”. This article has distorted the public’s view of the murder. It implies that 37 people watched a person get murdered without helping. The bystander effect is the only explanation for this false scenario. The actual events are not explained by the bystander effect. The bystander effect only applies to groups. The actual number of witness that understood the gravity of the situation was 7. These 7 people were not all together and and had no way of knowing that others were watching. These people were either alone in their apartment or with one other person. The bystander effect is negligible in a group of 2. The bystander effect also relies on a person looking to others for an appropriate response. This would be impossible if the witnesses were in other apartments and all looking through their windows. Another misconception is that the witness took no action. One man shouted at the murderer to leave the victim alone. This was effective and scared him off. Another witness claims that his father called the police and said that a woman was beat up and staggering. When the murderer came back for his second attack, a witness alerted another resident who called the police and held Kitty in her arms until the ambulance arrived. Multiple witness intervened with the murder in varying degrees. Assuming that the other witnesses understood that a woman was being murdered is unfair. The murder happened in a well off neighborhood with a low crime rate. It would be outrageous for the witness to hear someone yelling and to jump to the conclusion it was a murder. One couple that the yelling was a lover’s quarrel. A sensationalist article has distorted our view of this murder and unfairly demonizes the witnesses.
P3 Although the bystander effect doesn’t apply to Kitty Genovese’s murder, it is very real. The smoke filled room experiment demonstrated the bystander effect in a controlled environment. While a subject was taking a questionnaire, smoke would come under the door and start filling the room. When the subject was alone, they would often report the smoke to someone. When the subject was in the room with others that were not reacting to the smoke, they rarely reported the smoke. They would ignore the smoke with the others. This experiment showed that a person in a group looks to the other group members before acting. Because the others didn’t react to the smoke, the subject assumed that the smoke was not a threat. If no one takes the initiative to be the first to help, no one else will help.
P4 The real world demonstration of the bystander effect was in 2009 when a sophomore was raped and assaulted by 10 people while another 10 watched. She was found nearly nude, covered in scrapes and bruises, with head trauma, and a near fatal blood alcohol levels. Although alcohol was involved, it does not explain this atrocity. The witnesses understood what was happening. Some even announced it to others. There were multiple ways the witnesses could have stopped this. The simplest way would be to call 911. In 2009, 80 percent of teens had a cell phone. Help was just a phone call away. They could have told one of the chaperones from the dance. The chaperones would have stopped the rape and called the cops. They could also have stepped in and stopped the rape themselves. Instead, the girl was found by chance. Someone had heard a student talking about the rape and called the cops. The only explanation for this is the bystander effect. The witnesses likely saw each other just watching and thought that was the appropriate response. This incident showed how real and how powerful the bystander effect can be on witnesses.
P5 Humans can be loving and compassionate at times. We can also be apathetic and cruel. The bystander effect shows that well meaning, normal people can ignore a person in need. We see ourselves as sophisticated but our primitive traits are still linger. People are still influenced by group dynamics. We doubt ourselves when our thoughts differ from our group’s thoughts. Acceptance can mean survival and can be more important than what we think is doing the right thing. Unfortunately, the bystander effect still shows how groups can cause us to ignore our intuition and conform. People in need will still be ignored.
Works Cited
“Police: As many as 20 present at gang rape outside school dance.” CNN. Cable News Network, 28 Oct. 2009. Web. 06 Mar. 2017.
“Solomon Asch’s Experiment on Conformity.” Psychminds Everyday Psychological Discussions. N.p., 01 Sept. 2013. Web. 1 Mar. 2017.
Benderly, Berly. “Psychology’s tall tales.” American Psychologica Association. N.p., n.d. Web. 06 Mar. 2017.
Gansberg, Martin. “37 Who Saw Murder Didn’t Call the Police.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 26 Mar. 1964. Web. 06 Mar. 2017.
Lenhart, Amanda. “Cell phone ownership.” Pew Research Center: Internet, Science & Tech. N.p., 18 Mar. 2012. Web. 06 Mar. 2017.
Latane, Bibb and John M. Darley. “Group Inhibition of Bystander Intervention in Emergencies.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 10, no. 3, Nov. 1968, pp. 215-221. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1037/h0026570.
a1175
aeks123
alyse816
bmdpiano
chancetoremember
chippy1313
dancestar10
davidbdale
dunkindonuts10
dupreeh79
Cleo
gossipgirl3801
greeneggsandham234
harp03
j6128
killerbeanforever
kingoflizards
krustykrabpizza7
nayr79
nickalodeansallthat
omgmafia
romanhsantiago
rose1029
samtheman1448
shaquilleoatmeal2250
Shiloh Vasko
sixers103
starbucks732
stripedsweater21
studentwriter1212
taxmanmaxwell
tenere84
More Money Maintenance
therealjohnsanchez
torthey
walmaarts
wentzwagon11
Counterintuitive 
Sanchez, a few remarks about your first paragraph.
1. It covers a LOT of ground, containing several important claims any one of which could be the topic sentence for a paragraph of its own.
2. It tries to function without transitions, trusting readers to connect the dots.
3. It breaks down complex claims into several smaller statements that get wordy trying to reach toward their kin.
I’ll break it into clusters.
I love this one.
B. Although people like to think that they think for themselves, most are greatly influenced by the effects of group dynamics. When people are in a group, they feel a pressure to conform to the group’s values and social norms. Solomon Asch showed that most people will conform to a group’s answer despite being certain it was the wrong one.
This is one sentence, divided.
You could start another sentence to point out that Solomon Asch’s test subjects demonstrated “group dynamics” by going along with their groups to affirm answers they knew to be incorrect.
Beautiful claims that completely intrude on your paragraph here, Sanchez. When you find the right place for it, flesh it out a bit to help readers draw the right conclusions.
That was your transition to this:
This treatment of the material generates lots of extra language to compensate for the lack of transitions.
Is that (a) helpful without (b) being too intrusive on your material?
More feedback is always available. Just put your post back in the Feedback Please category.
Now a few notes about P2.
1. Use italics for publications.
2. Periods ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS go inside the quotation marks.
3. For numbers zero to nine, use words for numbers. For two-digit numbers or higher, like 37, use numerals.
Now let’s look at the first words in every sentence:
The
Ten days
This
It
The bystander effect
The
The bystander effect
The
These 7 people
These people
The bystander effect
The bystander effect
This
You may certainly reject this writing style, but do give it a chance to impress you with its ability to draw readers along a logical path toward your desired conclusions.
Helpful?
I like this work, Sanchez. Reading your last paragraphs I find myself wishing there were good examples of the positive outcomes of the bystander effect. Have you found them? Cases of groups reacting with generosity and benevolence because the group dictated cooperation?
I haven’t been looking for positive outcomes of the bystander effect. I read one study that suggested that if the helper is in danger then people will flock to help them. It seems it takes one person it break the apathy before others help.
I figured there would have to be such cases. The group waits for an individual to emerge as conscience. If none appears, they just observe.