20065028

European Journal of Social Psychology
Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 36, 267–278 (2006)
Published online 5 December 2005 in Wiley InterScience
(www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/ejsp.297

The unresponsive bystander: Are bystanders more responsive in dangerous emergencies?
PETER FISCHER*, TOBIAS GREITEMEYER,
FABIAN POLLOZEK AND DIETER FREY
Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Munich, Germany

Abstract
Previous research in bystander intervention found that the presence of other bystanders reduces helping behaviour in an emergency (bystander effect). This research was mainly conducted in the context of non-dangerous, non-violent emergencies. We hypothesize that the classic bystander effect does not occur in more dangerous situations because: a) they are faster and more clearly recognized as emergency situations; and b) higher costs for refusing help increase the accepted costs for helping.
Following this line of reasoning, the present research tests whether the bystander effect is affected by the degree of the emergency’s potential danger. Results supported our expectations: In situations with low potential danger, more help was given in the solitary condition than in the bystander condition.
However, in situations with high potential danger, participants confronted with an emergency alone or in the presence of another bystander were similarly likely to help the victim. Copyright # 2005 John
Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Much publicity has been given in recent years to those incidents in which crimes are committed while bystanders do nothing to help the victim—such as the widely decried unresponsiveness of 38 witnesses during the violent murder of Kitty Genovese. However, there are also examples to prove the opposite, such as the incident that happened in Munich, Zennetti-Street, 13 January 2001, 1 a.m.:
Some Nazi skinheads chased a young Greek and beat him up in a most brutal way. Several people witnessed this situation and one of them—a young man from Turkey—decided to help. Risking

References: Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research 51, 1173–1182. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 36, 267–278 (2006) 278 Borofsky, G. L., Stollak, G. E., & Messe´, L. A. (1971). Sex differences in bystander reactions to physical assault. Chekroun, P., & Brauer, M. (2002). The bystander effect and social control behavior: The effect of the presence of others on people’s reactions to norm violations Darley, J. M., & Latane´, B. (1968). Bystander intervention in emergencies: Diffusion of responsibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8, 377–383. Dovidio, J. F., Piliavin, J. A., Gaertner, S. L., Schroeder, D. A., & Clark, R. D. (1991). The arousal: Cost-reward model and the process of intervention: A review of the evidence Garcia, S. M., Weaver, K., Moskowitz, G., & Darley, J. M. (2002). Crowded minds: The implicit bystander effect. Harari, H., Harari, O., & White, R. V. (1985). The reaction to rape by American male bystanders. The Journal of Social Psychology, 125, 653–658. Harris, V. A., & Robinson, C. E. (1973). Bystander intervention: Group size and victim status. Bulletin of the Psychognomic Society, 2, 8–10. Howard, W., & Crano, W. D. (1974). Effects of sex, conversation location, and size of observer group on bystander intervention in a high risk situation Hurley, D., & Allen, B. P. (1974). The effect of the number of people present in a nonemergency situation. Journal of Social Psychology, 92, 27–29. Latane´, B., & Dabbs, J. M. (1975). Sex, group size, and helping in three cities. Sociometry, 38, 180–194. Latane´, B., & Darley, J. M. (1968). Group inhibition of bystander intervention. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 10, 215–221. Latane´, B., & Darley, J. M. (1970). The unresponsive bystander: Why doesn’t he help? New York: AppletonCentury-Crofts. Latane´, B., & Darley, J. M. (1976). Help in a crisis: Bystander response to an emergency. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press. Latane´, B., & Elman, D. (1970). The hand in the till. In B. Latane´, & J. M. Darley (Eds.), The unresponsive bystander: Why doesn’t he help? New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. Latane´, B., & Nida, S. (1981). Ten years of research on group size and helping. Psychological Bulletin, 89, 308–324. Latane´, B., & Rodin, J. (1969). A lady in distress: Inhibiting effects of friends and strangers on bystander intervention Levine, M. (1999). Rethinking bystander non-intervention: Social categorization and the evidence of witnesses at the James Bulger murder trial Levine, M., Cassidy, C., & Brazier, G. (2002). Self-categorization and bystander non-intervention: Two experimental studies Levy, P, Lundgren, D., Ansel, M., Fell, D., Fink, B., & McGrath, J. E. (1972). Bystander effect in a demandwithout-threat situation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24, 166–171. Misavage, R., & Richardson, J. T. (1974). The focusing of responsibility: An alternative hypothesis in helpdemanding situations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 4, 5–15. Moriarty, T. (1975). Crime, commitment and the responsive bystander: Two field experiments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 370–376. Piliavin, J. A. (1981). Emergency intervention. Academic Press: New York. Prentice, D. A., & Miller, D. T. (1996). Pluralistic ignorance and the perpetuation of social norms by unwitting actors. Ross, A. S., & Braband, J. (1973). Effect of increased responsibility on bystander intervention: II. The cue value of a blind person Schroeder, D. A. (1995). The psychology of helping and altruism. New York: McGraw-Hill. Schwartz, S. H., & Clausen, G. T. (1970). Responsibility, norms, and helping in an emergency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 16, 299–310. Schwartz, S. H., & Gottlieb, A. (1976). Bystander reactions to a violent theft: Crime in Jerusalem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 1188–1199. Solomon, L. Z., Solomon, H., & Stone, R. (1978). Helping as a function of number of bystanders and ambiguity of emergency Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 36, 267–278 (2006)