Search

The most recent meta-analysis that looked into the bystander-effect was published more than 10 years ago and created uncertainty about the existence of such an effect, as indicated by the different interpretations from studies that cited the meta-analytic study. The majority of these studies cited the meta-analysis as evidence for the bystander-effect, while the study actually showed that the effect attenuated when the emergency was recognized as such and bystander help was most needed. Besides, much new field research has been published on the bystander-effect since 2011, a replication crisis arose after 2011 that caused many researchers to adjust the way in which they conduct their research, and evaluation studies of the most recent meta-analysis showed high publication bias and low predicted replicability. Combined, these arguments validate the need for a new meta-analysis into the bystander-effect that updates with the new studies published after 2011, corrects for the publication bias in the literature, and takes several study characteristics related to open science principles into account. The aim of the current confirmatory study is, therefore, to resolve the uncertainty around the following question: How does the number of bystanders present in an emergency impact the intervention behavior of those bystanders, and do danger level, social relationships, and study characteristics related to open science principles moderate this relationship?