Equality Diversity and Inclusion Briefing March 2021
Equality Briefing Number (3) 
This is the third in a series of Equality Briefings as part of the Trusts Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Education Programme.
Bystander Syndrome
This briefing paper is intended as an educational resource for managers and leaders:

•	To support your own professional and personal development.
•	To share, discuss and reflect on with members of your team through meetings and events. 

Bystander :A bystander is a person who is present when something untoward happens, witnesses the event but does not get personally involved or take any action to assist the recipient.

What is Bystander Syndrome?

The term “Bystander Syndrome”, also often referred to as bystander apathy or bystander effect, refers to the phenomenon in which the greater the number of people present, the less likely people are willing to help a person in distress. When an emergency occurs, observers are more likely to take action if there are few or no other witnesses. The bystander effect occurs when the presence of others discourages an individual from intervening in an emergency situation.

In a series of classic studies (Darley, J. M., Latané, B. 1968), researchers and Social Psychologists Professor Bibb Latané and Professor John Darley,found that the amount of time it takes the participant to take action and seek help varies depending on how many other observers are in the room. In one experiment, subjects were placed in one of three treatment conditions: alone in a room, with two other participants or with two confederates who pretended to be normal participants.

As the participants sat filling out questionnaires, smoke began to fill the room. When participants were alone, 75% reported the smoke to the experimenters. In contrast, just 38% of participants in a room with two other people reported the smoke. In the final group, the two confederates in the experiment noted the smoke and then ignored it, which resulted in only 10% of the participants reporting the smoke.

Additional experiments by Professor Bibb Latané and Dr. Judith Rodin, Professor of Psychology, (Latané, B., Rodin, J. 1969 ) found that while 70 percent would help a woman in distress when they were the only witness, only 40 percent offered assistance when accompanied by a friend, 20 percent when accompanied by a stranger and as little as 10 percent if that stranger was non responsive. 

The case of Kitty Genovese

Social psychologists Professor Bibb Latané and Professor John Darley popularised the concept of the bystander effect following the infamous murder of Kitty Genovese in New York City in 1964. On Friday 13 March 1964, 28-year-old Catherine Genovese was returning home from work. As she approached her apartment entrance, she was attacked and stabbed by a man later identified as Winston Moseley.

Despite Genovese’s repeated calls for help, none of the dozen or so people in the nearby apartment building who heard her cries called the police to report the incident. The attack first began at 3:20 AM, but it was not until 3:50 AM that someone first contacted police.

Explanations for the Bystander Effect 

There is a great deal of research on the bystander process, why for example do people not intervene when they witness a situation where harm is being caused to another? If you witnessed an emergency happening right before your eyes, you would certainly take some sort of action to help the person in trouble, right? While we all like to believe this is true, psychologists suggest that whether you intervene might depend upon a range of circumstances.

First, the presence of other people creates a diffusion of responsibility. Because there are other observers, individuals do not feel under as much pressure to take action.

The second reason is the need to behave in correct and socially acceptable ways. When other observers fail to react, individuals often take this as a signal that a response is not required or not appropriate. Other researchers have found that onlookers are less likely to intervene if the situation is ambiguous. In the case of Kitty Genovese, many of the 38 witnesses reported that they believed that they were witnessing a "lover's quarrel," and did not realise that the young woman was actually being murdered.

During a crisis, things are often chaotic and the situation is not always crystal clear. Onlookers might wonder exactly what is happening. During such chaotic moments, people often look to others in the group to determine what is appropriate. When people look at the crowd and see that no one else is reacting, it sends a signal that perhaps no action is needed.

Forms of assistance – There are two categories of assistance as defined by Professors John Darley and Bibb Latané:
1.	Direct intervention, directly assisting the victim.
2.	Detour Intervention, for example reporting the incident to the appropriate authorities. Management or the Emergency Services
In terms of Implementation – the bystander must go through the action of choice.
Understanding Ambiguity and Consequences

Ambiguity is a key factor that determines whether a person intervenes and aids another in need. Often bystanders determine their own safety before proceeding with any intervention. Is remaining silent when you witness someone being treated badly, bullied, harassed, because you fear for your own safety the right thing to do? It is a difficult question to answer. For some individuals they would not hesitate to intervene, whilst other may sit back in the belief that someone else will step in and offer support. Research clearly demonstrates that if the “Culture” of the organisation is healthy, people feel confident in speaking up and challenging behaviour that goes against their organisational values and mission statements.
Why don’t people intervene?
•	Shock.
•	Don’t know how to help, what to say.
•	Assume someone will intervene.
•	Afraid for their own safety and friendships.
•	Worried about how they will be seen by others.
•	It’s none of my business!
•	It’s only banter!
•	Don’t see the situation as harmful (common with racist, sexist, homophobic, body shaming remarks.
Becoming an active bystander / upstander

So, what can you do to avoid falling into this trap of inaction? Some psychologists suggest that simply being aware of this tendency is perhaps the greatest way to break the cycle. When faced with a situation that requires action, understanding how the bystander effect might be holding you back and consciously taking steps to overcome it can help. However, this does not mean you should place yourself in danger.

What can we do when we witness behaviour or an incident when someone is being bullied, harassed, teased, becoming the subject of other people’s jokes, given a negative nick name (based on their protected characteristic)? Knowing something is wrong, bad or unprofessional provides you with a list of options. If you ignore it or excuse it away, this is called – Deluded Justification. If you and others, make excuses for the range of behaviours and do your best to justify the behaviours and more importantly the consequences of said behaviour. This justification fits with the “group think” as it allows you to avoid any form of challenge. It also provides you with “we are all complicit, but we can justify the process as banter” Does this sound familiar? So, what can we do? 
We can become Upstanders (active bystanders). When anyone can lend a hand or do something to support the recipient, that action is called upstanding. It can be difficult to stand up and be counted, especially when it appears others are not willing or prepared to join you in challenging behaviour. Being a lone voice can be scary but knowing you are doing the right thing is very important.
Researchers have proposed a basic model to increase the likelihood of acting in emergency: 
1.	Notice the incident
2.	Interpret it as an emergency 
3.	Decide on level of responsibility to intervene
4.	Carry out the required behaviour
Be prepared to be courageous, assertive, and compassionate, to lead by example and to implement UHL Values and understand that Equality Legislation is in place to support you when you do become an upstander.

Activity

Reflect on the questions below either by yourself or with your teams:

1.	Think of a time you may have witnessed unacceptable or unprofessional behaviour unfold in the workplace. This might include ‘banter’ that has gone too far, disrespectful or undermining behaviour, or even behaviour you would consider bullying or harassment:
-	How did this make you feel?
-	How do you think this made the recipient feel receiving the inappropriate behaviour or comments?
-	Did you speak up and challenge this behaviour? 
-	Did others present speak up and challenge this behaviour? 
-	If this behaviour was unchallenged, did this event have lasting effects through the days/weeks/months? If so, what effects? 

2.	In hindsight, would you have done anything differently?

3.	Do you think it is acceptable to challenge unprofessional behaviour when the perpetrator is in a position of power, such as a manager or senior leader? 

For ongoing support please contact:
Paul Fitzgerald – Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Manager
Paul.fitzgerald@uhl-tr.nhs.uk
The Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Team
equality@uhl-tr.nhs.uk
0116 258 4382
The Freedom to Speak Up Guardian Service
freedom2speakup@uhl-tr.nhs.uk