First of all, individuals are less likely to take notice of their surroundings when they are with a group of people than when they are alone.
In a 1968 experiment, students from Columbia University were asked to complete a questionnaire in a room. Some students worked alone, while others were divided into groups with two strangers. Then smoke was led into the room. Students who were alone and often looked around noticed the smoke almost in a second, whereas students who sat with others took a longer time. This happened because in many cultures, it is impolite to stare at other people. As a result, people with companions pay more attention to themselves instead of looking around at others. In contrast, people are more likely to observe their environments and notice someone in trouble when they are
alone. Second, after noticing, bystanders incline to interpret the incident as non-emergencies. This occurs because an individual usually observes others first to see if they consider the incident as an emergency, and then the observer shall decide whether to help or not. In this way, all the bystanders are watching each other, which means nobody actually takes measures at all. Then they will draw a conclusion that there is nothing serious. The smoke experiment also proved this phenomenon: Most students in the group condition didn’t report the situation even when the smoke was so thick that it obscured their sight and made them cough, for none of them thought the smoke was engendered by fire, “preferring less serious explanations such as air-conditioning leaks”(“bystander effect,” par.6). Third, individuals are likely to refuse to take responsibilities when other people are present. The main reason is that each individual waits for others to intervene in place of themselves. There are more complex reasons, though. They may think that other more professional bystanders such as police and doctors should intervene instead of them. Also, it is possible that they have to take liability for adverse effects on the situation. For example, a bystander gives the man who is suffering asthma some medicine. However, the medicine only aggravates the condition and the man dies because of the bystander’s assistance. Then the bystander has to be responsible for the death. Besides, bystanders may also be afraid of making mistakes and losing face in public, especially those that are “highly masculine” --- they are less likely to help someone in trouble lest they will be dishonored and show that they are not composed(“Bystander Effect”, par. 10). In sum, the reason why people fail to help is that when other bystanders are present, an individual pays less attention to the environment, assumes the situation as non-urgent, and diffuses responsibilities. Now there are some solutions to increase the possibility that people will intervene a situation. The first one is being observant. Do not completely rely on how other people regard the situation. Trust your own analysis and take actions if necessary. The second one is being skillful and erudite. If bystanders know what to do, they will be more likely to offer the help and will not be afraid of losing face. This can be achieved by taking some courses such as first-aid classes. The third one is simply to be happy. If people are feeling good, they will be more willing to give assistance.
References
1. Cherry, Kendra. “The Bystander Effect: Why Bystanders Sometimes Fail to Help”. About. 23 Nov. 2013 .
2. “Bystander Effect”. Answers. 23 Nov. 2013 .