In my bystander apathy article I wrote about the principle of people feeling less responsible and therefore being less likely to help the bigger the group. If someone needs help in the street and it’s only you around then you are likely to help; if there are lots of people around you are less likely to help as you’ll assume someone else has got it covered and walk on by. Trouble is so will most everybody else.
I was pondering the role of bystander apapthy recently chatting to a friend. He suggested that whole countries might suffer bystander apathy with for example green issues or acts of genocide: ‘Ah someone else will cut down on carbon emissions and save the planet…’ He had a point but bystander apathy usually occurs when someone else is threatened but we are all threatened by global warming.
But there is a link I think. This relinquishing (or never adopting) responsiblity may be a key feature of whole communities that can stand by and watch other communities suffer the whole time feeling that ’somone else must be taking care of this….surely.’
Mark
You have to remember that there are three factors (not just one) that play into bystander apathy. You meantion ‘crisis’ but fail to mention the other two factors. Bystander apathy is what causes someone to either respond or not respond to another person’s plight. The three different factors that contribute to this are: Crisis: if the group does not define the situation as a crisis, less people will respond, yet if there is only an individual witnessing the situation they are more likely to respond. Capacity: Whether or not an individual believes that he/she can or cannot achieve the goal of helping or whether he/she has the ability to help. Cost of Intervention: What will it cost for the person to help or intervene? Also remember that bystander apathy is not dependent on differences like age, race, religion, etc. but a person or group is more likely to respond if the person needing assistance is under (10) ten years of age or much older, senile or frail.