The purpose of this article is to analyze how the bystander effect, "the probability that an individual intervenes in an emergency, decreases as the number of bystanders increases" (Olson, Breckler , Wiggins, 2008, p.482), occurs in a certain emergency situation (Appendix nr1). I will show why and how the participants' behavior confirms or does not confirm this effect. There are many interactions between people who witness an emergency situation. Witnesses' behaviors are influenced by the psychological reactions they experience and responses to the situation. “A false impression of how other people think, feel, and respond” (Karn, 2010) creates common ignorance and influences bystander behaviors. The interpretation of the situation as non-emergency is based on the reactions of other bystanders or their lack of reactions. The presence of others decreases the feeling of personal responsibility (Karn, 2010). Since an emergency case chosen for analysis contains an element of aggression, I now introduce the socio-psychological definition of aggression which is: “behavior intended to hurt someone physically or psychologically” and a special type of aggression, such as hostile aggression : “doing harm that arises from negative emotions such as anger, frustration or hatred” (Olson and all, 2008, p. 419). I also use the General Aggression Model (GAM) theory: "a broad theory that conceptualizes aggression as the result of a chain of psychological processes, including situational events, aggressive thoughts and feelings, and interpretation of the situation" (Olson and all, 2008 , p. 423), and the frustration-aggression hypothesis, “the proposition that frustration always leads to some form of aggression” (Olson and all, 2008, p. 425). I also apply Latane and Darley's decision tree “which specified a series of decisions that must be made before a person responds to an emergency” (Olson and all, 2008, p. 479). In order for intervention to occur, five different processes should occur, such as: (1) the event must be noticed (if an individual does not notice it they will not help), (2) the event must be interpreted as an emergency (witnesses are unable to intervene). intervene, because they do not interpret the event as an emergency), (3) personal responsibility must be accepted (if other people are present a witness can assume that others will help), (4) an adequate form of assistance must be chosen and finally (5) the action must be implemented. If a negative response occurs at any stage of the process, the viewer will not intervene. As a TAXI passenger I observed two drivers before the emergency situation began.