Editing Bystander effect (section)

==Counterexample==
In 2019, a large international [[cultural anthropology]] study analyzed 219 street disputes and confrontations that were recorded by security cameras in three cities in different countries: [[Lancaster, Lancashire|Lancaster]], [[Amsterdam]], and [[Cape Town]]. Contrary to the hypothesis of the bystander effect, the study found that bystanders intervened in almost every case, and the chance of intervention went up with the number of bystanders, "a highly radical discovery and a completely different outcome than theory predicts".<ref name="nscr">{{cite web |title=Bystander effect in street disputes disquestioned |url=https://nscr.nl/en/bystander-blijkt-wel-degelijk-in-actie-te-komen-bij-ruzie-op-straat/ |website=Netherlands Institute for the Study of Crime and Law Enforcement |date=27 March 2019 |publisher=NSCR.NL |access-date=23 August 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190510231740/https://nscr.nl/en/bystander-blijkt-wel-degelijk-in-actie-te-komen-bij-ruzie-op-straat/ |archive-date=May 10, 2019}}</ref>

{{blockquote|This study is the first large-scale test of the bystander effect in real-life. Up until now, this effect was mainly studied in the lab by asking study subjects how they would respond in a particular situation. Another striking aspect of this study is that the observations come from three different countries[,] including the violent country of South Africa[,] where intervening in a street dispute is not without risk. [...] Nevertheless, peacemakers do draw a line according to a follow-up study [...] In the case of armed robberies, bystanders intervene far less.<ref name="nscr" />}}

However, the final statement is likely to be inaccuarate. As a 2022 study conducted by one of the same researchers of the initial 2019 study has found that the presence of a weapon had no effect on whether people would intervene or not.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Lindegaard |first=Marie Rosenkrantz |last2=Liebst |first2=Lasse Suonperä |last3=Philpot |first3=Richard |last4=Levine |first4=Mark |last5=Bernasco |first5=Wim |date=2022-05-01 |title=Does Danger Level Affect Bystander Intervention in Real-Life Conflicts? Evidence From CCTV Footage |url=https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/19485506211042683 |journal=Social Psychological and Personality Science |language=en |volume=13 |issue=4 |pages=795–802 |doi=10.1177/19485506211042683 |issn=1948-5506|hdl=11245.1/e81ea13a-7fcb-4a96-a7ba-608a63bd38c3 |hdl-access=free }}</ref> Unlike most prior studies on the bystander effect, these studies focused on the likelihood of receiving help in a public confrontation at all, rather than simply comparing the difference between likelihood of bystander intervention when alone or in a group. The 2019 study concluded that the decreased likelihood of a particular person helping was offset by the increased likelihood that at least someone would help. Findings were consistent with other studies that showed lower rates of bystander apathy when the situation was a dangerous emergency.