Bystander Effect Explained: Why People Sometimes Fail to Help in Groups

The bystander effect is a fascinating and complex social psychological phenomenon that reveals how human behavior changes dramatically in group settings. When individuals witness someone in distress or danger, the presence of other people can paradoxically reduce the likelihood that anyone will step forward to help. This counterintuitive aspect of human nature has profound implications for emergency response, workplace dynamics, social justice, and community safety. Understanding why people sometimes fail to help in groups—and what can be done to overcome this tendency—is essential for creating more compassionate and responsive communities.

The Origins and Evolution of the Bystander Effect

The Kitty Genovese Case: Separating Fact from Fiction

The term "bystander effect" emerged from one of the most infamous crimes in American history—the 1964 murder of Kitty Genovese in New York City. The initial narrative, as reported by The New York Times, claimed that 38 witnesses watched or heard the attack without intervening or calling for help. This shocking story captured national attention and became a symbol of urban apathy and moral decline in modern society.

However, subsequent investigations revealed significant inaccuracies in the original reporting, with a 2007 article in the American Psychologist finding "no evidence for the presence of 38 witnesses," and The New York Times itself acknowledging in 2016 that the original story "grossly exaggerated the number of witnesses and what they had perceived". The former Queens assistant district attorney stated they only found about half a dozen witnesses who saw what was happening, and witnesses did intervene—Sofia Farrar, a 70-year-old neighbor, held Genovese in her arms as she died.

Despite the factual inaccuracies surrounding the Genovese case, it sparked crucial research into bystander behavior that has shaped our understanding of human psychology for over half a century. The case prompted psychologists John Darley and Bibb Latané to investigate why individuals might remain passive during emergencies, leading to groundbreaking experiments that established the bystander effect as a legitimate psychological phenomenon.

Darley and Latané's Groundbreaking Research

In 1968, psychologists John Darley and Bibb Latané conducted a series of carefully controlled experiments to systematically study bystander behavior. Their research methodology involved creating situations where participants believed they were witnessing genuine emergencies while the researchers observed their responses. These experiments revealed a consistent pattern: the presence of other people significantly decreased the likelihood that any individual would intervene to help someone in distress.

One of their most famous experiments involved participants who believed they were taking part in a discussion about personal problems faced by college students. Participants were placed in separate rooms and communicated through an intercom system. During the discussion, one participant (actually a confederate) began to have what appeared to be a seizure. The researchers found that when participants believed they were the only ones aware of the emergency, 85% intervened. However, when they believed there were four other witnesses, only 31% took action.

These findings were revolutionary because they demonstrated that the bystander effect was not simply about moral character or urban apathy. Instead, it revealed how situational factors and group dynamics could profoundly influence prosocial behavior, even among well-intentioned individuals.

The Psychology Behind Bystander Inaction

Diffusion of Responsibility

Diffusion of responsibility stands as the primary psychological mechanism underlying the bystander effect. When a group is required to complete a task together, each individual in the group will have a weak sense of responsibility, and will often shrink back in the face of difficulties or responsibilities. This phenomenon occurs because individuals unconsciously assume that someone else will take action, thereby reducing their own sense of personal obligation to intervene.

Recent research has shown that diffusion of responsibility is shaped not only by the number of bystanders but by how individuals cognitively interpret the situation, with people more likely to accept personal responsibility when the emergency is unambiguous or when they feel uniquely capable of helping, while responsibility is more easily diffused when individuals believe others have greater expertise or when social norms make intervention uncertain.

The mathematical relationship between group size and helping behavior is not linear. Research indicates that the most dramatic decrease in helping occurs when moving from one bystander to two or three. Additional bystanders continue to reduce intervention rates, but the effect diminishes as group size increases beyond a certain threshold.

Pluralistic ignorance represents another critical factor in bystander inaction. This occurs when individuals look to others for cues about how to interpret and respond to ambiguous situations. In emergency scenarios, people often scan the reactions of those around them to determine whether intervention is necessary. If others appear calm or unconcerned, individuals may conclude that the situation is not actually an emergency, even when their initial instinct suggested otherwise.

This creates a dangerous feedback loop: each person interprets others' inaction as a signal that help is not needed, leading everyone to remain passive. The result is a collective misinterpretation of the situation, where everyone privately believes something is wrong but publicly acts as though nothing is amiss because everyone else is doing the same.

Social influence extends beyond pluralistic ignorance to include concerns about social evaluation. People worry about appearing foolish if they misinterpret a situation or overreact to what might be a non-emergency. The fear of embarrassment or social judgment can be powerful enough to override the impulse to help, particularly in cultures that place high value on maintaining composure and avoiding public mistakes.

Situational Ambiguity

The clarity of a situation plays a crucial role in determining whether bystanders will intervene. When circumstances are ambiguous—when it's unclear whether someone actually needs help or whether a situation constitutes a genuine emergency—people are far less likely to take action. This hesitation stems from uncertainty about the appropriateness of intervention and fear of misreading social cues.

Research has shown that in situations with low potential danger, significantly more help was given when the person was alone than when around another person, however, in situations with high potential danger, participants confronted with an emergency alone or in the presence of another person were similarly likely to help the victim, suggesting that in situations of greater seriousness, people are more likely to interpret the situation as one in which help is needed.

Ambiguity can arise from various sources: unclear verbal or physical cues from the victim, environmental factors that obscure what's happening, or social contexts where certain behaviors might be normalized (such as loud arguments in certain neighborhoods). The more ambiguous the situation, the more likely bystanders will default to inaction while they attempt to gather more information or wait for someone else to define the situation.

Evaluation Apprehension and Competence

Evaluation apprehension refers to the anxiety people experience about being judged by others, particularly when they're uncertain about their ability to help effectively. This concern becomes especially pronounced in situations requiring specialized knowledge or skills. A person who doesn't know CPR, for example, might hesitate to approach someone having a cardiac emergency, fearing they'll do more harm than good or appear incompetent in front of others.

Perceived competence significantly influences intervention decisions. When individuals believe they possess relevant skills or knowledge, they're more likely to help regardless of how many other bystanders are present. Conversely, when people feel inadequately prepared to handle a situation, the presence of others provides a convenient rationalization for inaction—surely someone else is better qualified to help.

This dynamic highlights the importance of training and education in overcoming the bystander effect. When people feel confident in their ability to respond effectively, they're more likely to overcome the psychological barriers that typically inhibit intervention.

Contemporary Research and New Perspectives

Real-World Evidence from CCTV Studies

Recent research has focused on "real world" events captured on security cameras, and the coherency and robustness of the effect has come under question. Half a century of research on the "bystander effect" suggests that the more bystanders present at an emergency, the less likely each of them is to provide help, however, recent meta-analytical evidence questions whether this effect generalizes to violent emergencies.

Studies analyzing real violent incidents captured on surveillance cameras have revealed surprising findings. Bystanders who are affiliated with a person in an emergency situation are significantly more likely to intervene than those who are socially distant, an association found not only across experimental and observational studies with humans but also in nonhuman primates. This suggests that social relationships may be more important than group size in determining whether intervention occurs.

These real-world observations provide a more nuanced understanding of bystander behavior than laboratory experiments alone. They reveal that in actual dangerous situations, people often do intervene, particularly when they have some connection to the victim or when the threat is unambiguous and severe.

Cultural Variations in Bystander Behavior

A systematic review identified cross-cultural variation in attitudes towards domestic and intimate partner violence and intervention potential, showing that societies characterized by lower gender equality and social stability tend to be less responsive and more tolerant of violence. Research found that lower overall attribution of responsibility among Chinese participants can be largely attributed to the deeply embedded cultural value of maintaining interpersonal harmony, with a sharp boundary between the private, familial sphere and the public domain, where the cultural script frames domestic violence as an internal matter for which responsibility lies within the family.

These cultural differences highlight that the bystander effect is not a universal constant but rather a phenomenon shaped by cultural norms, values, and social structures. Understanding these variations is crucial for developing culturally appropriate intervention strategies and recognizing that what constitutes appropriate bystander behavior may differ across societies.

Research exploring the effect of social learning, where individuals update their perceived risk of intervening after experiencing or witnessing the social repercussions of previous interventions, found that social learning exacerbates the bystander effect. This finding suggests that negative experiences or observations of others being criticized for intervening can create lasting inhibitions against helping behavior.

Conversely, positive social learning can encourage intervention. Studies showed that when bystanders step in to support someone who is calling out mistreatment or harmful behavior it sends a strong message to onlookers that this behavior is unacceptable, helping to prevent a gradual erosion of social norms. This highlights the importance of creating social environments where intervention is normalized and supported rather than discouraged.

Bystander Behavior in Different Contexts

Research demonstrated that in general assistance situations, individuals are less likely to intervene due to the assumption that others will take responsibility. However, in less critical contexts, the presence of others creates a shared responsibility leading to inaction, while in high-pressure or urgent situations, individuals are more likely to overcome this diffusion and act.

More recent studies show that this effect can generalize to workplace settings, where subordinates often refrain from informing managers regarding ideas, concerns, and opinions. This workplace manifestation of the bystander effect can have serious consequences for organizational safety, ethical conduct, and innovation, as employees may witness problems but fail to report them due to diffusion of responsibility or fear of social repercussions.

Real-World Implications and Applications

Emergency Situations and Public Safety

The bystander effect has profound implications for emergency response and public safety. In medical emergencies, every second counts, and delays caused by bystander inaction can mean the difference between life and death. Understanding this phenomenon has led to changes in how emergency response is taught and how public safety campaigns are designed.

One practical application involves training people to directly assign responsibility during emergencies. Rather than making general calls for help ("Someone call 911!"), effective intervention involves pointing to specific individuals and giving them specific tasks ("You in the blue shirt, call 911. You with the backpack, help me move this person to safety"). This technique overcomes diffusion of responsibility by making one person clearly accountable for each necessary action.

The development of the 911 emergency system in the United States was partly influenced by the Genovese case and the recognition that people needed a simple, universal way to report emergencies. Before this system existed, individuals had to know which police precinct to call or navigate through operators, creating additional barriers to reporting emergencies.

Bullying and School Environments

The bystander effect plays a significant role in bullying situations, where witnesses often fail to intervene due to fear of social repercussions, uncertainty about how to help, or the belief that someone else will step in. Research has shown that peer intervention can be highly effective in stopping bullying, yet most bullying incidents occur in the presence of peers who do nothing.

Schools have begun implementing bystander intervention programs that teach students to recognize bullying, understand their role in either perpetuating or preventing it, and develop skills for safe and effective intervention. These programs emphasize that bystanders have power to change the social dynamics that allow bullying to continue, and that even small actions—like befriending a victim or reporting incidents to adults—can make a significant difference.

Effective anti-bullying programs address the social costs of intervention by creating school cultures where standing up for others is valued and supported. When students see their peers being praised for defending victims, and when schools have clear, supportive reporting mechanisms, the barriers to intervention decrease significantly.

Sexual Harassment and Assault Prevention

Bystander intervention has become a cornerstone of sexual assault prevention efforts on college campuses and in workplaces. These programs recognize that most people are neither perpetrators nor victims but rather bystanders who have opportunities to prevent harmful situations from escalating.

Only six of 13 studies aimed at increasing proactive bystander behavior explicitly measured bystander-related constructs such as behaviors, intention to intervene, or perceived self-efficacy, and without these measures, the effectiveness of interventions cannot be fully gauged. This highlights the need for more rigorous evaluation of bystander intervention programs to ensure they actually change behavior rather than just attitudes or knowledge.

Effective bystander intervention training teaches people to recognize warning signs, provides multiple intervention strategies appropriate for different situations and comfort levels, and addresses the barriers that prevent intervention. These strategies range from direct confrontation to distraction techniques to enlisting help from others, allowing individuals to choose approaches that match their capabilities and the specific situation.

Workplace Dynamics and Organizational Culture

The bystander effect manifests in workplace settings in various ways, from failing to report safety violations to remaining silent about unethical behavior or harassment. Studies reported many reasons why some bystanders within organizations do not act or report unacceptable behavior, including fear of retaliation, concerns about career consequences, and uncertainty about reporting procedures.

Previous research has shown how organizational barriers can diminish the impact of bystander training for both sexual harassment and bullying, as most studies did not systematically address the contextual and mediating factors affecting implementation. This underscores the importance of creating organizational cultures that support intervention rather than simply providing training.

Organizations can combat the bystander effect by establishing clear reporting mechanisms, protecting whistleblowers, demonstrating that reports are taken seriously and acted upon, and recognizing employees who speak up about problems. Leadership plays a crucial role in modeling intervention behavior and creating psychological safety where employees feel comfortable raising concerns.

Online Environments and Cyberbullying

The bystander effect extends into digital spaces, where people witness harassment, bullying, or harmful content but fail to intervene. Online environments present unique challenges: the potential audience is vast, anonymity can reduce accountability, and the permanence of digital content means harmful material can continue causing damage long after the initial incident.

However, online spaces also offer unique opportunities for intervention. Digital bystanders can report content, offer support to victims through private messages, or publicly challenge harmful behavior. The key is helping people recognize that online bystander intervention is both necessary and effective, and providing them with tools and strategies appropriate for digital contexts.

Social media platforms have begun implementing features designed to encourage positive bystander behavior, such as easy reporting mechanisms, options to support users experiencing harassment, and algorithms that detect potentially harmful content. However, technology alone cannot solve the problem—cultural shifts in how we understand our responsibilities as digital citizens are equally important.

Strategies for Overcoming the Bystander Effect

Education and Awareness

Knowledge about the bystander effect itself can help people overcome it. When individuals understand the psychological mechanisms that inhibit helping behavior, they become more aware of these forces in real situations and more capable of consciously overriding them. Educational programs should explain diffusion of responsibility, pluralistic ignorance, and evaluation apprehension, helping people recognize these dynamics when they occur.

Effective education goes beyond simply describing the bystander effect to include practical skills training. This includes teaching people how to assess situations quickly, make decisions under pressure, and take appropriate action. Role-playing exercises and scenario-based training can help individuals practice intervention skills in safe environments, building confidence and competence that transfer to real situations.

Schools, workplaces, and community organizations should integrate bystander education into their regular training programs. This education should be age-appropriate, culturally sensitive, and tailored to the specific contexts where participants are most likely to encounter situations requiring intervention.

Developing Personal Responsibility

Cultivating a strong sense of personal responsibility is crucial for overcoming the bystander effect. This involves helping individuals recognize that they have both the power and the obligation to help others, regardless of how many other people are present. Personal responsibility can be strengthened through several approaches:

Moral education: Discussing ethical principles and values that emphasize our interconnectedness and mutual obligations to one another
Empathy development: Building capacity to understand and share the feelings of others, making it harder to remain passive when witnessing suffering
Identity formation: Helping people see themselves as the kind of person who helps others, making intervention consistent with their self-concept
Accountability practices: Creating social norms where people expect to be asked about their responses to situations they witnessed

Research shows that people who have strong prosocial identities and who view helping as central to who they are tend to intervene more consistently across different situations. Fostering these identities, particularly during childhood and adolescence, can create lasting patterns of helping behavior.

Skills Training and Preparedness

Practical skills training significantly increases the likelihood of intervention by reducing evaluation apprehension and increasing perceived competence. Key areas for training include:

First aid and CPR: Basic medical skills that can save lives in emergencies
Conflict de-escalation: Techniques for safely intervening in potentially violent situations
Communication skills: How to effectively offer help, call for assistance, and coordinate with others
Situation assessment: How to quickly evaluate whether a situation requires intervention and what type of help is needed
Self-protection: How to intervene safely without putting oneself at undue risk

Organizations like the American Red Cross, local fire departments, and community centers often offer training in these areas. Making such training widely accessible and encouraging participation can create communities where more people feel prepared to help when needed.

Social norms powerfully influence behavior, and creating norms that support intervention can help overcome the bystander effect at a community level. This involves:

Publicizing positive examples: Sharing stories of successful bystander intervention to demonstrate that helping is both possible and valued
Recognition programs: Formally acknowledging individuals who intervene to help others
Leadership modeling: Having respected community members, organizational leaders, and public figures demonstrate and advocate for intervention
Peer influence: Leveraging the power of peer groups to establish helping as a normative behavior
Media representation: Portraying bystander intervention positively in entertainment and news media

When intervention becomes normalized within a community or organization, the social barriers to helping decrease significantly. People become less worried about appearing foolish or overreacting because they see intervention as expected and appropriate behavior.

Institutional and Policy Changes

Systemic changes can create environments that facilitate rather than inhibit bystander intervention. Important policy considerations include:

Good Samaritan laws: Legal protections for people who provide reasonable assistance to those in peril
Duty to rescue laws: In some jurisdictions, legal requirements to provide assistance or at least call for help in certain situations
Whistleblower protections: Safeguards for employees who report misconduct or safety violations
Anonymous reporting systems: Mechanisms that allow people to report problems without fear of identification
Mandatory training requirements: Requirements for certain groups to receive bystander intervention training

These institutional supports can reduce the risks associated with intervention and clarify expectations about when and how people should help. However, policies must be carefully designed to avoid unintended consequences, such as encouraging reckless intervention that puts bystanders at unnecessary risk.

Technology and Innovation

Technology offers new tools for facilitating bystander intervention and emergency response. Mobile apps can provide quick access to emergency services, offer step-by-step guidance for various emergency situations, and connect users with nearby trained responders. Some innovations include:

Emergency alert systems: Apps that allow users to quickly notify emergency services and designated contacts
Crowdsourced safety: Platforms where users can report incidents and request help from nearby community members
Instructional technology: Apps that provide real-time guidance for CPR, first aid, and other emergency procedures
Witness coordination: Systems that help multiple bystanders coordinate their response to emergencies
Documentation tools: Features that allow safe documentation of incidents for later reporting

While technology can enhance bystander intervention, it's important to recognize its limitations. Technology works best when combined with education, training, and supportive social norms rather than as a standalone solution.

Special Considerations and Nuances

When Intervention May Be Harmful

While overcoming the bystander effect is generally positive, it's important to recognize situations where well-intentioned intervention might cause harm. Poorly executed interventions can escalate violence, traumatize victims, or put bystanders at serious risk. This is why training emphasizes assessment and appropriate response strategies rather than simply encouraging people to "do something."

In situations involving domestic violence, for example, direct confrontation might endanger the victim by provoking the abuser or creating situations where the victim faces retaliation later. In such cases, calling authorities or offering support to the victim in private may be more appropriate than direct intervention. Similarly, attempting to physically restrain someone experiencing a mental health crisis without proper training can result in injury to all parties involved.

Effective bystander education teaches people to match their response to their capabilities and the situation's demands. This includes knowing when to call for professional help rather than attempting direct intervention, and understanding that sometimes the most helpful action is providing support to victims after an incident rather than trying to stop it in progress.

Social relationships influence bystander behavior, with evidence suggesting that helping is facilitated by close ties between bystanders and victims, but inhibited when bystanders have relational connections to perpetrators. This finding highlights the complex social dynamics that influence intervention decisions.

People are significantly more likely to help friends, family members, or members of their own social groups than strangers. While this makes evolutionary sense—we're programmed to protect those closest to us—it also means that intervention is less likely in situations involving strangers, which are precisely the situations where the bystander effect is most pronounced.

Building community connections and fostering a sense of collective identity can help bridge this gap. When people feel connected to their communities and see others as part of their extended social network, they're more likely to intervene on behalf of people they don't know personally. Community-building initiatives, neighborhood watch programs, and other efforts to strengthen social bonds can therefore serve as indirect interventions against the bystander effect.

Individual Differences in Bystander Behavior

While situational factors strongly influence bystander behavior, individual differences also play a role. Research has identified several personal characteristics associated with increased likelihood of intervention:

Empathy: People high in empathy are more likely to recognize others' distress and feel motivated to help
Moral courage: Willingness to act according to one's values despite social pressure or personal risk
Self-efficacy: Confidence in one's ability to make a positive difference
Previous experience: People who have successfully intervened before are more likely to do so again
Prosocial personality: Some individuals have stable tendencies toward helping behavior across situations

Understanding these individual differences can inform targeted interventions. For example, programs might focus on building empathy and self-efficacy in populations where these traits are less developed, or on identifying and training individuals with high prosocial tendencies to serve as community leaders in emergency response.

The Paradox of Awareness

An interesting paradox exists in bystander effect research: simply knowing about the phenomenon can help people overcome it, but this knowledge can also create new forms of social pressure. When everyone in a group knows about the bystander effect, they may become hyperaware of being watched and judged by others, potentially creating new barriers to intervention.

Additionally, widespread awareness of the bystander effect has led to a cultural narrative that sometimes unfairly judges people who fail to intervene in complex or dangerous situations. While accountability is important, it's equally important to recognize the genuine psychological and practical challenges that bystanders face, and to focus on creating conditions that make intervention easier rather than simply condemning those who fail to help.

Moving Forward: Creating a Culture of Active Bystandership

Overcoming the bystander effect requires a multifaceted approach that addresses psychological, social, and institutional factors. No single intervention will eliminate bystander inaction, but a comprehensive strategy combining education, training, policy changes, and cultural shifts can significantly increase the likelihood that people will help when help is needed.

The goal is not to create a society where everyone is expected to be a hero, risking their lives in dangerous situations. Rather, it's to foster communities where people recognize their capacity to make a difference, understand the barriers that inhibit helping, and feel empowered to take appropriate action within their capabilities. This might mean directly intervening in some situations, calling for professional help in others, or providing support to victims after an incident.

Research continues to refine our understanding of bystander behavior and identify effective interventions. A new database of 42 experimental and observational studies across a wide range of bystander situations demonstrates a straightforward and generalizable explanation for the observed phenomenon, which may suggest effective interventions tailored to specific bystander situations. This ongoing research is essential for developing evidence-based approaches to promoting prosocial behavior.

Educational institutions have a particularly important role to play. By incorporating bystander intervention training into curricula from elementary school through college, we can help young people develop the knowledge, skills, and values necessary for active bystandership. This education should be developmentally appropriate, addressing bullying and peer conflict in younger grades while expanding to cover more complex situations like sexual assault prevention and workplace ethics in higher education.

Workplaces and organizations must also take responsibility for creating cultures that support intervention. This means not only providing training but also establishing clear policies, protecting those who speak up, and demonstrating through actions that intervention is valued and supported. Leaders must model the behavior they want to see, showing that it's acceptable to question practices, report concerns, and prioritize safety and ethics over convenience or profit.

Communities can strengthen active bystandership through various initiatives: neighborhood watch programs, community emergency response teams, public awareness campaigns, and events that bring people together and build social connections. When people know their neighbors and feel invested in their communities, they're more likely to look out for one another and intervene when problems arise.

Media and popular culture also shape our understanding of bystander behavior. Positive portrayals of intervention, realistic depictions of the challenges bystanders face, and stories that highlight successful helping behavior can all contribute to cultural shifts. Conversely, media that sensationalizes bystander inaction or presents helping as always dangerous or futile can reinforce the very barriers we're trying to overcome.

Conclusion: The Power and Responsibility of Bystanders

The bystander effect reveals fundamental truths about human psychology and social behavior. We are deeply influenced by the presence of others, by our interpretations of social situations, and by our assessments of our own capabilities and responsibilities. These influences can lead to tragic inaction when people fail to help those in need, but understanding these dynamics also points the way toward solutions.

The research that began with the Kitty Genovese case—despite the inaccuracies in the original story—has produced invaluable insights into why people sometimes fail to help in groups and what can be done to overcome these barriers. We now know that bystander inaction is not primarily about moral failure or urban apathy, but rather about psychological processes that affect most people in certain situations. This understanding is empowering because it means we can address these processes through education, training, and systemic changes.

Every person will likely face situations where they witness someone in need of help. In those moments, awareness of the bystander effect can prompt us to consciously override our natural hesitations. We can remind ourselves that if we don't act, others probably won't either. We can take a moment to assess the situation clearly rather than looking to others for cues. We can recognize that even imperfect help is usually better than no help at all.

Creating a society where people consistently help one another requires ongoing effort at multiple levels—individual, organizational, and societal. It requires education that builds awareness and skills, policies that support and protect those who intervene, cultural norms that value and expect helping behavior, and communities where people feel connected to and responsible for one another. While the bystander effect represents a significant challenge to prosocial behavior, it is not insurmountable. With knowledge, preparation, and commitment, we can create communities where people feel empowered to help others in need, regardless of how many other people are present.

The journey from bystander to active helper begins with awareness and continues with action. By understanding the psychological forces that inhibit helping, developing practical skills for intervention, and committing to personal responsibility for others' welfare, each of us can contribute to a more compassionate and responsive society. The question is not whether we will encounter situations requiring intervention—we almost certainly will—but whether we will be prepared to overcome the bystander effect and take appropriate action when those moments arrive.

For more information on bystander intervention training, visit the American Psychological Association or explore resources from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on violence prevention. Additional training opportunities can be found through organizations like the American Red Cross, which offers first aid and emergency response courses that can increase confidence and competence in helping situations.