Would I be helped? Cross-national CCTV footage shows that intervention is the norm in public conflicts.

Abstract

Half a century of research on bystander behavior concludes that individuals are less likely to intervene during an emergency when in the presence of others than when alone. By contrast, little is known regarding the aggregated likelihood that at least someone present at an emergency will do something to help. The importance of establishing this aggregated intervention baseline is not only of scholarly interest but is also the most pressing question for actual public victims-will I receive help if needed? The current article describes the largest systematic study of real-life bystander intervention in actual public conflicts captured by surveillance cameras. Using a unique cross-national video dataset from the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and South Africa (N = 219), we show that in 9 of 10 public conflicts, at least 1 bystander, but typically several, will do something to help. We record similar likelihoods of intervention across the 3 national contexts, which differ greatly in levels of perceived public safety. Finally, we find that increased bystander presence is related to a greater likelihood that someone will intervene. Taken together these findings allay the widespread fear that bystanders rarely intervene to help. We argue that it is time for psychology to change the narrative away from an absence of help and toward a new understanding of what makes intervention successful or unsuccessful.

Contributions From Psychology to Effectively Use, and Achieving Sexual Consent

“…From the academic field, research on this topic has been extended to other areas. Recent studies in psychology (Philpot et al, 2019) continue to affirm the success of bystander intervention. In a comparative analysis between countries of different continents, this research demonstrates that in most public conflicts, the tendency of bystanders is to intervene to help someone in an emergency.…”

“…People are also more likely to intervene when accompanied by other people. Based on these findings, Philpot et al (2019) argue the need for psychology to change the narrative of the absence of help, toward a new understanding of what makes intervention successful.…”

The Golden Age of Social Science

“…Interdisciplinarity, new type of data: CCTV footage (Philpot, Liebst, Levine, Bernasco, & Lindegaard, 2019) Social networks strongly influence exercise habits.…”

Rethinking the Bystander Effect in Violence Reduction Training Programs

“…There is a long‐standing assumption in popular culture and the social sciences that bystanders in emergencies are largely apathetic to the plight of others (Lurigio, ; Manning et al., )—but is this really the case? To address this question, Philpot, Liebst, Levine and colleagues () systematically observed 219 real‐life arguments and assaults captured by public security cameras in the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and South Africa. Contrary to the notion of the “walk on by society” in which victims are largely ignored, they found that bystander intervention was commonplace.…”

“…() propose a “reverse bystander effect” (the greater the number of bystanders, the greater the likelihood of intervention) when emergencies are less ambiguous and it is clear what bystanders should do. Moreover, recent research which uses CCTV footage to study real‐life bystander behavior in violent or dangerous emergencies in public spaces (as opposed to work using laboratory or self‐report measures) shows that bystander intervention is actually the norm in these kinds of incidents (Philpot, Liebst, Levine, Bernasco, & Lindegaard, ). Of course, not everybody intervenes, but intervention levels are very high, and the more bystanders are present, the more likely it is that the victims receive help.…”