The Bystander Epidemic

Written By Tatiana Vitas

We all think we’d speak up. Netflix’s New Stanford Prison Experiment makes us question whether we really would.

There’s something unsettling about a person who commits an act of cruelty. But there’s something deeply disturbing about the people who watch.

You know the ones. They recognize that something isn’t right, something’s off. Maybe they exchange a few uncomfortable glances. Someone looks away. Another pretends not to notice, hiding in their phone. And eventually everyone finds a reason to say nothing — do nothing. 

Maybe someone else will step in. Maybe the situation isn’t as serious as it looks. Maybe getting involved will only make things worse. And to be fair, sometimes it does.

That’s what makes the psychology behind silence so interesting. We tend to think of ourselves as people who would do the right and just thing. We’d challenge an unreasonable authority, defend someone being humiliated, or refuse to go along with something we knew was wrong. At least, that’s how we imagine it. 

But imagining ourselves as courageous requires very little courage.

I started thinking about this while watching Netflix’s The New Stanford Prison Experiment, a contemporary reality series that revisits the relationship between power, authority, and human behavior. Thirty participants enter a real prison environment, taking on roles within an artificial hierarchy. 

Naturally, much of the fascination comes from watching what people do when they’re given power. But I found myself more interested in the people around them. 

What happens when someone recognizes that a situation has gone too far, but doesn’t say anything? And at what point does everyone else’s silence start making the behavior seem acceptable?

The Comfortable Illusion of Moral Courage

Most of us have a pretty good opinion of our own character. We know what we find acceptable. We know what gets under our skin. We have opinions about fairness, violence, and accountability. We know how we’d like to be treated, and we usually have no issue recognizing when someone else is being treated badly. Especially when we’re watching from a comfortable distance. But there is something we don’t really know about ourselves — how would we respond when acknowledging wrongdoing requires us to risk something about ourselves. There’s a psychological difference between knowing something is wrong and condemning the action, next to being willing to do something about it and confronting the person responsible for it. One requires judgment. The other takes action. And action comes with consequences.

We might lose someone’s approval. We might embarrass ourselves. We might upset the wrong person, damage a relationship, or suddenly find ourselves on the receiving end of the same treatment you were trying to stop.

Now the decision isn’t quite so simple. 

We want to do the right thing, but we also want to belong. We want to protect someone else, but naturally, we want to protect ourselves too. We want to believe we are independent thinkers, yet we stay deeply sensitive to how other people respond to us. These battling motivations don’t necessarily make us bad people. It just means our behavior is probably more complicated than the version of ourselves we’ve constructed in our head. 

This is where the psychology of the bystander becomes exposed.

When Everyone Is Responsible, No One Feels Responsible

Back in 1968, psychologists John Darley and Bibb Latané conducted an experiment to understand why people sometimes fail to respond to emergencies when others are present. Participants believed they were taking part in a group discussion. At one point, they heard what sounded like another participant experiencing a medical emergency. 

Here’s what the researchers found: people who thought they were the only witness were generally quicker to report the emergency than those who thought several others were listening. 

Think about that for a second. You’d assume that having more people around would increase the chances of someone helping. More witnesses, more opportunities for someone to act. 

But sometimes the opposite happens. 

Psychologists call this phenomenon — diffusion of responsibility. When you’re the only person present, the responsibility feels personal. When you’re surround by others, it becomes easier to assume someone else will handle it. Someone’s probably already called for help. Of course, someone else noticed. There’s ten other people here. Why should I jump in?

What’s interesting is this thought process doesn’t necessarily come from a lack of concern. A person might be genuinely worried. They might understand that something serious is happening. They might even feel guilty about not doing anything. But the presence of other people gives them a convenient reason to wait. 

And while everyone is waiting, nothing happens. 

Now, this doesn’t mean people are always less helpful in groups. Research on the bystander effect is more complicated than that, and there are many of circumstances where people are more likely to intervene when others are present. 

Still, the basic question is wroth considering. How often do we confuse being surrounded by people with being surrounded by people who are willing to act?

The Strange Reassurance of Other People’s Silence

Picture this. You’re sitting in a room when when someone in authority starts humiliating another person. Maybe it’s a boss speaking to an employee, a teacher addressing a student, or simply someone who holds more social influence than everyone else. 

The exchange is uncomfortable. You can see the other person becoming embarrassed. But nobody says anything. One person looks down. Someone else gives an awkward smile. Another carries on as thought nothing unusual is happening. And then something strange happens…

You start to question your own reaction. Am I making too much of this? Maybe they were joking. Maybe everyone else knows something I don’t. 

This is closely related to a psychological phenomenon called pluralistic ignorance. It happens when people privately question a situation but mistakenly interpret everyone else’s outward behavior as genuine acceptance. In other words, everyone might be uncomfortable, but because nobody shows it, everyone assumes they’re the only one. It’s a peculiar thing about human behavior. We often look to other people to decide whether our own reactions are appropriate. 

If everyone around us seems calm, we begin to wonder whether there’s really anything to be concerned about. But what if everyone else is doing exactly the same thing?

What if the silence you’re interpreting as approval is actually ten other people waiting for someone to confirm what they’re already thinking? 

We tend to associate conformity with people openly agreeing with a group. But sometimes conformity is simply deciding not to disagree.

Are You The Next Target?

Of course, not everyone who stays silence is confused about what’s happening. Sometimes people know exactly what’s going on. They just don’t want to be next. And can we really pretend that’s an irrational concern?

Imagine witnessing your boss publicly humiliate a coworker. You could say something. But you also know that tomorrow you’ll be sitting across from that same boss, discussing your performance, your promotion, or whether you still have a job. Suddenly, speaking up doesn’t feel like a simple question of right and wrong. It feels like a risk. 

That same thing happens in social groups. Challenging the person everyone else follows might mean losing your place in that group. In more coercive environments, the consequences can be much worse.

This is where I think we need to be careful about judging people who don’t intervene. It’s easy to split people in two categories: the brave people who speak up and the cowardly people who don’t. But we rarely know what someone stands to lose.

Maybe they’re afraid. Maybe they’re financially dependent on the person responsible. Maybe they’ve seen what happens to people who challenge authority. Or maybe they’re simply trying to work out whether intervening will make the situation worse. 

Understanding those pressures doesn’t mean every decision to stay silent is justified. It means that moral responsibility becomes more complex when exercising it carries a real cost. The more power someone has over the people around them, the harder it may become for anyone to challenge them.

Silence And The Institution

In December 2024, Robert Brooks died after being beaten by correctional officers at a New York prison. 

The footage of the assault was disturbing. But beyond the violence itself, it raised another question: what about the people who were present and didn’t stop it?

During a January 2026 trial, prosecutors argued that an officer had been present during the assault without taking action to stop it. We can’t know from the footage alone what every person in that room was thinking. Was it fear? Indifference? Loyalty to fellow officers? Had the environment encouraged people not to challenge one another?

Those are different explanations, and it would be irresponsible to claim we know which one applies. But the case raises a crucial questions about institutional power.

What happens when challenging another person’s behavior also means challenging the hierarchy you belong to?

Correctional officers have professional responsibilities that ordinary civilians don’t. Still, institutions can create powerful social expectations about loyalty, authority, and who is permitted to question whom. And when those expectations go unchallenged, silence can begin to look like acceptance.

But you don’t need a prison or a formal hierarchy to see how complicated the decision to intervene can become. 

In April 2026, a confrontation at a park in Winston-Salem, North Carolina escalated into a shooting that left two teens dead and five others injured. Afterward, the city’s police chief announced plans to pursue charges against adults who allegedly witnessed the earlier fight without intervening.

What responsibility do we have when we witness violence?

It’s tempting to say that anyone who stands by and watches should be held accountable. Is that always fair? There’s a difference between witnessing danger and being capable of stopping it.

Someone who refuses to physically enter a violence confrontation may be making a perfectly reasonable decision. Protecting your own life isn’t cowardice. And we shouldn’t assume that every witness understands what was about to happen or had a safe opportunity to prevent it. 

The police announcement alone doesn’t establish that any particular bystander committed a crime. Still, the incident brings us back to something worth thinking about. 

What about the moments before violence escalates? When several people notice that something is getting out of hand, but each assumes that someone else will step in, call for help, or take responsibility?

We can’t know what individual witnesses were thinking in Winston-Salem. The case doesn’t prove that diffusion of responsibility occurred.

At what point does waiting for someone else become a decision of its own?


How Cruelty Becomes Ordinary

Something I find disturbing about group behavior is that cruelty doesn’t always need a crowd of supporters on the sidelines. Sometimes it just needs enough people willing to put up with it.

Think about how an unreasonable demand slowly becomes routine. The first time it happens, people get uncomfortable. The second time, they’re less surprised. By the fifth time, everyone knows what to expect. 

People start adjusting their behavior around it. They learn which subjects to avoid, which people not to challenge, and what kind of treatment is apparently just part of being there. Eventually, something that once seemed unacceptable becomes predictable. And predictable can easily start feeling normal.

That doesn’t mean people suddenly stop caring. Someone might still go home every night deeply bothered by what they’ve seen. But there’s a difference between being bothered by something and continuing to recognize it as something that needs change.

When harmful behavior becomes part of the expected social order, challenging it may begin to seem more disruptive than allowing it to go on. The person objecting is now the problem. They’re causing the drama. They’re disrupting the peace. Think about how backwards that is. The person behaving badly may have been making people uncomfortable for months. But the second someone openly challenges them, suddenly that person is accused of creating conflict.

Why though?

Because the group has already learned how to function around the original problem. Challenging it forces everyone to acknowledge something they’ve been avoiding. In that environment, keeping the peace can become more important than questioning what’s actually disturbing it. And once that happens, the person exercising power may not even need to defend their behavior anymore. Everyone else learned to adjust.


What the Stanford Experiment Can — and Cannot — Tell Us

The original Stanford Prison Experiment, back in 1971 under psychologist Philip Zimbardo, became one of psychology’s most famous demonstrations of how social roles and authority might influence behavior. Ordinary college students were assigned to act as guards or prisoners in a simulated prison. The experiment became widely associated with the idea that people can quickly become abusive when placed in positions of power.

It’s a fascinating story. But there’s a problem with how confidently it’s often repeated. 

The original experiment faced serious criticism over its methods, the researchers involvement, and the extent to which participants were encouraged to behave according to certain expectations. In other words, we can’t simply point to the experiment and say: See? Give an ordinary person power, and this is what happens.

The Netflix series doesn’t settle those questions either. It’s a reality-TV reimagining, not a controlled scientific replication. There’s a temptation to look at these experiments and conclude that people are essentially good until circumstances make them bad. But isn’t that a little too convenient? It suggests that behavior is almost entirely the product of the environment, as though individuals have no meaningful role in the decisions they make. The reality is more complicated. People respond differently to similar pressures. Some conform. Some resist. Some hesitate. Others challenge the expectations placed upon them.

The question doesn’t seem like it’s whether power automatically changes people. We know it does. Maybe what we should be asking is why some people go along with behavior they privately disagree with, while others decide they won’t.

The Moral Cost of Doing Nothing

I don’t think every silent witness should automatically be considered complicit. Silence isn’t always agreement, and inaction isn’t always indifference. People are scared. Sometimes they don’t understand what’s happening. Intervening could put them in genuine danger. But I also think there’s a point where we need to examine the explanations we give ourselves. Because humans are very clever at justifying our own behavior. 

We tell ourselves there was nothing we could have done. That it wasn’t our responsibility. That getting involved would have made things worse. And at times those explanations are completely reasonable. Other times, they’re just easier to live with than admitting we chose not to act. 

This connects to a broader psychological idea: we generally want to maintain a favorable image of ourselves, even when our behavior doesn’t quite match it. We want to believe we’re fair, decent, compassionate people. So when we act in ways that challenge that belief, we often search for an explanation that allows us to preserve it. 

What’s interesting though, is how we respond to the person who does speak up. Instead of admiring them, we might find them irritating. They’re being dramatic. They’re making a scene. They think they’re better than all of us. But could part of that irritation come from the fact that their decision to act forces us to reconsider our own? After all, f someone else found a way to speak up, it becomes a little harder to convince ourselves that doing nothing was the only option. 

Maybe that’s one reason moral courage can make people uncomfortable even when they agree with the person demonstrating it.

The People Who Refuse to Look Away

For all the research on conformity and obedience, there’s another side of human behavior worth touching on. 

People do resist.

They do question authority. They challenge group expectations. They defend people they barely know. And not every act of resistance needs to be dramatic. It’s simple moves: asking someone if they’re okay. Refusing to laugh when everyone else does. Questioning an inappropriate remark. Reporting a concern. Or being the first person willing to acknowledge that something isn’t right.

Of course, these actions won’t always change the outcome. I don’t think we should romanticize putting ourselves in danger for the sake of proving our moral character. But there’s something intriguing to me about the effect one person’s response can have on everyone else. 

Remember when I mentioned pluralistic ignorance? The possibility that an entire group might privately disagree with something while mistakenly believing everyone else accepts it?

Well, imagine what happens when one person finally says something. Suddenly, they’re not alone. Then another person speaks. And what appeared to be a room full of bystanders who agreed may turn out to have been a room full of people who were just afraid to go first. 

It’s worth taking into account how much of what we interpret as collective agreement is actually collective hesitation.

The Uncomfortable Question We Should Be Asking

We’re naturally attracted to stories about people who abuse power. Their behavior gives us something obvious to condemn. We can point to what they did, recognize the harm, and reassure ourselves that we’d never behave that way.

The bystander is harder to examine. 

There’s no dramatic act. No obvious declaration of loyalty. There’s nothing more than a nervous laugh, a lowered gaze, or the decision to stay quiet. And that’s what makes the bystander so familiar. 

Most of us have probably experienced some version of that moment. Maybe not in a prison or during an act of violence, but in a meeting, a classroom, a relationship, a room where someone was being treated unfairly. 

We noticed. We felt uncomfortable. Awkward. And for one reason or another, we just didn’t say anything. Does that make us cruel? I don’t know. How often do we judge other people’s silence without considering the circumstances, and how often do we excuse our own without examining it?

Cruelty doesn’t always need a room full of cruel people. It needs one person willing to cross a boundary, an environment that makes challenging them difficult, and enough people who find reasons not to interfere. That doesn’t make everyone there equally responsible. But it does mean the people around — the bystanders — can influence what happens next. 

We spend a lot of time wondering what kind of person we’d become if we were given power. Maybe we should spend just as much time wondering who we’d become in the presence of it. Not when the right decision is cut and dry, carrying no consequences. 

When the room goes quiet — when everyone looks away — and when speaking up would mean being the first person willing to break the silence — would you do it?

Research and further reading

Tatiana Vitas
Next

We Need Monsters to Hate