RLSH Patrols and the Bystander Effect: Part 2

Intrigued by the concept of the Bystander Effect, two psychologists named John Darley and Bibb Latane decided to make a study of it.

Darley and Latane analyzed the psychological processes involved in the bystander effect to create a model suggesting the factors that result in bystander intervention or inaction [4]. One factor that may weaken the likelihood of bystander intervention is the presence of others (Darley and Latane 1968)[5]. They hypothesized that the presence of others leads to the responsibility of helping being diffused among the onlookers in what they called “diffusion of responsibility” along with a diffusion of the blame, since people do not think they will be blamed individually in a large group (Darley and Latane 1968). Their hypothesis was that in an emergency, when an individual knows that others are around but cannot view their behavior, they tend to assume that someone else must be intervening and that their own intervention would thus fail to be helpful, and could perhaps even be harmful (Darley and Latane 1968). To test this hypothesis, Darley and Latane 1968 conducted an experiment where participants were told that they were going to participate in a discussion with others via the use of an intercom system to avoid any embarrassment regarding answers to the questions (Darley and Latane 1968). During the discussion, one of the other subjects suffered from what seemed to be a very bad seizure or choking fit (Darley and Latane 1968). The independent variable was the number of people the true participant believed to be in the discussion group, and the dependent variable was the time it took the participant to report the emergency (Darley and Latane 1968). The results showed that as the number of people believed to be in the experiment increased, participants took significantly longer amounts of time to report the emergency, if they reported it at all (Darley and Latane 1968). Darley and Latane then analyzed what they termed as the situation effect, the idea that because emergencies tend to be initially ambiguous, people look at the reactions of others to determine how they should react (Darley and Latane 1968). If no one else reacts, people assume that it must not be an emergency and remain inactive as well (Darley and Latane 1968). Latane and Darley tested this hypothesis experimentally with the “smoke-filled room study,” where the participant was placed in a waiting room either alone, with two real participants, or with two confederates (Latane and Darley 1968). [6]. Smoke would gradually begin to fill the room where the participant was sitting (Latane and Darley 1968). The independent variable was the participant was either in the presence of confederates, who remained passive in spite of the increasingly smoke-filled room, or the participant was alone (Latane and Darley 1968). The dependent variable was how long it took the participant to report the smoke (Latane and Darley 1968). In the individual condition, the participant reported the smoke almost immediately, while in the confederate condition only 10% of participants reported the smoke at all, even when it was so thick that they could not see their hand in front of their faces (Latane and Darley 1968). This phenomenon is called pluralistic ignorance, the collective misinterpretation of a situation as result of everyone looking to those around them to determine how to behave (Latane and Darley 1968). This includes the audience inhibition effect, the idea that people have a fear of being viewed as inadequate or confused, and as a result do not want to risk standing out, even by intervening in an emergency situation, for fear of overreacting and being embarrassed in front of others (Darley and Latane 1968). Diffusion of responsibility, pluralistic ignorance, and the audience inhibition effect together form Latane and Darley’s bystander effect, forming a major subset of the social psychological study of prosocial behavior.

In the early 1980s Darley and Latane’s conclusions were expanded into a second theory of bystander intervention called the arousal cost-reward model (Pilivian, Dovidio, Gaertner, and Clark 1981)[7]. This model suggests that bystanders intervene most when they perceive the personal costs of helping to be low and the costs of not helping are perceived as being high (Pilivian, et. al) . Other social psychologists have expanded these conclusions to explain other social phenomena. In 1994, social psychologists Christy and Voigt sought a better understanding of the lack of bystander intervention in episodes of public child abuse [8]. They surveyed 269 witnesses who stated that they had seen instances of child abuse (Christy & Voigt 1994). While around half of the participants in the survey stated that these instances occurred in public, only one out of four witnesses acted to intervene. This research led to the conclusion that bystander intervention in situations like child abuse is most likely to occur when the bystander is able to mentally produce a number of feasible solutions or strategies to end the perceived conflict (Christy & Voigt 1994). Additionally, Christy and Voigt found that bystanders are more likely to intervene when they have a relationship with the victim or can identify with the victim in some way. As more studies are made that examine what specifically increases the likelihood of bystander intervention, social psychologists have began making suggestions on how to expand the bystander effect to improve rape prevention education programs (Banyard, Plante, & Moynihan 2004) and to analyze the existence of the bystander effect in children by studying bullying (Rigby & Johnson 2005)

Now how does this relate to RLSH patrols? Easily. RLSH patrols are often accused of doing more harm than good. Many people claim that their existence serves no positive purpose, that their intervention in a crime in the midst of occurring is a detriment. To these detractors I pose your opinions against the research and scientific, video, and historical accounts I have presented. Evidence suggests that too often even when something bad is happening the greater number of people present gives no assurance that the ability to diffuse or deter negative consequences is DIMINISHED but in many cases it is largely IGNORED. The evidence points out that as more people become aware of the situation they often assume that "it's not their problem because someone else around them will handle it." It creates a miasma of apathy that can have terrible consequences. A RLSH patrol or single RLSH would not stand idly by like so many others would while a young girl is dragged away kidnapped, a young baby bakes inside a car, or someone is mortally wounded and virtually helpless. For as much as people like to condemn and falsely label RLSH patrols. RLSH don't stand around and let bad things happen. They intervene, sometimes at the cost of their own well being because they put the lives of others ahead of their own. It is this spirit of selflessness that I feel is needed to combat something like the Bystander Effect. Standing around with the mentality of "that's not my problem" when people are in harms way is wrong. Stepping up and putting yourself at risk even if it means getting mocked, verbally chastised, or perhaps even physically tested is the right thing to do.

Apathy is as great an evil as any other and hundreds of thousands of lives are lost each year because people lose the will to care even when others are obviously in harms way. They look the other way and keep going, ignoring those that suffer around them. But when I think of RLSH patrols I don't see dangerous vigilantes. I see people stepping forward saying "I care and I won't just stand around and do nothing."

Let me end with the following which was a conclusion of one of the many studies done on the Bystander Effect.

Studies consistently show that the result of bystander intervention is the reduced likelihood of violent attempts being successful, the reduction of overall violence, and increased intervention by others in conflict situations (Christy & Voigt 1994, Rigby & Johnson 2005). For these reasons, anti-bystander apathy education programs have been implemented by a number of different institutions to increase helping behavior, especially in situations of sexual violence or violence against children.

For these reasons I genuinely feel that RLSH patrols are not a part of any problem but I truly feel that they have the power to serve a great good. The evidence speaks for itself.