The Bystander Effect Revisited: Courage Against “Inevitable” Harm

Unmasking the Bystander Effect: Courage in the Face of Threats

In this episode of PsyberSpace, host Leslie Poston revisits the classic psychology concept of the bystander effect, challenging the common narrative of human apathy in groups. Starting with the infamous case of Kitty Genovese, Leslie digs into how exaggerations shaped public perception and spurred psychological research. The episode highlights recent studies showing that people often do intervene in emergencies, especially under clear and urgent threats, and how community ties and moral identity play pivotal roles in fostering collective courage. It emphasizes the power of individual actions to inspire group responses, debunking the myth of inevitable passivity and urging listeners to prepare and engage in acts of resistance against authoritarian harm.

00:00 Introduction to the Bystander Effect
00:31 The Kitty Genovese Case: Myth vs. Reality
01:55 Reevaluating the Bystander Effect
03:35 Classic Experiments on Group Behavior
05:01 Modern Research and Real-World Evidence
07:49 Community Bonds and Collective Efficacy
16:15 Digital Age: Online Bystander Effect and Resistance
17:33 Historical and Contemporary Examples of Resistance
22:08 Practical Steps for Personal and Community Action
24:25 Conclusion: The Power of Collective Courage

Resources:

Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D. J., & Sanford, R. N. (1950). The authoritarian personality. Harper.
Ai, Y., Ismail, R., & Chong, S. T. (2024). A study of the bystander effect in different helping situations. Social Psychology and Society, 15(1), 127–136.
Aquino, K., & Reed, A., II. (2002). The self-importance of moral identity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(6), 1423–1440.
Bandura, A. (1999). Moral disengagement in the perpetration of inhumanities. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3(3), 193–209.
Banyard, V., Mitchell, K. J., Goodman, K. L., & Ybarra, M. L. (2025). Bystanders to sexual violence: Findings from a national sample of sexual and gender diverse adolescents. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 40(5–6), 1221–1247. (Epub 2024)
Barlińska, J., Szuster, A., & Winiewski, M. (2018). Cyberbullying among adolescent bystanders: Role of affective versus cognitive empathy in increasing prosocial cyberbystander behavior. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 48.
Batson, C. D., Batson, J. G., Slingsby, J. K., Harrell, K. L., Peekna, H. M., & Todd, R. M. (1991). Empathic joy and the empathy–altruism hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(3), 413–426.
Fischer, P., Greitemeyer, T., Pollozek, F., & Frey, D. (2006). The unresponsive bystander: Are bystanders more responsive in dangerous emergencies? European Journal of Social Psychology, 36(2), 267–278.
Fischer, P., Krueger, J. I., Greitemeyer, T., Vogrincic, C., Kastenmüller, A., Frey, D., Heene, M., Wicher, M., & Kainbacher, M. (2011). The bystander-effect: A meta-analytic review on bystander intervention in dangerous and non-dangerous emergencies. Psychological Bulletin, 137(4), 517–537.
Granovetter, M. (1978). Threshold models of collective behavior. American Journal of Sociology, 83(6), 1420–1443.
Greitemeyer, T., Osswald, S., Fischer, P., & Frey, D. (2007). Civil courage: Implicit theories, related concepts, and Measurement. Journal of Positive Psychology, 2(2)115-119.
Jost, J. T., & Banaji, M. R. (1994). The role of stereotyping in system-justification and the production of false consciousness. British Journal of Social Psychology, 33(1), 1–27.
Kowalski, R. M., Giumetti, G. W., Schroeder, A. N., & Lattanner, M. R. (2014). Bullying in the digital age: A critical review and meta-analysis of cyberbullying research among youth. Psychological Bulletin, 140(4), 1073–1137.
Latané, B., & Darley, J. M. (1968). Group inhibition of bystander intervention in emergencies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 10(3), 215–221.
Latané, B., & Darley, J. M. (1970). The unresponsive bystander: Why doesn’t he help? Appleton-Century Crofts.
Levine, M., & Crowther, S. (2008). The responsive bystander: How social group membership and group size can encourage as well as inhibit bystander intervention. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(6), 1429–1439.
Manning, R., Levine, M., & Collins, A. (2007). The Kitty Genovese murder and the social psychology of helping: The parable of the 38 witnesses. American Psychologist, 62(6), 555–562.
Miller, D. T., & McFarland, C. (1987). Pluralistic ignorance: When similarity is interpreted as dissimilarity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(2), 298–305.
Monroe, K. R. (1996). The heart of altruism: Perceptions of a common humanity. Princeton University Press.
Monroe, K. R. (2008). Cracking the code of genocide: The moral psychology of rescuers, byst

Episode Transcript

Leslie Poston (00:12):
Welcome back to PsyberSpace. I'm your host,
Leslie Poston. If you'velistened before, you've probably
heard us talk about thebystander effect. It's one of
those classic psychology ideasthat slipped out of research
labs and into popular culture,becoming almost a shorthand for
human apathy. The story usuallystarts with Kitty Genovese, a

(00:34):
young woman murdered outside ofher apartment building in New
York City in 1964.
Newspapers at the time reportedthat dozens of neighbors watched
from their windows and didnothing to help. That image of
silent, uncaring crowds struck anerve in the public imagination.
It inspired psychologists to runfamous experiments, and for

(00:57):
decades, the lesson people tookaway was when we're in groups,
we don't help. The public hasclung to this idea that in
groups responsibility getsdiffused, courage gets deluded,
and people suffer because no onesteps in. But here's what most
people don't know.
That original newspaper accountof the Genovese case was

(01:19):
exaggerated. Laterinvestigations found that
several neighbors did call thepolice. Some shouted to scare
off the attacker and otherscomforted Kitty as she died. The
narrative of total apathy wasoverstated, but it proved too
compelling a story for people innewspapers to let go. For

(01:40):
psychologists, it was usefulbecause it gave them a concrete
cultural moment to test in alab.
For journalists, it was a storythat seemed to fit the times.
Urban alienation, facelesscrowds, crumbling community.
Today, I'll help you take acloser look at public courage
and real public reactions tothreatening situations. Because

(02:02):
if you've been following thenews, you've seen communities
across the country refusing tosit back silently. You've seen
neighbors linking arms to stopICE raids, protesters
confronting state perpetuatedinjustice, and many examples of
ordinary citizens standing up inextraordinary ways.
Just this week, one New Yorkwoman in a polka dot dress made

(02:25):
headlines when she stepped in toblock ICE who were trying to
profile and kidnap people in hercommunity. And here's the thing.
Research actually supports whatthese citizens are showing us.
The bystander effect isn'tinevitable or universal like
we've been led to believe. Underthe right conditions, people are
far more willing to help thanthe old bystander narrative

(02:47):
suggests.
And sometimes it takes just oneperson to shift the whole
dynamic of a crowd's reaction toharm. So in today's episode,
we're going to dig deeper. We'llexplore the classic research,
but also the more recent studiesthat complicate the story. We'll
talk about how authoritarianleaders thrive on making their

(03:09):
harms feel inevitable and howordinary people resist that
seeming inevitability withspontaneous acts of courage.
We'll look at what psychologyand sociology teach us about
group behavior, moral identity,and collective action.
And by the end, I think you'llunderstand that while apathy can
certainly be contagious, so cancourage. Let's start with the

(03:34):
basics. In the late 1960s,psychologists set out to test
why it seemed that people oftenfailed to act in emergencies. In
one of their most famousexperiments, they placed
subjects in a room that slowlyfilled with smoke. When
participants were alone, mostquickly left the room and
reported the danger.
But when they were with otherswho stayed calm and did nothing,

(03:58):
the majority also stayed puteven as the room became visibly
filled with smoke. In anotherstudy, the people heard what
they thought was another personhaving a seizure over an
intercom. When participantsbelieved they were the only one
listening, they rushed to gethelp. But when they thought
others were also present, theywere much slower to act and

(04:19):
sometimes didn't act at all.From these experiments came the
idea of diffusion ofresponsibility.
This is an idea that when we'realone, the responsibility to act
rests squarely on our shoulders.But in groups, we unconsciously
divide that responsibility amongeveryone present. So if no one
else moves, we assume that wedon't have to either. And it's

(04:43):
certainly a neat and tidyexplanation, and it resonated
because of the Genovese story.For years, textbooks, news
articles, and movies keptrepeating this as if it were a
lesson set in stone, that groupsparalyze us and crowds turn us
into bystanders.
Later research has complicatedthis tidy picture. A large meta

(05:06):
analysis published in the twentytens looked across dozens of
studies on the bystander effect.The conclusion, the effect is
real under certain very specificcircumstances, but it is not
nearly as strong or universal aspeople like to think. And in
fact, some conditions makepeople more likely, not less

(05:26):
likely, to intervene when othersare around. For example, when
the situation is clearlydangerous and requires urgent
action, people often step in.
The presence of others can evenembolden them, especially if
someone takes the first steplike our lady in the polka dot
dress earlier this week whoinspired many others to assist
their neighbors in the moment.Real world evidence backs this

(05:49):
up. A team of researchersreviewed hours of CCTV footage
from public places and citiesacross three different
countries. They examinedhundreds of conflicts, including
fights, assaults, and robberies.What they found was surprising.
In nine out of ten incidents, atleast one bystander intervened
and often more than one. Thebigger the crowd, the more

(06:13):
likely someone was to help. Andwhat's especially intriguing
about the CCTV findings is theyreveal something the lab
experiments couldn't. Contextmatters enormously. In those
early smoke filled roomexperiments, the situation was
ambiguous.
Is it really smoke? Is itdangerous? Will I look foolish

(06:35):
by overreacting? But when thethreat is unambiguous, when
violence is clearly happening,ambiguity evaporates. People
read the situation faster, andthey move to help faster.
There's also a distance factorthat the original research
didn't account for. In theseizure experiments,
participants heard someone indistress but couldn't see them.

(06:57):
The victim was abstract,disembodied. But the CCTV
studies showed face to faceencounters. When you can see
someone's fear, hear theirvoice, watch the physical threat
unfold in front of you, thepsychological calculus changes
entirely.
Proximity breeds urgency in waysthat mediated or distant

(07:19):
emergencies don't. This mattersbecause the kind of threats
we're seeing now, raids,confrontations, public
harassments, all happen inphysical space where people are
present. They're not abstractnews stories. They're happening
on your block, outside yourbuilding, in spaces where your
body can actually do something.Far from proving human

(07:41):
indifference, these findingssuggest that most people
actually want to help and oftendo.
This desire to help mattersbecause authoritarian regimes
thrive on convincing people thatresistance is futile. These
regimes want people to believethat their power is inevitable

(08:03):
and the harm they do isinevitable and irreversible,
that nobody else will stand up,and that everyone might as well
stay quiet too. It's apsychological strategy. Make
cruelty seem normal and silenceseem universal to try to
influence people to rationalizeit as the way things are. But
research tells us that thisisn't destiny.

(08:26):
People intervene all the time.Communities act together, and
courage is actually contagious.Sociologists call this
collective efficacy, the sharedbelief in a community's ability
to maintain order and protectone another. In neighborhoods
with strong trust and cohesion,people are far more likely to
step in against crime orinjustice. Think about the

(08:49):
difference between a streetwhere neighbors know each other
and one where everyone staysisolated.
In the first, people act becausethey feel a responsibility to
one another. In the second, theymay choose to stay silent
because they don't feelconnected. Authoritarian
governments often try to weakencommunity bonds because
isolation breeds passivity. Butwhen people rebuild those

(09:14):
community bonds, they becomemuch harder to control. There's
also a concept in urbansociology called eyes on the
street.
It's the idea that safety comesnot from surveillance systems or
police presence, but fromregular people being present in
public spaces, knowing eachother, and having informal
social contracts. The shopkeeperwho knows the kids on the block

(09:37):
or neighbors who sit on theirstoop, people who walk the same
route every day and notice whensomething's wrong. It's not
about being a busybody. It'sabout being embedded in your
community. When you're embeddedin a place, you develop place
attachment, which createsobligation.
You defend what you're attachedto. Authoritarian systems often

(09:57):
try to erode this throughtransience and isolation.
Policies that destabilizehousing or food security,
economic pressures that forcefrequent moves, surveillance
that makes people afraid tocongregate, These fragment place
attachment. Gentrification doesthis too, replacing stable
communities with populationsthat have no history together.

(10:19):
But we also see the opposite,communities that deliberately
create density of connection.
They make tool libraries,community fridges, skill shares,
rotating childcare. These aren'tjust practical. They're
relationship infrastructure, andthey create the web of mutual
obligation that makesintervention feel natural rather
than heroic. Researchers whostudied hundreds of people who

(10:42):
hid or protected Jews during theHolocaust found that the same
patterns held true. Theserescuers weren't saints or
outliers.
They were ordinary people withstrong moral identities shaped
early in life, an expansivesense of we, and communities
that made helping feel expected.Identity plus community lowered

(11:04):
the threshold for action. Thatechoes exactly what we see today
in local resistance networksstanding up to raids and abusive
I've talked in previous episodesabout learned helplessness, that
sense of futility that sets inwhen repeated efforts to resist
seem to fail. Under oppressivesystems, people can start to

(11:26):
believe their actions don'tmatter. Add that to the way
authoritarian leaders encouragesystem justification, the belief
that existing socialarrangements, however unjust,
are natural and unchangeable,and you can see why some people
give up.
But here's the other side.Learned helplessness can be
broken when people see examplesof successful resistance. Even

(11:48):
small acts of defiance remind usthat inevitability is only a
perception, not a law of nature.Scholars who analyzed rescuers,
bystanders, and perpetratorsduring the Nazi era found that
the difference wasn't about rareheroic personalities versus
heartless ones. It came down towhether people perceived common

(12:08):
humanity in the moment orwhether they allowed targets to
be seen as the other.
That moral salience seeinganother person as part of us was
what predicted action.Authoritarian regimes try hard
to break this cognitive pathwayby dehumanizing people because
once empathy and identificationswitch off, intervention can

(12:29):
collapse. So what separatesthose who step up from those who
don't? Research on moralidentity gives us a clue. People
who see morality as central towho they are, part of their
self-concept, are more likely toact when they see harm being
done.

(12:49):
They don't tend to sit andcalculate cost and benefit. They
act because not acting wouldviolate who they are. Empathy
plays a role as well. Decades ofresearch shows us that when we
feel genuine concern for anotherperson's suffering, we're far
more likely to intervene ontheir behalf even when it comes
at a personal cost. This is onereason why authoritarian regimes

(13:12):
will often try to dehumanizetheir targets like we were
talking about before.
If they can strip away empathy,they can weaken the impulse to
help. Consider how propagandahistorically frames targets as
criminals, animals, or threats.Once stripped of their human
identity, the barrier to crueltylowers. But empathy can't be

(13:32):
erased so easily. There's also atiming element neuroscience
reveals about moral decisionmaking.
Brain imaging studies show thatwhen people make moral
judgments, two systems compete,a fast automatic emotional
response and a slowerdeliberative rational process.
The emotional system activatesimmediately. You see harm in

(13:55):
your gut response. But then therational system kicks in, and
that's where hesitation enters.We start calculating what will
this cost me?
Will I make things worse? Isthis really my place? People who
intervene successfully seem tohave shorter gaps between those
two systems or strongeremotional responses that
override that deliberative pauseassessing risk. And this isn't

(14:18):
about intelligence or carefulreasoning. It's about letting
the initial moral intuitioncarry through into action before
second guessing begins.
Interestingly, time pressureincreases intervention. When
people don't have time todeliberate, they're more likely
to help because the emotionalsystem wins. This is
counterintuitive. We thinkhaving more time to think would

(14:41):
help us, but in this case,overthinking introduces
paralysis, and our firstinstinct is often the most moral
instinct. We've all experiencedpluralistic ignorance where
everyone looks around, sees noone acting, and assumes others
don't care.
That silence can potentiallyreinforce itself, certainly, but

(15:04):
once one person acts, the spelltends to break. Sociologists
studying collective behaviorhave shown that people's
thresholds for joining in vary.Some will act quickly, others
only after seeing a few othersdo so. But the key is that it
only takes one person to startthe cascade. This is what we saw
with the polka dot dress lady.

(15:26):
Her refusal to stand by didn'tjust protect the people in that
moment. It signaled to everyoneelse watching that action was
possible. And once that door isopened, many more will follow.
History offers a strikingexample. In 1943, Denmark
evacuated nearly 7,000 Jews tosafety in Sweden within weeks.

(15:47):
That wasn't the work of a fewisolated heroes. It was
collective efficacy and action.Dense networks of fishermen,
clergy, and civil servants withinformation flowing quickly and
norms reinforcing the valuesthey held that we protect our
neighbors. Once the first groupsmoved, participation snowballed.

(16:07):
It's a reminder that what feelsimpossible alone becomes
possible together.
The digital world adds anotherlayer. Online, the bystander
effect is a bit stronger. Incases of cyberbullying, for
example, people often staysilent because responsibility
feels diffused across thousandsof potential witnesses. The same

(16:31):
happens with online harassment,disinformation campaigns, or
viral hate speech.Responsibility seems diluted,
and there's a risk that silencebecomes the default.
But digital platforms alsospread stories of resistance
farther and faster than everbefore. Viral videos of
neighbors blocking an ICE raidor standing up to injustice

(16:53):
remind millions of viewers thataction is possible. They counter
the narrative of inevitability.We've also seen the rise of
digital first responders, peoplewho amplify distress signals on
social media, organize rapidresponse fundraisers, or
coordinate real time protestsafety tips. Of course,

(17:14):
algorithms play a role as well,sometimes amplifying
authoritarian propaganda andsometimes amplifying acts of
resistance.
But the psychology remains.Seeing someone else take action
to help lowers our own thresholdfor doing the same. History
offers plenty of examples inaddition to the story of Denmark

(17:35):
getting Jews to Sweden in WorldWar two. Sociologist James Scott
studied what he called weaponsof the weak, the small everyday
acts of resistance that ordinarypeople use under oppressive
conditions. Refusing tocooperate, quietly undermining
state harm or bureaucraticviolence, protecting one another
in small ways, These may lookminor, but together, they add up

(17:58):
to powerful resistance.
There's a 2011 study of the ArabSpring that found something
fascinating about how resistancespreads. Researchers mapped
social networks in Egypt duringthe revolution and found that
participation didn't spreadthrough strong ties, your close
friends and family. It spreadthrough weak ties,
acquaintances, colleagues,people you only knew casually.

(18:22):
Why? Because your close tiesalready share your values and
your level of risk tolerance.
They'll either act when you actor they won't act regardless.
But weak ties expose you todifferent social circles,
different risk calculations.When someone you know casually
does something brave, it'ssurprising. It recalibrates what

(18:42):
you think is possible forsomeone like me. This shows up
in contemporary movements too.
The spread of mutual aidnetworks during COVID didn't
happen through activistorganizations. It spread through
neighborhood Facebook groups,parent email lists, building
wide chats. People who'd neverconsidered themselves activists

(19:03):
started delivering groceries,coordinating medicines, checking
on their elderly neighbors. Theaction spread laterally through
weak tie networks, normalizinghelping behavior among
populations that wouldn'tidentify with traditional
organizing. Or consider theevolution of cop watch programs.
These started in Black and browncommunities decades ago as

(19:24):
formal patrols that would followpolice and document
interactions. Now that model hasdecentralized and multiplied.
Ordinary people pull out theirphones during police stops, not
because they're part of anorganization, but because
they've seen others do itonline. The tactic spread
through weak ties, viral videos,retweets, TikToks, until it

(19:46):
became a reflexive response. Seepolice encounter, start
recording.
That's a norm shift achievedthrough social proof at massive
scale. There's even a word inGerman for this kind of citizen
defiance, civil courage. I'mprobably butchering that. It
means civil courage, thewillingness of ordinary people
to publicly confront injusticedespite personal risk. The term

(20:11):
grew out of Germany's ownreckoning with resistance to
state harm, and it remains anactive concept in research and
education.
Teaching civil courage isessentially teaching people how
to resist inevitability, how tobreak silence, and how to act
even when it feels dangerous. Sowhat does all this mean for us

(20:32):
right now? First, the bystandereffect is not an ironclad law of
human behavior. People don'tautomatically freeze in groups.
Under the right conditions,danger, clear need, strong moral
identity, community ties, peoplewill act.
Second, authoritarian leadersdepend on convincing us that

(20:54):
harm is inevitable, that nobodyelse will step in, and that
we're safer staying quiet.That's what the violent theater
of lists, destruction ofbuildings, abductions of your
neighbors, or spreading troopsinto peaceful cities is designed
to do, cosplay inevitabilitywhile inducing learned
helplessness. But inevitabilityis a psychological trick. It's

(21:18):
not reality. And third, we havemore power than we think.
One person's action can rippleoutward, breaking silence,
lowering thresholds, and givingothers permission to act. The
hopeful lesson here is thatcourage is just as contagious as
apathy. The woman in the polkadot dress wasn't extraordinary

(21:38):
in the sense of beingfundamentally different from the
rest of us. She simply chose toact, and in doing so, she made
action thinkable for others.Communities resisting raids,
neighbors protecting each other,citizens challenging injustice,
these are reminders thatinevitability is an illusion.
The psychology of groups tellsus that silence can spread, but

(22:01):
so can defiance. And when itdoes, the story shifts from
bystander apathy to collectivecourage. Let's get concrete
about personal preparation toobecause understanding the
psychology is one thing, andbeing ready to act for your
neighbor is another. There's atechnique we can learn from
emergency response trainingcalled pre event visualization.

(22:23):
Before you're ever in a crisis,you mentally rehearse scenarios.
What would I do if I saw someoneapproaching someone that's my
neighbor intending to harm? Whatwould I do if I witness an
assault? Where's the nearestexit? Who can I call? This isn't
paranoia.
It's rehearsal. Athletes usethis technique to prepare for

(22:43):
high pressure moments. Emergencyresponders drill constantly, and
research shows it works becausewhen the actual event happens,
your brain recognizes thepattern. You've already made the
decision in simulation, soexecution is faster. There's
also the question of riskassessment, is deeply personal
and depends on your ownvulnerabilities.

(23:05):
Someone who's a citizen withfinancial security faces
different consequences thansomeone who's undocumented or
barely making their rent. Thewoman in the polka dot dress had
certain protections that othersmight not have. That doesn't
mean those with morevulnerability can't act. Many do
courageously. It does mean thatwe need diverse tactics.

(23:27):
If direct confrontation is toorisky for you, what about
documentation, legalobservation, rapid response
communications, offeringtemporary shelter, donating to
bail funds? There are dozens ofroles in resistance, and the
research on successful movementsshow that we need all of them.

(23:47):
Finally, build what organizerscall affinity groups, small
clusters of people you trustwho've agreed in advance to act
together. Five to eight peopleis usually ideal. These groups
make decisions faster than largecollectives.
They provide built in emotionalsupport, and they reduce
individual risk because you'renever acting alone. And you're

(24:08):
not trying to be a lone hero.You're part of a group that's
part of a network. And thatstructure, distributed,
redundant, interconnected, isboth tactically smart and
psychologically sustainable. Youcan keep showing up because
you're not carrying the weightby yourself.
That's where we'll leave ittoday. The bystander effect has
long been told as a story ofpassivity. But the evidence and

(24:32):
the examples around us show adifferent story. People are more
willing to act than we think.And in times like these,
remembering that might be one ofthe most powerful tools we have.
Thanks for listening to thisepisode of PsyberSpace. I'm your
host, Leslie Poston, signingoff. If you found this thought

(24:52):
provoking, subscribe so youdon't miss a week. Give us five
stars or a thumbs up dependingon where you listen, and share
it with a friend who could use areminder that action is
possible. And remember,inevitability is only a story.
The reality is that everychoice, every act of courage,
has the power to shift whatfeels possible for everyone

(25:12):
else. Stay curious, and you'llfind those people with the
courage to stand up.