The “Bystander Effect”

The Star ran an interesting story this week about the “bystander effect.” Apparently, when a crime is happening in public, the likelihood of a bystander doing something about it is inversely proportional to the number of people around. It’s completely counter-intuitive, but the more people are witness to the crime, the less likely it is that even any single person will do something (e.g. intervene, call 911). Basically, it’s because because everyone thinks someone else will do something.

It’s interesting to think about this in light of Jane Jacob’s “eyes on the street” theory, which holds that crime is less likely to happen if there are a lot of people in or watching public space — which I believe has also been shown to be true. Perhaps “eyes on the street” have a deterrent effect — people are less likely to commit a crime — but, if someone does commit a crime, in fact the “eyes” aren’t likely to do anything about it.

I suspect there’s also an issue of sense of community — whether or not bystanders see the victim (or perpetrator) as someone they have some responsibility for as part of the same community.

Edit – David Topping from Torontoist emailed to suggest that I might be exagerrating the bystander effect a bit. While the likelihood of any particular person intervening is reduced when more people are witnessing a crime or a disturbance, he suggests that the larger number of people means that it’s still just as likely that at least one person will do something about it. The two examples in the Star story, where no-one did anything, would then be exceptional, probably related to the particular environment and circumstances of these crimes. I also wonder if there’s a difference when people are inside their own private property — I suspect it makes them less likely to feel connected to what is happening in public, and to intervene.