1. What Would They Do?
A Social Psychology Experiment
[ Bystander Effect ]
Zoe Kan
0313630
Tan Wen Hao
0313690
Phua Jing Sern
0314572
Cheah Teck Wei
0315215
Parham Farhadpoor 0313698

2. Contents
1. Acknowledgement –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
1
2. Abstract
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
2
3. Introduction
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
3
4. Method
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
4-5
5. Results
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
6-15
6. Discussion
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
16
7. References
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
17
8. Appendix
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
18-21
a. Design
b. Participants
c. Materials
d. Procedures

3. Acknowledgement
A great gratitude within group members, Phua Jing Sern, Cheah Teck Wei, Zoe Kan, Parham
Farhadpoor and Tan Wen Hao. Special thanks to Ms. Chia Yee Pang for giving us the support
and guidance in accomplishing this assignment. Additionally we would also like to thanks the
participants involved in this study for their kind cooperation.

4. Abstract
Students in Taylor’s University tend to take the safety of their belongings for granted, making
assumptions that their belongings would be safe when left unattended in an open area. The aim for
this experiment was to investigate if the bystanders would take action to the situation when
belongings are being stolen.
The hypothesis made is that bystanders who are alone will take action to the situation and that they
normally inform the victim first instead of catching the suspect straight away. The research method
was qualitative and quantitative as the recorded data can be quantified (male/female alone/in a group)
and qualities by recording down the factors. This was a bystander’s effect experiment. There were 127
participants in total, 66 male and 61 females. Females react faster than male in the situation. In
conclusion, most females who are alone, will take action by informing the victim straight away. The
hypothesis is accepted. In conclusion to the aim, bystanders do take action depending on various
factors.

5. Introduction
The Bystander Effect is a social psychological phenomenon that occurs when there are more
people around a victim of certain incident, individuals will not offer any help to them.
Researchers found that the probability of individuals helping the victim is inversely related to
the number of bystanders around the victim. Hence, the higher the amount of bystanders, the
lower chance that anyone of them will give a helping hand. There are a certain variable that
helps to explain the happening of bystander effect such as ambiguity, cohesiveness, group or
alone, personality, the situation and so on.
This phenomenon was demonstrated by John Darley and Bibb Latané in 1964. The most
widely popularized case is the murder of Kitty Genovese near her home. The interesting fact
of this case is that several of her neighbours witnessed the attack and could have possibly
stopped the incident, but then no one actually took action thus leading her to death. Besides,
there are some examples of bystander effect such as reaction when bystanders witness a
robbery, burglary, kidnapping, someone fainting and so on. One experiment that is notable is
to observe the bystander’s reaction when a child is abducted in front of them whether they
helps or ignores.
The aim of the experiment is to investigate how the situations, ambiguity, environment,
cohesiveness, group membership, personality and background affect the reaction of bystander
when they witness a crime. The hypothesis of the experiment is people are less likely to help
when they are in group than alone.

6. Method
Design:
A scenario experiment is designed, aiming for both staffs and student of Taylor’s University
where the relationship between the outcome reactions of students and the amount of people
present is observed and recorded. Taylor’s University students are to witness a “crime”
situation performed by our members and observation is made. One of the extraneous
variables is the inconsistent focus between the participants’ current attention and his/her
environment happenings. As this fault can lead to unstable results, we told our ‘thief’ to be
more obvious in terms of creating a scene while stealing, increasing the chance of gaining
attention from the people.
Participants:
Our target setting is limited within the boundaries of Taylor’s University Lakeside Campus,
aiming both students and staffs. Race, Gender, Age group, Grouping (Alone/In Group) and
Reactions are the key points in our recording table. A hidden camera is carefully placed
around the happening area to record the participants’ physical traits and reaction.
Materials：
A laptop is used as a means to portray a precious belonging that will be stolen by our thief,
and a camera is used to record the results. Laptop is used because it is big enough to gain
attention from the participants, a better option than belongings like smartphones and wallets
as they are too small. Our thief is dressed and disguised in very suspicious hooded and
shaded attire so that higher attention can be gained.

7. Procedures:
1.
The team was assigned into different roles: a videographer, a “victim”, a “thief”, and
two on-site analysers.
2.
An appropriate setting was chosen to perform the experiment.
3.
Each of us entered the chosen setting one by one to avoid suspicious planed activity;
by sequence: The “thief” tailgates the “victim”, followed by the videographer who
covers the area with appropriate camera placement, and finally the two analysers.
4.
The “victim” was carefully seated around the populated area to increase exposure,
while the “thief” was placed in the corner so that movement is needed to “steal” the
laptop, as this increased the exposure contacted with the participants. The
videographer and analysers were randomly seated as well
5.
All the participants’ physical traits (Race, Gender, Age group, Grouping) within the
selected area are recorded down by the analysers.
6.
As the actors are properly placed, a signal is given by the videographer to signify the
initiation of the crime scenario and all activities are recorded.
7.
The “victim” leaved the area with her bags and other belongings, but left her laptop
behind.
8.
After a delay, the “thief” then walked towards the laptop and grabbed away in an
incognito but slightly obvious way.
9.
The reactions of the participants presented in the area were recorded by the analysers
and video footage was recorded.
10.
After the scenario was completed, the analysers proceeded to stand out and informed
the participants that everything happened earlier were staged.
11.
Steps 1-10 were repeated in different settings to obtain various outcomes.

8. Results
Overall Amount of Participants’ and Races
Chinese
Malay
Indian
Foreigners
87
15
6
19
Total
127
Figure 1

9. Participants Who Noticed
Chinese
Malay
Indian
Foreigners
11
6
0
10
Figure 2

10. Overall Participants’ Gender
Male
Female
66
61
Figure 3

11. Participants Who Noticed
Male
Female
16
11
Figure 4
Based on the results of Figure 4, Males are slightly more aware to their surroundings’
activities.

12. Participants Who Took Action
Male
Female
0
2
Figure 5
But based on the results of Figure 5, out of 127 of different participants, only 2 Females took
action with fast reaction time.

13. Overall Participants’ Groupings
In a Group
Individual
39
9
Figure 6

14. Reactions From A Group
No Reaction
Noticed
Reacted
31
8
0
Figure 7
Based on the results obtained in Figure 7, less than 20% of the grouped participants actually
noticed the victim’s laptop got stolen

15. Reactions From Individuals
No Reaction
Noticed (No Reaction)
Reacted
5
2
2
Figure 8
But for the individuals, almost 50% are aware that the thief has grabbed away the laptop
and 22% actually reacted to the situation with fast reaction.

16. Discussions
Based on the hypothesis, the research proves that effect when people are less likely to help
when they are in groups than when alone.
As the “thief” steals the laptop, the expectation was that between people who realize, the
individuals’ reaction are more likely to help in compare to people in groups. After discussion
on information it is mostly because there is loss of efficiency from lack of coordination
among people who are in groups and they are usually in gage or asking others about helping
or not. Every day, students leave their belongings such as laptop or handbag in places like
cafes and restaurants in Taylor’s University Lakeside Campus unintended, and the research
proves that it is a completely wrong decision to make as it was so easy for a thief to steal the
belongings without much difficulty. Furthermore, most of the people who realized, didn’t try
to take action at all. And those who do, majority only stare and points.
There are some of the constructive ways that could have been done to obtain better results.
For example, initiate the experiment during students’ peak hours to obtain highest exposure.
Additionally, initiate the scenario in less distracting places, so people can notice the
surrounding activity more effectively. There are other types of experiments that could have
been done base on the hypothesis. One of the example is the “dead man” experiment, where a
person is lied down, pretending to die in a public area, the expected reactions is also similar
to this experiment.
To summarize everything, people are more likely to help when they are not in groups, and the
theory first demonstrated by John Darley and Bibb Latané has been proven.

17. References
1. Manning, R., Levine, M. & Collins, A. (2007). The Kitty Genovese murder and the
social psychology of helping: The parable of the 38 witnesses. American Psychologist,
62(6), 555-562.
2. Darley, J. M. & Latané, B. (1969). Bystander “apathy.” American Scientist, 57, 244268.
3. Soloman, L.Z, Solomon, H., & Stone, R. (1978). Helping as a function of number of
bystanders and ambiguity of emergency. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
4, 318-321.
4. Rosenthal, A.M. (1964). Thirty-Eight Witnesses: The Kitty Genovese Case. University
of California Press.
5. Darley, J. M. & Latané, B. (1968). Bystander intervention in emergencies: Diffusion
of responsibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8, 377-383.
6. Chia, Y.P. (2014). Conformity and Group Behaviour [PowerPoint slides].
Retrieved from http://goo.gl/0pSKzQ
7. Zimbardo, P. [HeroicImaginationTV]. (2011, September 25). The Bystander Effect
[Video file]. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybpg_B9S_q0

18. Participant Information Letter
You have been invited to participate in a social psychology experiment of ‘The Bystander
Effect’ conducted by Zoe Kan, Phua Jing Sern, Tan Wen Hao, Cheah Teck Wei and Parham
Farhadpoor under the supervision of Ms. Chia Yee Pang at Taylor’s University Lakeside
Campus. This study is being conducted to fulfil the assignment requirements of Social
Psychology (PSYC0103) subject.
The researchers are interested in observing the reactions of staffs and students when
experiencing a “crime” scenario performed by our group members. A video camera was
hidden from plain sight and all activities and reactions are recorded. After the “crime
performance is complete, the researchers will reveal themselves and informed everyone in the
scene that it was all staged.
Participants will have all rights to have their face blurred off and researchers will absolutely
cause no harm towards the participants. All information collected will remain confidential
and anonymous against the public. Only the researchers and Ms Chia Yee Pang will have
access to the data for results marking reasons.
If you have any enquiries or concerns about this assignment, please contact our lecturer:
Ms Chia Yee Pang: chiayee.pang@taylors.edu.my.