Introduction
Bystander behavior in crises has long been a subject of study and extensive exploration, with experts in the field of psychology delving deeper into the driving forces of people’s choices and actions. The bystander effect has been studied for over fifty years, and the results indicate that the more bystanders are present during a crisis, the less likely each one is to offer assistance (Liebst et al., 2019). In such cases, one might assume that how individuals respond during a crisis can affect the well-being of those involved. One such experiment that had a profound impact on the safety of the volunteers was the Stanford Prison Experiment (SPE), which illuminated significant ethical issues. Ultimately, the Stanford Prison Experiment reveals the tendency of bystanders to remain passive in the face of a crisis, highlighting the influence of peer behavior, the strength of social conformity, and the fear of negative consequences.
Insights from the Stanford Prison Experiment
Before delving deeper into what the experiment reveals about the bystander effect and its manifestations, it is essential to examine the background and issues associated with the study first. The Stanford Prison Experiment was conducted by Professor Philip Zimbardo and his research team in August 1971 (Baruchello & Arnarsson, 2022). In the study, 24 male student volunteers were recruited to participate in an exploration of prison conditions (Baruchello & Arnarsson, 2022).
The volunteers were then randomly assigned to play either an inmate or a guard in a temporary prison located in the basement of the psychology department at Stanford University (Baruchello & Arnarsson, 2022). The guards started to oppress the prisoners in only a couple of days, and their brutality quickly increased (Baruchello & Arnarsson, 2022). In theory, the study’s aims were reasonable, but the techniques and conditions in which the experiment was conducted made it unsustainable.
The study was conducted over a relatively short period, but the damage incurred during this time was substantial. After six days, the experiment was abruptly ended because of security concerns, with guards mistreating prisoners despite protests from the latter (Baruchello & Arnarsson, 2022). These startling outcomes were seen as proof of the unsettling notion that decent, well-adjusted young men may be persuaded to act cruelly and callously toward their peers by arbitrarily placing them in the roles of guards rather than prisoners (Baruchello& Arnarsson, 2022). It was widely believed that in the SPE, researchers had expanded on Milgram’s study by eliminating the dominant and forceful experimenter figure and giving the participants full rein to choose whether they would act as guards or not (Baruchello & Arnarsson, 2022). Observing the hostile environment and unsafe practices of the volunteers in guard positions led to the termination of the experiment, rendering it highly unethical.
Many articles and reviews were then written in response to such an experiment. For example, in one article, Le Texier provided summaries of overall sentiments, showing how the SPE has faced considerable criticism over the last 47 years (Le Texier, 2019). One significant opinion offered by Le Texier in the article is that of Erich Fromm.
Based on the first thorough consideration of the study published in the 1970s by Zimbardo, Erich Fromm highlighted several key points. First, there was an unethical aspect to the severe circumstances imposed upon the participants (Le Texier, 2019). Second, there was a possibility that the psychological preliminary assessments given to the volunteers may not have identified a tendency among those participating for sadistic or masochistic attitudes (Le Texier, 2019). Finally, there were misleading circumstances for subjects that resulted from combining realistic prison components with unrealistic ones (Le Texier, 2019). In general, Zimbardo’s explanation of the SPE was contested by Fromm.
Understanding Bystander Behavior in Crises
Social Conformity
When delving deeper into the constituents of bystander behavior, it is noteworthy that three aspects can characterize it. The first aspect is that such behavior stems from social conformity. In other words, bystander influence encourages conformity, or aligning one’s actions with those of a group (Havlik et al., 2020). As discussed by Havlik, in experiments involving rats, when presented with a demonstrator animal that consumed the unpleasant meal, rats that would not normally consume it followed the example (Havlik et al., 2020).
Similarly, the same reaction was present during the Stanford Prison Experiment. In his book, Zimbardo discussed how the good guards were unwilling to confront the aggressive behavior of the bad guards on their next shift (Zimbardo, 2007). Researchers discovered that neither Geoff Landry nor Markus ever confronted them in private when they were residing in the security guard’s rooms (Zimbardo, 2007). Observing the authoritarian and abusive behaviors of the majority of the guards, other individuals followed suit. As a result, it is possible to envision the impact of bystanders as one that encourages conformity in various observable activities.
Diffusion of Responsibility
Another aspect of bystander behavior is based on the concept of diffusion of responsibility. According to Rovira and colleagues (2021), regardless of their psychological connections, the classic dispersion of responsibility postulates that responsibility will be distributed among several other people present. Researchers contend, based on existing data, that the social identity of the bystanders influences bystanders’ feelings of responsibility (Rovira et al., 2021).
More specifically, they argue that accountability will primarily be distributed among those whom the participant perceives as bearing an equal obligation to assist (Rovira et al., 2021). The diffusion of responsibility is less likely to occur when bystanders are perceived as not having the same obligation to act as the participant (Rovira et al., 2021). Such a concept was evident in the Stanford Prison Experiment, particularly in the behavior of the guards. While being part of a group of guards and assigned a specific role, each person later experienced a diminished sense of personal responsibility.
Presence of Others
Lastly, the presence of others contributes to inaction due to the belief that others will help the one in need. In his book, Zimbardo discusses instances when a group of people were reluctant to support a young woman who was being abused. The New York Times published an article in 1964 that gave a vivid and unsettling account of how passive and disconnected onlookers can be (Zimbardo, 2007). While in the office, an 18-year-old secretary had been attacked, choked, stripped, and sexually assaulted (Zimbardo, 2007). When she finally managed to escape her attacker, she ran to the street, screaming for help while she was still nude and bleeding (Zimbardo, 2007).
On the crowded street, a group of around forty people gathered to observe as the rapist carried the victim back upstairs to resume his attack, and yet nobody stepped in to help her (Zimbardo, 2007). Here, the presence of other people made the bystanders believe that someone else would support the victim. Similarly, in the Stanford Prison Experiment, the competitive and hostile attitudes among the guards may have been exacerbated by the presence of other guards.
Real-Life Observations and Personal Experiences
Nevertheless, after reviewing the bystander effect and its manifestations, it is necessary to acknowledge that different responses may occur in various circumstances. For example, when it comes to positive experiences with the bystander effect, there was a situation when I was on a plane, and a man in the front row had a cardiac arrest. As soon as the flight attendant asked whether there were any medical professionals on board, at least two people responded.
Seeing two women rush toward the front rows demonstrated courage and compassion. With the help of their decisiveness, the man was quickly saved, and upon arrival, he was quickly delivered to the hospital. Without their timely actions, the passenger would most likely have had significantly lower chances of survival.
In contrast, there were two vivid moments when I witnessed people being hesitant to offer help and afraid of getting involved. In one situation, a mother was bullying her child for wanting to order a latte with a cheesecake. I was standing in line, and I saw a mother in her fifties pressuring her daughter, who was probably in her early twenties, to buy something more organic and low-fat, as the young woman had gained some weight during the summer break. Her comments made people standing in line before her uncomfortable, and I even saw how such remarks revolted two young girls. However, nobody intervened, allowing such behavior to persist.
In another situation, I recall how, as a child, I witnessed my neighbors, a young married couple, fighting. The woman once ran outside, begging for help, but nobody offered help because they considered it a private matter between two spouses. Therefore, as can be seen, there can be various responses to a situation.
When reflecting on personal experiences, I can argue that various psychological, social, and situational factors can drive people’s behaviors. In other words, while some individuals have a natural inclination to support those in need, others may be reluctant to do so. Additionally, the presence of trained professionals can significantly impact the bystander group.
Promoting Bystander Intervention and Pro-Social Behavior
After recognizing the detrimental impact of the bystander effect, many experts in the field of psychology decided not only to research the effect and its main driving forces but also to explore ways in which such responses can be diminished. In the 1960s, following the notorious event reported by The New York Times, social psychologists responded to the warning by initiating several groundbreaking investigations on bystander intervention (Zimbardo, 2007). They sought to understand what, specifically, about the circumstances prevents ordinary people from acting in a prosocial manner to refute the usual spate of behavioral interpretations about what is incorrect with the uncaring bystanders (Zimbardo, 2007). This was the starting point of delving deeper into the essence of the effect.
Consequently, the researchers’ results were counterintuitive, as shown in Zimbardo’s book. The more individuals who observe an emergency, the less likely it is that any of them will step in to assist (Zimbardo, 2007). There is less pressure to take action when individuals participate in a group that involves passive observation, since each person knows that others are present who could or will assist them (Zimbardo, 2007). This is in contrast to when people are alone or with just one other observer.
Any person’s sense of individual obligation to become involved is diminished by the simple presence of others (Zimbardo, 2007). A participant’s quickness or propensity to intervene in developed emergencies was not significantly correlated with any of their personality traits, according to personality assessments (Zimbardo, 2007). Thus, it was determined that promoting bystander intervention and pro-social behavior was necessary.
On the one hand, it is crucial to start with the younger generations to set the values. Understanding the elements that encourage and discourage prosocial conduct in young people requires an understanding of both facilitators and barriers (Hirani et al., 2022). Numerous studies have identified extracurricular activities as a critical enabler for charitable behavior (Hirani et al., 2022). With the help of activities that foster compassion for the community, other members can significantly contribute to reducing the bystander effect and create a sense of responsibility.
On the other hand, some programs aim to reduce the bystander effect by offering more training and awareness to the general public. For instance, there is evidence that bystander intervention initiatives offered online and on campuses may encourage pro-bystander attitudes and lower instances of sexual assault (Parrott et al., 2020). Increasing bystander self-efficacy, which reflects one’s assurance that they can successfully assist in a sexual assault scenario, is a typical point of engagement for bystander initiatives (Parrott et al., 2020). As a result, when people are more aware of the approaches and correct steps required to help others, the bystander effect is reduced, and more engagement can be observed. Initiatives can be a significant help not only for younger generations but also for the general public to contribute to society through good deeds.
Conclusion
In summary, the Stanford Prison Experiment ultimately highlights the tendency of bystanders to behave passively in the face of a crisis, emphasizing the influence of imitation, the strength of social conformity, and the fear of unfavorable outcomes. The bystander effect has been studied for fifty years, and the findings show that the likelihood of an onlooker offering assistance decreases with the increasing number of bystanders present during a crisis. Professor Philip Zimbardo and his research team conducted the Stanford Prison Experiment in August 1971.
Upon closer examination of its components, bystander conduct can be classified into three categories. The first is that social conformity is the root cause of this behavior. Bystander influence, in other words, promotes conformity or tailoring one’s behavior to that of a group. Diffusion of responsibility is the basis for another part of bystander behavior. Finally, the assumption that others will assist the one in need results in inaction when other people are around. Nevertheless, it is essential to understand that different reactions may occur in various situations, such as awareness and educational programs, following an evaluation of the bystander effect and its manifestations.
References
Baruchello, G., & Arnarsson, Á. M. (2022). A philosophical exploration of the humanities and social sciences. De Gruyter.
Havlik, J. L., Vieira Sugano, Y. Y., Jacobi, M. C., Kukreja, R. R., Jacobi, J. H. C., & Mason, P. (2020). The bystander effect in rats. Science Advances, 6(28), eabb4205.
Hirani, S., Ojukwu, E., & Bandara, N. A. (2022). Understanding the role of prosocial behavior in youth mental health: Findings from a scoping review. Adolescents, 2(3), 358-380.
Le Texier, T. (2019). Debunking the Stanford Prison Experiment. The American Psychologist, 74(7), 823–839.
Liebst, L. S., Philpot, R., Bernasco, W., Dausel, K. L., Ejbye-Ernst, P., Nicolaisen, M. H., & Lindegaard, M. R. (2019). Social relations and presence of others predict bystander intervention: Evidence from violent incidents captured on CCTV. Aggressive Behavior, 45(6), 598–609.
Parrott, D. J., Swartout, K. M., Tharp, A. T., Purvis, D. M., & Topalli, V. (2020). Speak up! Prosocial intervention verbalizations predict successful bystander intervention for a laboratory analogue of sexual aggression. Sexual Abuse, 32(2), 220-243.
Rovira, A., Southern, R., Swapp, D., Campbell, C., Zhang, J. J., Levine, M., & Slater, M. (2021). Bystander affiliation influences intervention behavior: A virtual reality study. Sage Open, 11(3), 21582440211040076.
Zimbardo, P. G. (2007). The Lucifer effect: Understanding how good people turn evil. Random House.