Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40354267›Full record

ArticleThe American psychologist2026

Bystanders and the murder of George Floyd: Analyzing bystander intervention in the course of a police killing.

Mark Levine, Chris Walton, Richard Philpot, Tina Keil

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The American psychologist, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Mark LevineDepartment of Psychology, Lancaster University.ORCID 0000-0001-5696-6021
Chris WaltonDepartment of Psychology, Lancaster University.
Richard PhilpotDepartment of Psychology, Lancaster University.
Tina KeilDepartment of Psychology, Lancaster University.

Funding

Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Using a detailed transcription, obtained from body-camera, CCTV, and smartphone footage of the murder of George Floyd, we examine the behavior of bystanders as events unfolded. Analysis reveals 205 direct verbal bystander interventions comprised of five forms (declaratives, assessments, interrogatives, imperatives, insults). We also describe the key physical intervention strategies deployed by the bystanders. We show that bystanders prioritize interventions based on what they "know" (rather than asking questions or making demands). We suggest that this is because assessment-based strategies are less likely to be seen as a direct challenge to the power of the police and therefore have more chance of inducing constructive engagement. Although bystanders were ultimately unsuccessful in persuading the police to change course, we identify five moments in the action sequences where the assessment concerns of the bystanders were taken up by the officers-albeit fleetingly. We argue that these bystander interventions create the opportunity for officers to break the pattern of behavior that will lead to murder. It is a failure of the officers and not the bystanders that the police are unable to take those opportunities. We argue that assessment-based interventions have the potential to breach structural and situational power dynamics that usually lead to bystander interventions being overridden or ignored. We conclude by drawing some wider implications for the way bystanders and police officers can be trained to improve the safety of individuals caught up in police arrests. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).

Indexed as

Famous PersonsHomicidePoliceHumans

Identifiers

PMID40354267
PMCPMC13037210

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.