Here are specific sentences that make the claim: > It’s one of the most enduring urban myths of all: If you get in trouble, don’t count on anyone nearby to hel

Here are specific sentences that make the claim: > It’s one of the most enduring urban myths of all: If you get in trouble, don’t count on anyone nearby to help. Research dating back to the late 1960s documents how the great majority of people who witness crimes or violent behavior refuse to intervene. Psychologists dubbed this non-response as the “bystander effect” The author said the bystander effect was "this non-response" which he describes in the previous sentence as "if you get in trouble don't count on anyone nearby to help." This is the very first sentence in the article. > A new study published this year in the American Psychologist finds that this well-established bystander effect may largely be a myth. [...] The study finds that in nine out of 10 incidents, at least one bystander intervened, with an average of 3.8 interveners. The author claims that the bystander effect is disproved if, in a group of people, "at least one" person intervenes. > Instead of more bystanders creating an immobilizing “bystander effect,” the study actually found the more bystanders there were, the more likely it was that at least someone would intervene to help. The author again claims that the bystander effect is disproved if "at least one" person helps.