Talk:Bystander effect

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 September 2020 and 6 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): ASCXX.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:28, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Example

A simple explanation of why, though the terrorists who hi-jacked planes during 9/11 were only armed with less-than-fatal weapons, no one rose to stop them (in all but one of the flights), is the bystander effect or pluralistic ignorance.

Phelanpt: Why was the above removed from the page? I think the example is a good way to explain the concept. I'm reverting the page to the last version with example, which is my edit, and referring to this Talk page. If my edit, or the example itself is not appropriate, I would appreciate if you would correct it, while providing some explanation here.

Hello Phelanpt, I didn't remove your example, but maybe I can nevertheless comment on it. The essence of the bystander effect is that people sometimes are unlikely to do something when others are present, whereas they would be very likely to do something if they were alone. Example:

You are walking your dog early in the morning and see thick smoke coming out of the window of a house. It looks like something is burning inside. If you were alone, you would presumably at least check out if there really was a fire. However, if other people who are walking by ignore the smoke, you might conclude that there is apparently no emergency, and ignore the situation.

In this example, it clearly makes a difference whether you are alone or not. However, in the example of the 9/11 hijackings it is not obvious that the passengers would have responded very differently if they had been alone with the hijackers. At any rate, I assume that most unarmed people would be very reluctant to fight four or five men armed with boxcutters (even though, as you point out, these things are probably non-lethal): so there is no obvious difference between the way in which the passengers would have acted if they were alone with the hijackers and the way they have acted when other passengers were present. I think that an example in which the difference between people's solitary and group behaviour is proven (or at least very plausible) would be better.

Please tell me what you think about it.

Best regards, Sietse 13:24, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

The original example was not mine, I merely edited it slightly. It was just the removal of an example without any justification that made me revert the page. I think a good example makes concepts much easier to understand.

Now that you pointed it out, I see why it might have been removed, and that I might have overreacted.

I think the example you have given is much clearer, so if you don't mind, I'll replace the current one with yours, and maybe delete this Talk page. I'm not quite sure what the policy for this case is, as I'm new at editing Wikipedia.

Thanks for your comment, User:Phelanpt 02h00 26 May 2005 (UTC)

You were right: people shouldn't remove text from articles without explaining why. The guideline in Wikipedia for these kinds of things is that you should be bold in updating pages. So reverting unexplained deletion of text is good and improving examples is always okay too.

And welcome to Wikipedia, by the way. Sietse 09:19, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I've re-worded the example a bit. I don't know enough about the subject to comment on the suitability of the example, but I think it reads better without the use of 'you' and 'your'. The intention was to leave the article otherwise unchanged. --Batneil 21:05, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Anonymous poster

An anonymous poster asked a few questions in the article itself. I reverted his edits. Here are his questions, though:

I know that this is the wrong place to post this, but can someone post suggestions as to what to do about this phenomenon? Would the police and authorities to prefer to have many many phone calls about one event rather than take the chance it goes unreported? Is there some way in certain situations to indicate that help has been called and is coming? When I was in a rollover accident, 9 different cars stopped to make sure I was okay. One person with a cell phone stayed with me until the police came so subsequent drivers saw that someone was standing with me and with a cell phone.

When I see smoke from a forest fire that looks like it has been burning for awhile, I always assume it was reported long before I saw it, especially if I am on a road that many people drive. Is there some number I can call or internet site I can visit to make sure that somebody is aware and working on it?

Thanks.

--Anittas 20:53, 16 October 2005 (UTC) (Note: I didn't right the Italic text above!)

Better thousands of calls on a real emergency than 1 prank call, or no calls at all. Most of the time when I call in, they tell me it's been reported. Not only that, but people naturally judge the severity based on how many people call. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.180.38.20 (talk) 15:59, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Feature article status

The path to a Featured Article
Start a new article Research and write a great article Check against the featured article criteria Get creative feedback (Peer review) Apply for featured article status Featured articles

Hello, anyone who watches this page, or happens to come along, or even sees the edit summary on recent changes.
I'd like to try to make this a feature article, there is a lot that can be said on this topic. Anyone interested?
brenneman^(t)(c) 01:01, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Guy walking past a fire?

• Is this really the same effect? It seems more like a conscious decision than some base part of the human psyche to me. Sophistifunk 09:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Awareness

"There is controversy over whether any of the alleged witnesses were in fact aware of the seriousness of the attack on Ms. Genovese. The claim that they were is traceable to newspaper coverage at the time of the attack which does not quote those witnesses, and many of them deny having been aware of any of the events at the time."
This "minor edit" changes the meaning of the sentence...Were the witnesses aware of the incident or not?
--Phelan 23:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

According to the Wikipedia article Kitty Genovese only one witness was aware of the first stabbing and only one was aware of the second. There were only a dozen witnesses. Most of the witnesses believed they were hearing a quarrel or just some noisy bar visitors. The police was called on both attacks. It seems that although the effect has been named after her, the Kitty Genovese murder was in fact not an example of the Genovese Syndrome. This ought to be mentioned in the text. --gnirre (talk) 06:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Should be noted

It should be noted that bystander effect experiments do not demonstrate that people, when in a group, are less likely to respond to an incident. Say, when alone, someone has an 80% chance of responding to the incident. Now, with one other person that they know is witnessing the incident, they have a 60% chance of being the one to respond. There is still an 84% chance that one of the two people listening will respond. There is a 36% chance that both will respond, and a 16% chance neither will respond. However, the odds that someone will respond have increased, despite the bystander effect. In the Kitty Genovese case, there might have been only a 20% chance any individual person would respond, regardless of the severity of the crime, simply because it was a large perceived group of people. This would make it a .02% chance that no one would respond, and it just happened to occur.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 52.128.30.27 (talk) 16:06, 26 July 2006

In light of recent reexaminations of the accuracy of previous landmark studies in this field, I agree that some kind of criticism of the theory is necessary. For example, the facts above would be well suited for inclusion in the article if a source was cited.
-52.128.30.27 (talk) 16:06, 26 July 2006

See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kitty_Genovese&oldid=217862407#Aftermath:_2007_and_2008 -71.116.133.124 (talk) 21:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• The probabilities cannot be computed this simply because the people's responses are not independent events. This type of behaviour cannot easily be modeled by mathematics, and understanding the interactions of group members is complex, even among much simpler organisms. How many times have we all watched someone reach the doors on a bus an instant too late without calling to the driver to wait?
  -99.236.28.69 (talk) 23:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

antonym

I removed the factoid that alleged that the antonym to the bystander effect is civil courage. I think the term "bystander intervention" would be a more accurate antonym. Besides, the article on civil courage is a mess; among other problems, the article on civil courage confuses civil courage with the more general concept of courage itself. -- Minaker
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Minaker (talk • contribs) 16:23, 23 August 2006

Try Politeness

Often bystanders are in shock. Issuing orders rarely elicits support. I've found that simple politeness is effective "Could someone please phone an ambulance." worked for me. Issuing orders could get you into a worse position in many cases. 83.70.163.71 (talk) 21:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

This seems slightly off-topic, but I feel compelled to note that your suggestion doesn't address the root of the Bystander problem. Simply requesting "someone" to call an ambulance (in your example) does nothing to counter the diffusion of responsibility, which is the main problem to begin with. In an emergency, I don't think many people could reasonably be upset at a single person taking charge when no one else will. --Todeswalzer|Talk 04:01, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Lawsuits

I was under the impression that the U.S.A. had a good samiaritan law, which protects bystanders from lawsuits if they -try- to help but screw things up further.
Lots42 (talk) 22:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

• I think the “lawsuits” aspects would profit from further elaboration and expansion on the thought.
  Having grown up in the 1960th, I personally feel that especially from the 1990th onwards a lot of public hysteria, “assumption of bad faith” and over-regulation has sneaked into everyone’s lives severely adding to the “bystander effect”.
  For example, as a 5-year old I was (by default) allowed to play with the other kids un-supervised in the streets. One day, I ran after the other children, lost touch and kept wandering. After I while I had no idea where I was and wandered off even further. An old man (in my child’s perception, maybe in his 50th) talked to me and asked where I was going without an adult. I told him that I was lost; he took me by his hand and led me home. My mother thanked this perfect stranger and he disappeared saying “no worries, my kids used to do the same thing”.
  No one thought anything about it. If the same thing happened today … why is that man talking to a child? Is he a paedophile? Where is he taking the child? Even after dropping the child off home, there is a fair chance that he would be accused, rather than thanked.
  There was in last few month ago a discussion on the BBC that many youth charities (especially sport organisation) suffer from a shortage of adult volunteers to coach the youngsters. When asked, qualified adults stayed away from these coaching positions because they are afraid that they might be perceived / suspected of being child molesters. According to the BBC analysis, this is widening the generation gap, with no solution in sight.
  Personally, I would neither go anywhere near a strange child nor offer assistance/help unless I am absolutely certain that my help is necessary. In case of a child, I would not do anything without being chaperoned (like having my own children and/or my wife around).
  I guess that this “bad faith” environment is severely contributing to the Bystander effect. Why would anyone offer assistance if one cannot do so without fearing negative consequences?
  Has anyone got any research results along those lines? It would be really helpful if this could be added to the article and to expand on the “lawsuits” thought.
  HagenUK (talk) 11:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The links in the following contrib are struck thru as deceptive: see my #Deceptive! contrib below.^{--Jerzy•t 06:09, 31 October 2009 (UTC)}

• (I can help you there. **(note: this is not legal advice)**
  If it's not a family member:

  -Can't be sued if you attempt to help even if you injure further.
  -Are only required to help if it does not put your own life at risk.
  [Like Here] [and here]

If it's a member of your family you are by law required to help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.56.247.13 (talk) 14:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• Free information about what the law says is likely to be worth even less than what you pay for it. Including what you hear from me.
  That (and IANAL) being said, the reliability of what is said above is implausible, simply in light of the insinuation that it is Federal law, and, respectively, failure to take issue with that; anyone who responsibly asserts that will IMO cite the name of the Federal statute. Actually, it almost certainly varies from state to state, as even the first sentence of Good Samaritan law hints, and is explicit by the end of the 1st 'graph.
  In that light, it is pointless to comment on the specifics offered, such as the meaning of "put your own life at risk" (since looking at a serious injury might make me swoon and bust my skull).
  However, particularly relevant to the cases usually cited, criminal penalties for inaction, again varying state to state in the US, are often at issue; my impression is that misprision of felony is common law and IIRC applies in all states (maybe with the exception of Louisiana) that have not explicitly overridden it; on last night's Law and Order SUV, for instance, the next-to-last plot twist turned on, IIRC, simple failure to report the felony constituting MoF.
  --Jerzy•t 21:40, 29 & 06:09, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
  
• Deceptive! A colleague offered some opinions about the law above; i struck thru their links, which are likely to appear to be supportive references. They link merely to PSAs about safety, that can be construed as appeals to take responsibility for coworkers, and don't, if at all, even hint at a statement about the law that i could catch by viewing them once.
  --Jerzy•t 06:09, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
  

The Department of the Army is doing bystander training with respect to sexual assault.

Article states: "The Department of the Army is doing bystander training with respect to sexual assault." but this passage is unclear as it does not refer to which country's "Department of the Army" is doing this training. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesrhead (talk • contribs) 17:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Help for you

The following financial solicitation is off-topic. Off-topic doesn't guarantee no editor will get an article-relevant idea, but editors should give the following struck-thru msg a strong presumption of wasting their time.

The bystander effect can be countered by the victim picking a specific person in the crowd to ask for help rather than appealing to the larger group. No study can back this up. Am willing to conduct but requires financing. :) [email protected] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.84.172.150 (talk) 17:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Rdrs & current instances

I got this far before finding the accompanying article; i'm satisfied with having created a Rdr from bystander non-intervention and bystander non-intervention effect but perhaps someone better qualified will update and expand, maybe even using some of my wording.

The bystander non-intervention is the failure of people to act when observing behavior they disapprove of and know they could ameliorate by individual action.

Social psychologists describe a "bystander non-intervention effect" where the larger the group observing a person in distress, the less likely it is that at least one will intervene.

== Highly publicized instances ==

* Kitty Genovese murder, 1964

* Richmond, California 2009 gang rape

* Chicago 2009 2-by-4 murder

--Jerzy•t 18:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Keep in mind Wikipedia:No_original_research Chupta65 (talk) 02:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Richmond HS rape

Professional psychologists have not classified the Richmond HS incident as the bystander effect, as of now only members of the media are linking the two. Chupta65 (talk) 02:26, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Everyone watching must have known what they were all there for. It's not the bystander effect and it doesn't have anything to do with cat calling or watching porn(re: the abc article). Those people are sick ****s and they should all have been jailed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.30.189.84 (talk) 12:07, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Petru

The Petru section does not seem to be sufficently cited for Wikipedia (there is a dispute as to the -intent- of the shooting) and it doesn't seem to apply to this situation. If, as the paragraph seems to indicate, the pedestrians knew that the shooters were Mafia, of course they would not intefere. Lots42 (talk) 00:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Another example?

just a suggestion to add a more recent example?

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/opera-singer-ignored-after-collapse/story-e6frf7l6-1225942042995 150.203.239.33 (talk) 12:09, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Simone

I think we need more reliable sources for this Facebook bit. Lots42 (talk) 22:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The Bystander Effect

. In addition,group size interacted with context-specific norms that both inhibit and encourage helping. the bystander effect is not a generic consequence of increasing group size. Look at this sentence...read over it....what do you notice? In the section "Social Psychology Research," this sentence appears which is not grammatically correct. You need to capatilize the "T," after the sentence "In additon." So please capatilize it. Thank you.-James Pandora Adams —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.176.170.87 (talk) 02:04, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Repetition

I'm not sure which one would be best to remove, but the following paragraph is essentially written out twice in the article, in two different sections.

"There are, in fact, many reasons why bystanders in groups fail to act in emergency situations, but social psychologists have focused most of their attention on two major factors. According to a basic principle of social influence, bystanders monitor the reactions of other people in an emergency situation to see if others think that it is necessary to intervene. Since everyone is doing exactly the same thing (nothing), they all conclude from the inaction of others that help is not needed. This is an example of pluralistic ignorance or social proof. The other major obstacle to intervention is known as diffusion of responsibility. This occurs when observers all assume that someone else is going to intervene and so each individual feels less responsible and refrains from doing anything.[6]"

Alhanalem (talk) 07:03, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Death of Wang Yue incident

I would like to see a source for this incident falling under the "Bystander effect". The cited article does not mention the Bystander effect and this seems to be WP:OR. There were never enough people present for this to be justified by the Bystander effect, as people walked past individually, without any crowd presence. - CompliantDrone (talk) 22:59, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I've seen a couple of articles talk about the Bystander Effect but they've all also speculated that high profile lawsuits blaming good Samaritans in China could have been a contributing factor. Here's one example. This one actually noted some specific figures in terms of damages the drivers may have had to pay (unsure of reliability or usability of source) since apparently it would cost them more if she was merely injured as opposed to dead (which, WTF?). Lawsuits mentioned in passing here. Nearly every article I've read has at least mentioned that officials are considering passing a good Samaritan law, at lest touching on the concept. So yeah I agree that this incident may not quite be the same, but for different reasons. Perhaps the brief mention should be expanded a little bit to clarify objections to it being classified as Bystander Effect (the same way a couple of the other examples have been). Millahnna (talk) 19:54, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Articles which do not mention the Bystander Effect sometimes instead quote the Kitty Genovesa case, which is almost directly directly related to the Bystander Effect. But ai do agree that it only played a part in the inaction, equal or more weight (to me) seems to have been put on the fear of legal repercussions and the cultural notion of (lack of) "relation" or "guan xi" between the pedestrians and the toddler. Perhaps a mention, then qualifying it with mention of the other factors involved leading to thhe reported inaction? Zhanzhao (talk) 00:41, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm against it. This is the bystander effect page. I doubt mentioning other factors, unless they are solidly cited by reliable sources, is worth mentioning. And even then it would be in parentheses. This is not the incident article. Jesanj (talk) 00:45, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Well it is backed up in sources that we can use (one of my links above is a Washington Post article, another is Daily Mail, which I know is debatable but sometimes usable around the site). But since this article is outside my usual scope (I'm a film dork) I wasn't sure about brief mentions of the other factors. It looks like some of the other examples listed do that but I wasn't sure if that was the norm for the wiki projects that cover this article. As a reader, it makes sense to me to note "some people argue against this as a true example because of [blah blah other factors]" with a source. It seems like that should be clarifying for a laymen reading the page (since I am one). But yeah, not my usual topic so I wasn't sure. Millahnna (talk) 03:07, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not much into psychology myself, but the intent of the section is to provide examples of the bystander effect. The extent to which other psychological states occur during the bystander effect belongs in other sections of the article, with high-quality sources. Jesanj (talk) 04:21, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

‎New York's Central Park Parade

I don't think the example of the ‎New York's Central Park Parade (which I just removed) is self-evidently an example of the by-stander effect. It is possible that the police were ordered not to intervene by superior officers -- and the fact that the police were present could explain why nobody called 911. And intervening against large disorderly crowds is not the same as the other examples we have here. So I think a good source attributing this to the bystander effect is needed before this content is included. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 10:57, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

significant restructuring

I'm an honours psychology student editing this page as part of a social psychology elective, thinking of making a couple of changes.

1. I think that the separation of social psychological research and explanations is not the most helpful way to arrange it. Perhaps it would be better off generally going through the development of the research with the explanations associated with the relevant research 2. Milgram's explanation after the Kitty Genovese section should be moved into general social psychology research section instead 3. Adding in more relating to the group membership and similarity research in bystander effect, and social identity/self categorisation approaches to helping behaviours. 4. adding link to altruism page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Capespartel (talk • contribs) 11:42, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Link to double act

I also just noticed that the link on "confederate" to "double act" is a bit tenuous. Obviously there's some common ground between a confederate in a comedy double act and a psychological experiment but I think the link is just confusing and unnecessary.

Capespartel (talk) 00:17, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Clarify please - presence of women makes helping less probable?

does this part: They also "identified situations where bystanders provide welcome physical support for the potentially intervening individual and thus reduce the bystander effect, such as when the bystanders were exclusively male, when they were naive rather than passive confederates or only virtually present persons, and when the bystanders were not strangers."

mean that if women are there (as oposed to exclusively male bystanders) it is less likely that someone will help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.194.186.128 (talk) 21:46, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Removal of 'Masculinity' section

Hi User:CompliantDrone. You will see that I once again removed the 'masculinity' section. I have done this because I see no problem with Anon's original removal. He/she made a bold edit and provided reasoning in the edit summary. This is exemplary editing behavior and should be encouraged. To my knowledge there is no requirement for editors, anonymous or otherwise, to first gain consensus in the talk page before making a removal of referenced content. Of course, if there is a Wikipedia guideline along these lines then please point me in that direction. Otherwise, allow the bold edit or revert it for substantive reasons (I.e. because you do not agree with Anon's rationale). Cheers Andrew (talk) 02:40, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever from WP:CONS. Removal of sourced material simply because you disagree with it or because you want to pat a "bold" so-called "Anon" editor on the back is not suitable justification for removing content. - CompliantDrone (talk) 05:59, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi CompliantDrone. Anon's edit rationale was as follows:

Deleted study for ambiguous conclusions - study reports opposite findings for the same experiment, one that states that masculinity is inversely related to likelihood of help, the other that masculinity/femininity is not a factor

I have no idea how you have managed to translate that into "I just don't like it". Who do you think you are quoting? If you have some actual rebuttal for Anon's rationale then please provide that here. Otherwise please allow the quite reasonable edit to go ahead. Kind regards Andrew (talk) 03:18, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi all. After two weeks of no reply I am going ahead and reapplying the original edit from Anon. Should CompliantDrone return I hope that they will meaningfully engage here rather than once again reverting Anon's edit. Cheers Andrew (talk) 08:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Non sequitor

Not enough research has been on rape myths and bystander attitudes for different ethnicities to make any generalizations based on race.

Presumably not enough research has been done on rape myths to make an generalizations based on eye colour, country of origin, favourite sport, height, etc. So why have a sentence added talking about one specific category which we don't know enough about to make a statement? --91.209.142.224 (talk) 13:54, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi anon. I agree that the section is very tenuously related to the bystander effect and would advocate for its removal at this stage. In fact, I just reinstated just such a removal. The reason that the origional removal did not go ahead appears to be because the edit was not accompanied with a sufficient 'edit summary'. Anyway, hopefully it is all sorted now. Cheers Andrew (talk) 07:32, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Personality and background section?

aside from being extremely short, I have some doubts about "No significant results have been reported to suggest that a person's personality will affect whether or not they help". If someones personality was a selfish d-bag, or a stereotypical baby killing cartoon supervillain, Im sure they would not help regardless of a bystander effect.

I think that source needs to be checked out (I couldnt find it), and/or more needs to be added to that section. as of now it seems sort of worthless — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.125.5.247 (talk) 09:22, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Anon. Nicely pointed out. There have definitely been studies that have shown a relationship between some dispositions and bystander intervention. The claim may have been true in 1970, but it is not now. Given this innacuracy, and the lack of depth in terms of the socioeconomic point, I am going to go ahead and delete the section. Cheers Andrew (talk) 01:46, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Self-consciousness

Fear of making a fool of oneself is most definitely a factor, and it does not seem to be addressed here. It is much easier to intervene in situations where it was just the one bystander and the person needing help. In addition, the monitoring effect also works in reverse: as soon as you do decide to act, all of a sudden everybody else is ready to offer advice, question the way you are acting and generally get in the way. In other words, the helper must not only be ready to help, but also to act with supreme confidence.137.205.183.114 (talk) 08:27, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Bystander effect in the digital sphere

The section on computer mediated intervention raised some interesting points, and I was wondering if that might be a section which could be developed further. Given that a good amount of social interaction happens in an online space, does the anonymity provided by the internet change the prevalence/applicability of the bystander effect? (this would be particularly pertinent in perhaps social situations that were non life threatening, for example online bullying or other inappropriate conduct in an online space?) Bhongwiki (talk) 22:13, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

http://theconversation.com/the-21st-century-bystander-effect-happens-every-day-online-27496 ; https://books.google.com/books?id=wboWAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA411 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.241.22.61 (talk) 16:54, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bystander effect. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100718223019/http://gawker.com:80/5523739/more-than-20-people-passed-as-homeless-new-york-man-bled-to-death to http://gawker.com/5523739/more-than-20-people-passed-as-homeless-new-york-man-bled-to-death

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:45, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure that Audience Modeling, as described in the Children as Bystanders section is an actual Bystander Effect. I can find no connection to that term that is relevant to this piece. Any thoughts on this? I noticed it was tagged as 'jargon', along with some other terms. DG162704 (talk) 17:09, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Bystander effect & whistleblowing

Perhaps expand on the section about what influences bystanders to intervene, or to not. Potential whistleblowers can be seen as bystanders, e.g. they are witness to wrongdoing and must decide whether to intervene, i.e. blow the whistle. They face all sorts of retaliatory reactions. Often whistleblowers experience institutional betrayal, where they think the organisation/institution wants to help them, but the institutions internal processes are designed intentionally or otherwise to undermine the whistleblowers credibility, with its focus on protecting the institution. , there must be a lot of factors that imapct into this type of bystander, and perhaps whistleblowers could be interesting study populations for research into the bystander effect? Throwing it out there.

Individual or group effect?

Philpot (2019) was quoted in the article as having "called the nature of the effect into question", which I've reworded as I don't think the paper is saying that: the research is framed in the paper as saying Half a century of research on bystander behavior concludes that individuals are less likely to intervene during an emergency when in the presence of others than when alone. By contrast, little is known regarding the aggregated likelihood that at least someone present at an emergency will do something to help. and their motivation is that We argue that it is time for psychology to change the narrative away from an absence of help and toward a new understanding of what makes intervention successful or unsuccessful. - they aren't questioning the effect, just the way it's described.

(I can't read the full paper, but this almost seems trivial: if a typical bystander has a 70% chance of helping me when alone and that drops to 40% when they're in a group of 10 bystanders, I'm obviously more likely to get help from someone in that crowd (1-(.4^10) = 99%) than from an individual outside of that crowd and immune to the bystander effect (70%).)

Does this mean that the long-standing "the greater the number of bystanders, the less likely it is that one of them will help" in the lead is a poor summary of the effect? Is the effect more about what happens to an individual than what happens to a crowd as a whole? --Lord Belbury (talk) 08:39, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

So what's the issue? What sourced entry do you two want removed?

The passersby section attributing Chinese & foreign media is something I see many times on other pages, although I suppose I could omit it to just 'There have been reported instances of...' Aside from that, the edits on Khaseen Morris (aside from the extra mention on the 2010) are plenty valid anyway, and I don't seem to be violating rules on paraphrasing, attribution, or plagiarism. Hm, maybe less primary sources & more secondary ones are better, but aside from that, it looks like the ones in the wrong are reverters who haven't given a reason for it (e.g. Horse Eye Jack in his last revert). Donkey Hot-day (talk) 11:16, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, these YouTube videos being primary sources is the problem. See WP:PRIMARY: "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." You are interpreting a "Toddler Falling from Fifth Floor Saved in South China" video to be a rebuttal of Yunxiang Yan's comments about Chinese society, but Wikipedia needs a published source to have done that. Horse Eye Jack pointed out WP:SYNTH which is also an issue here. --Lord Belbury (talk) 12:58, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

You are giving meaning to a collection of sources that they do not individually have on their own, thats clearly WP:SYNTH. The whole construct of “On the other hand...” is problematic and just plain unencyclopedic. 'There have been reported instances of...’ isnt an improvement because it doesn't address the problems with the statement and its more weasel like than your original suggestion. On a personal note please respect WP:Civil. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:24, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't think WP:SYNTH is much of an issue if you're talking of a 'rebuttal'. 'On the other hand' can simply be changed to 'in light of' or something similar which shows an acknowledgement of the above section, as well as an addition to give it balance. A report or two suggesting bystanders in China to be a bigger problem than other countries without anything to balance it hardly constitutes a a neutral point of view either. Plenty of secondary sources that I added also report 'passersby/bystanders saving others' (which was essentially what I paraphrased), like: https://www.asiaone.com/china/passers-china-do-good-again-lift-car-save-woman-trapped-after-accident, https://www.ndtv.com/offbeat/watch-passersby-come-together-to-lift-car-rescue-biker-trapped-under-it-2163082, https://www.ndtv.com/offbeat/watch-bystanders-grab-bedsheet-to-save-boy-falling-from-sixth-floor-1856348, http://youtube.com/watch?v=QGRfPyQNlSM, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysOBLVhjTpg, https://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/watch-bystanders-save-woman-jump-death-bridge-china-article-1.1620932, https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2019/07/31/boy-falls-6-stories-china-saved-crowd-below-dramatic-video/1876245001/ etc. while the AsiaOne article directly references the issue.

So based on the responses, am I to assume the Ipsos poll & Khaseen Morris edits are no problem? Oh, and @Horse Eye Jack, you would also do well to follow those civility rules, in particularly in regards to 'Don't be aggressive', 'Don't make snide comments', and 'ill-considered accusations of impropiety'. You've made your dislike for my edits clear enough. Donkey Hot-day (talk) 03:13, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I dislike your edits not you. I think you missed the point that wikipedia doesn't do rebuttals, period. If as you say its a rebuttal then its inappropriate and thats the end of the story. As for the Khaseen Morris edits they’re mostly good, I dont have a problem letting them stand. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 04:10, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Actually, it seems to be you who misunderstood that I wasn't arguing for a rebuttal but simply something to give more balance/neutrality. Wikipedia also definitely does rebuttals if they're properly sourced; just that in this case, it seems harder to arrange a flat-out rebuttal (I'll chalk it up to media bias). I'm also assuming the Ipsos poll is fine too, based on the lack of response there...

Haha, and your dislike of my edits also tends to bleed into dislike for the user (isn't it generally the case online?). It wasn't me who was being uncivil in our first interaction here, and accusing me of disruptive edits would count as snideness & accusations of impropiety. In my case, I don't follow your edits enough to care whether I like or dislike them, as should be the case with everyone (you could be adding unsourced opinions with spelling errors for all I know, but it wouldn't give me an excuse to be uncivil). Donkey Hot-day (talk) 05:48, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

You have two experienced editors telling you its synth, if you don’t want to listen to what we have to say then Wikipedia:Requests for comment is your way forward. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 07:03, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, considering Belbury's lack of response here, it still seems to be you and me. But yes, Rfc or more likely the OR noticeboard is where I'll be taking this to, since the main dispute in question centers on synth. Donkey Hot-day (talk) 09:12, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

All they have to do is respond once, as nice as it would be for that to be policy we don’t get to disregard someone’s input just because they are no longer commenting. Also if we’re being technical its you who hasn’t replied to him yet not the other way around. I know wikipedia is insanely complicated but you’l eventually get the hang of it. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 09:14, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

The Ipsos poll doesn't mention or describe the bystander effect. It asked people if they have "enough trouble worrying about [their] own problems without worrying about other people's problems", and asks nothing about assisting people nearby when onlookers are or aren't present. The Khaseen Morris edit will need an additional source to back up the change from "fight with several other students" to "fight with a fellow student": the cited source only refers to it as a 50-person brawl. I don't know whether it's a good idea to entirely remove the paragraph about the 2010 New York stabbing, which is admittedly a different incident but its sources do explicitly refer to the bystander effect. It could be moved elsewhere or given its own section. --Lord Belbury (talk) 09:36, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Additional sources for the Khaseen Morris fight aren't hard to find (in fact, it seems to be reported more than just "fight with fellow student"), so that's no problem. The others aren't as important to me as the synthesis dispute, so whatever, their removal's fine too.

By the way, if the proposed edit is "On August 1, 2013, Shenzhen passed a "Good Samaritan" Law where people would be penalised for refusing to help in similar situations. On October 2017, the law was enacted nationwide. Around this timeframe, there have been incidents reported in Chinese and foreign media of passersby successfully aiding those in critical need of help" with sources listed above (& maybe 1 or 2 others similar to the AsiaOne piece if I happen to find them), you two would still call for removal of the last sentence due to WP:SYNTH? B/c this is what I'll be taking to the Original Research noticeboard... Donkey Hot-day (talk) 11:26, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

The proposed edit needs work, CGTN is not a WP:RS and the SAIS piece talks about the 2011 incident but doesn't include a single mention of “bystander effect” which is the topic of this page (although I will admit it comes close). "Around this timeframe ... need of help” followed by a collection of sources that don't explicitly say that is still synth. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 11:54, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

The "around this timeframe" sentence doesn't seem to be making a clear point. Are you suggesting that the Good Samaritan law was unnecessary because Chinese people were already rescuing strangers and babies all the time? Or that these strangers are only being rescued because of the Good Samaritan law? Or even that China needs the law if "person rescues stranger" is unusual enough to be reported in the news?

If you're not making a point, the sentence shouldn't be there. If you are making a point, this is like the UN example given in WP:SYNTH, where the same primary source content can be used to support opposite angles of the same story. --Lord Belbury (talk) 12:07, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

This is the first time I've heard that any content added which doesn't explicitly support or oppose a previous viewpoint would face deletion. Could you link me a policy on Wikipedia stating this? The point to me is that it could be interpreted as an improving situation and also perhaps as something not so simple as Yunxiang Yan's view of Chinese society. It seems relevant enough to the section anyway. In terms of due weight, it doesn't appear his viewpoint on agrarian society differences is held by the majority of sources either (many reports just center on the scamming and incompetent court rulings), so the whole section could warrant removal based on undue weight.

@Horse Eye Jack Well, that's the first time I've heard CGTN to be unreliable when it comes to domestic reporting on non-governmental issues. No matter anyway, the 2017 Samaritan Law has been reported in many mainstream sources. Donkey Hot-day (talk) 19:12, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not saying it has to support and oppose, I'm just saying it has to say something about the Bystander Effect to be in the Bystander Effect article. WP:RELEVANCE, I guess? Your suggested "around this timeframe, there have been incidents reported" edit says nothing directly about the Bystander Effect, and neither do its sources. It sounds like you're hoping to imply to the reader that actually people are all very helpful in China and often save babies and maybe Yunxiang Yan doesn't know what he's talking about, by presenting some YouTube videos you found. But that implication would be WP:SYNTHESIS. If you're interested in putting up a counterpoint, look for secondary sources, look for actual press reactions to the Good Samaritan law. --Lord Belbury (talk) 19:28, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Larger point about reliability aside reporting on a new *law* is not in any way "reporting on non-governmental issues.” Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:14, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

References

Uvalde Shooting

Dr. Catherine Sanderson, Professor of Psychology at Amherst College, in the article "When Police Fail to Act in a Crisis" (July 28, 2022 9:55 am ET), suggests that the Bystander Effect can at least partially explain the disastrous police response at the Uvalde shooting.

From the article: "Ironically, however, the biggest factor inhibiting action at Robb Elementary School was the presence of so many officers. A report on the shooting issued by the Texas House of Representatives in July noted that 376 law enforcement officers representing various local, state and federal agencies responded to the shooting. As numerous studies on the bystander effect have shown, people in group settings are far less likely to step up in an emergency, because large groups lead to what psychologists describe as a diffusion of responsibility, or "social loafing." There are so many other people around who could do something that no one personally feels they have to act." Kmote (talk) 23:25, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Autism

I am wondering if mentioning the autism modification upon the bystander effect would add any value to the article. It has been noted in the professional literature that autistic people are more likely to intervene in situations of abuse, danger, injustice, etc., regardless of other people who are ignoring the events. https://neurosciencenews.com/autism-bystander-effect-25105/ is a common-language summary of the paper https://doi.org/10.1002/aur.3012 GallinaCultureStudy (talk) 12:57, 16 June 2024 (UTC)