With all the negativity in the world today, it’s easy to doubt the claim that most human beings are inherently good. That’s why it’s come as amazing news that the results of a new study is lending credence to the claim that people really are good!

Researchers just carried out the largest ever study of real life conflicts captured by surveillance cameras, and they found that bystanders will intervene in nine out of ten public fights to help victims of violence. These findings overturned the previous belief that victims will be ignored by those around them while being attacked.

The study was carried out by an international team of researchers from the University of Copenhagen, the Netherlands Institute for the Study of Crime and Law Enforcement, and Lancaster University. The experts looked at recordings of 219 arguments and assaults in the inner cities of Amsterdam (Netherlands), Lancaster (United Kingdom) and Cape Town (South Africa).

“According to conventional wisdom, non-involvement is the default response of bystanders during public emergencies,” explained lead author Dr. Richard Philpot of Lancaster University and University of Copenhagen. “Challenging this view, the current cross-national study of video data shows that intervention is the norm in actual aggressive conflicts.

“The fact that bystanders are much more active than we think is a positive and reassuring story for potential victims of violence and the public as a whole,” he continued. “We need to develop crime prevention efforts which build on the willingness of bystanders to intervene.”

The researchers found that in 91 percent of instances, bystanders intervened by:

• physically gesturing for an aggressor to calm down
• physically blocking an aggressor or pulling an aggressor away
• consoling the victim

They also concluded that victims were more likely to be assisted when a large number of bystanders were present.

“The most important question for the potential victim of a public assault is, ‘Will I receive help if needed?’” Philpot said. “While having more people around may reduce an individual’s likelihood of helping (i.e., the bystander effect), it also provides a larger pool from which help-givers may be sourced.”

Surprisingly, the researchers found that there was no difference in the rates of intervention among the three cities, even though Cape Town is perceived to be the most dangerous. They hypothesized that this is because it’s not the level of perceived danger that sets the overall rate of helping, rather it is any signal that the situation is conflictual and requires intervention.