Verified by 
Persuasion
Why Supporting Strangers Wins You Instant Influence
The type of people—not the number of people—underpins the bystander effect.
Posted February 28, 2023 Reviewed by Michelle Quirk
Key points
- Most people think they would help friends or strangers in emergency situations.
- We’re more likely to help ingroups than those who need it most.
- The bystander effect is a modern social dilemma. But anyone can be heroic by standing up for strangers.
When Kitty Genovese cried, “Help me, I’ve been stabbed,” 37 New York neighbors heard. When no one reacted, her fleeing murderer returned. That was 1964.
Since then, leaders and psychologists have clamored to understand what prompts people to help strangers. We think we’re empathetic. Yet we’re more likely to assist ingroups than those who might need it more. Helping strangers is an overlooked source of altruism and influence.
Bystanding or Standing By?
The bystander effect finds that the greater the size of the crowd, the less the chance anyone will react, including in emergencies. The crowd dilutes responsibility. It’s a modern social dilemma.
In a well-known study, participants were put in a room alone or in small groups. When smoke started to fill the space, 75 percent of people who were alone reacted. But in groups, 38 percent did nothing. Participants misinterpreted the lack of concern and downplayed the smoky situation.
Why? This is rooted in social influence. We’re influenced by what others do, and in ambiguity, look to others for guidance.
It’s like sunbathing at a pool when it starts to rain. Do you grab your towel and dash inside, or do you check if other Bravehearts are staying outside?
The intervention or response isn’t always straightforward. For example, if a colleague tells repeated vulgar jokes, is that harassment? If your colleague gets a 5 percent pay raise and you get 1 percent, is that discrimination?
When we stay silent in the act of omission, we’re complicit. Think of employees in the Volkswagen scandal, the opioid crisis, or the Russian doping collusion. We’re not short of examples.
Strangers or Friends?
The relationship effect is important. Unsurprisingly, researchers have found that where closeness exists, employees across industries are more likely to report peers than superiors. Equally, willingness to blow the whistle is higher when authority is external rather than internal.
In a study of Barbados accountants, when friendship exists between the aggressor and bystander, whistleblowing was inhibited. However, valuing fairness and justice over loyalty promoted willingness to report.
We’re also a lot more likely to report strangers than friends. It’s easier as lower social cost is involved. Emotional bonds make confrontation difficult.
Ingroups or Outgroups?
People are more likely to support groups with similar traits, attitudes, and backgrounds. Social identity is a primary reason. When the bystander shares social, professional, or team identity with the victim, the probability of intervention is enhanced.
When gender identity is salient, intervention is higher once shared by bystander and victim.
Take any local or premier league sporting event. Fans identifying with their favorite team tend to behave aggressively toward rivals. For instance, an immersive study showed how Arsenal football fans were more likely to verbally or physically intervene to help fellow fans wearing Arsenal t-shirts than rivals.
Conversely, strong identification can lead to hostility but also foster unity.
One-Off Encounters?
Would expectation of seeing someone in subsequent face-to-face interaction improve your odds of intervention?
Consider this. Female students participated in an anonymous discussion with either one or five people. Half were told they’d have no future contact with participants.
During this exercise, someone experienced a pseudo-choking fit.
What happened? Those who expected future interaction offered help quicker than those who expected none.
It’s complex. Multiple experiential, psychological, and situational factors influence intervention, including perceived situation severity, expected consequences, evidence of wrongdoing, commitment to resolution, anonymous reporting tools, prior treatment of whistleblowers, and ethical climate. It’s a long list!
Interestingly, the larger the firm, the lower the willingness to report wrongdoing internally.
Even culture plays a role. Countries advocating collectivism are less willing to report than cultures where individualism is supported. Resistance is attributed to Confucian principles and family attitudes.
3 Ways to Stand Up for Strangers
Empathy isn’t just about defending your friends, neighbors, or team members. We’re already hard-wired to do that. Courage is standing up for strangers and defending those under verbal, online, and physical attack.
People never forget what you do to them or for them. You gain instant influence.
As a board advisor and behavioral scientist, I suggest several actions to increase the rate of helping strangers:
- Understand the psychological process. Know the five steps we go through in the Bystander Intervention Model as at each stage, inhibitors prevent action: (1) Notice wrongdoing; (2) interpret intervention required; (3) accept personal responsibility—this is the most critical stage; (4) know what to do; and (5) do it. This cognitive processing has been verified in bullying and sexual harassment situations. Even mild awareness assists progression to reach stage five.
- Assess severity. This technique is useful in the workplace. Clients adopt what I call the FIRED model. Simply ask yourself if bystander behavior might get you or others fired. If in doubt about severity, consult an independent party.
- Frequency: Is it a one-off or a repeated pattern?
- Intent: Is it intentional or unintentional?
- Risk: Is there reputation or revenue risk?
- Effect: Are others suffering as a result?
- Damage: How much harm is caused?
3. Don't rely on personality: Don’t depend on character traits to ensure intervention. My experimental research outlined in the Harvard Business Review found that regardless of industry or occupation, no statistically significant difference exists in the likelihood of disclosure whether you’re an introvert or extravert, open- or closed-minded, conscientious or irresponsible, neurotic or balanced, agreeable or disagreeable.
In reality, each situation offers interrelated factors rather than a single source explanation. Your personal choice boils down to values, policies, and social norms. It’s easy to make a home, workplace, or community better—and with it, the lives of those around you. What's more, by supporting strangers, you'll gain kudos and instant influence
Simply see it then say it. That’ll sort it.
Copyright © Nuala Walsh 2023. All rights reserved.
