An organization that embraces a culture of diversity, equality, and inclusion has a greater chance of sustainable success. However, this is not a given. Certain conditions must be met for this potential to be unlocked. But what is the best way to create a work culture where everyone - from CEOs to managers to all employees - recognizes and promotes diversity and equality? In an ideal world, diversity would be celebrated and promoted, but diversity continues to be ignored or devalued in some workplaces. A recurring socio-psychological phenomenon that also occurs in a professional context and counteracts the potential of diverse corporate cultures is the bystander effect. This effect can also be seen in situations where a commitment to diversity and active intervention against discrimination is required.

The bystander effect refers to the phenomenon where witnesses in an emergency are less likely to provide help as the number of other people present increases. This was studied extensively by Darley and Latané. Their experiment revealed that the likelihood of individuals offering assistance in an apparent emergency decreases as the number of bystanders grows. Additionally, the time it takes for an observer to decide to seek help or to intervene directly increases with the number of bystanders present.

Latané and Darley's (1970) five-step model of helping behavior explains the bystander effect through a series of stages that determine whether an individual will intervene in an emergency. The model includes the following steps:

Perception of the situation – Noticing that something unusual is happening.
Interpretation as an emergency – Determining whether the situation requires immediate action.
Assuming responsibility for helping – Deciding to take personal responsibility for providing help.
Assessing the ability to help – Evaluating whether one has the skills or resources to intervene effectively.
Initiating helping behavior – Taking action to provide assistance.

In all of these stages, there are potential problems that can facilitate the occurrence of the bystander effect:

For a person in an emergency situation to receive help, bystanders must first notice the situation and interpret it as an emergency. The first stage, the perception of the situation, can fail if others distract from the emergency.

The second stage entails the potential problem that an emergency situation can be ambiguous. Often, there is uncertainty about whether the situation is truly an emergency. The interpretation of the situation depends on the clarity of situational cues. People tend to rely on social comparison in ambiguous situations (Social Comparison Theory by Festinger, 1954). From the non-action of others, observers could conclude that it is not an emergency situation. This leads to pluralistic ignorance, in which the bystander effect manifests itself: Everyone looks at one another, no one knows exactly what to do and ultimately no one helps. Through passivity, the environment signals there is no emergency.

The third stage involves taking personal responsibility for helping. However, the presence of others leads to diffusion of responsibility. Stroebe defines diffusion of responsibility as the social inhibition of helping, caused by a reduced sense of responsibility among individual group members. These members feel less compelled to intervene in a group than they would if they were alone (Stroebe, 1997). Studies have shown that simply being aware of the presence of others is enough to significantly slow down the helping process (Darley & Latané, 1968).

In the fourth stage, bystanders must assess their ability to help. The challenges here include the fear of making a mistake, uncertainty about what exactly needs to be done, and the belief that others are better suited to intervene. Empirical research shows that individuals with high levels of expertise (e.g., doctors, police officers, firefighters, or those who have undergone first aid training) tend to help more quickly and more frequently. This often leads to a delegation of responsibility to "more competent" others, rather than taking personal action.

Finally, in the fifth stage, a decision on the helping behavior and its implementation is made. However, before making a decision, people often weigh up the potential costs and benefits of helping behavior: Can something happen to me? Can I solve the problem and get rid of it once and for all? What are the social benefits and costs of helping? The bystander effect is evident here in what is known as audience inhibition. People are afraid of making a bad impression in front of others. This phenomenon becomes more likely as the number of people present increases.

The bystander effect occurs in all types of social situations, including the workplace. It doesn't necessarily involve acute or life-threatening emergencies.
An example of a bystander situation at work is when employees fail to intervene upon witnessing discrimination.

What does this mean for you?

As an observer, you play an important role in such a situation. By intervening, you can free the "victim" from the difficult situation and prevent further discriminatory actions. However, by not intervening, you tolerate the behavior of the "perpetrators" or even implicitly reinforce it. One can also become a bystander by observing unconscious bias among colleagues and not intervening or correcting it. Discrimination does not necessarily have to be conscious. Such situations could involve decisions made during recruitment processes, for example. In addition to yourself, this may also be noticed by other individuals. The more people present, the greater the likelihood that you will become part of the silent majority.

But what can you do to actively counteract stereotypes, prejudices, and unconscious bias? The Active-Bystander-Approach by the Kirwan Institute (L. Tenney, 2017) recommends the following steps:

Step 1: Recognize the bias in the situation.
Step 2: Make a conscious decision to address the observed bias.
Step 3: Use one of the following action strategies to counteract the bias:

• Humor
  "German is my native language, what’s yours?" (e.g., in response to "Your German is so good!")
• Rejection of the stereotype
  "I don't understand the joke."
• Questions that invite discussion
  "What did you mean when you said...?"
• Acknowledging discomfort
  "What you just said makes me uncomfortable. Please don’t speak like that in my presence."
• Direct communication
  "I know you didn't mean for your statement to be interpreted as a stereotype, but as your colleague, I wanted to be honest with you because it came across that way."

Step 4: Continue the conversation.

A meta-analysis showed that the bystander effect is weaker if the victim and the bystander share a common fate, if escape from the situation is impossible, if the victim and bystander know each other, or if the victim is not anonymous (e.g. if their name is known). A serious danger to the person in need of help, as well as occupying a social role that implies responsibility, or even just the knowledge of the bystander effect, can also reduce its occurrence.

Your awareness of the bystander effect and the strategies mentioned above should now help you to identify potentially vulnerable situations and recognize the bystander effect if it occurs. Stay vigilant and take the first step – ideally, also the fifth.

 

SOURCES
Tenney, L. (2017). Being an active bystander: strategies for challenging the emergence of bias. Kirwan Institute for the Study of Race and Ethnicity website. http://kirwaninstitute. osu. edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Being-an-Active-Bystander-2017. pdf. Published.

Stroebe, W. (Hrsg.), 1997: Sozialpsychologie. Berlin u.a.: Springer-Verlag

Darley, J. M., & Latané, B. (1968). Bystander intervention in emergencies: diffusion of responsibility. Journal of personality and social psychology, 8(4p1), 377. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/h0025589

Latané, B., & Darley, J. M. (1970). Social determinants of bystander intervention in emergencies. Altruism and helping behavior, 13-27.

Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human relations, 7(2), 117-140. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872675400700202