NCJ Number
193459
Date Published
2002
Length
4 pages
Annotation
This study examined whether people would intervene or distance themselves when they saw others in distress.
Abstract
This study makes the argument that people would act in different ways and relate to others in very different ways as a function of their various identities. In the context of violence, understanding how bystanders act depends on how they identify themselves and their relationship with other bystanders. It also depends on the norms and values associated with bystander identity. A series of experiments were conducted in which the bystanders saw: 1) other bystanders, 2) victims, and 3) perpetrators as either ingroup members or outgroup members, and the effect of this situation on willingness to intervene. The first set of findings showed that bystanders were influenced by other bystanders if they saw them as members of a common group. If others showed support for intervention they would most likely intervene. The second set of findings demonstrated the strength of the group relationship. Where bystanders perceived themselves and the victims of aggression to be part of a common group they were more likely to intervene and support the victim. The study suggests that bystander behavior is affected by whether the perpetrator is perceived as a fellow group member, but in a complex way. The group relationship doesn’t increase or decrease intervention itself. It seems to interact with group norms. If a perpetrator is a fellow ingroup member, but violence is seen as legitimate in term of group norms, then intervention is unlikely. If, on the other hand, the violence breaches shared social norms, or brings shame on the group, then intervention is more likely. In conclusion, promoting intervention against violent crime depends on developing a broader sense of group memberships so that others are protected as part of a common ingroup. It also depends on promoting group norms that are based on social responsibility.