Psychology, Biology Or Both
The term bystander effect refers to the tendency for people to be inactive in high danger situations due to the presence of other bystanders. Thus, people tend to help more when alone than in a group. The implications for this theory have been widely studied by a variety of researchers, but initial interest in this phenomenon arose after the brutal murder of Catherine “Kitty” Genovese in 1964.
Through a series of experiments beginning the 1960s and 1970s, the bystander effect phenomenon has become more widely understood.
On the morning of March 13, 1964, Kitty Genovese returned to her apartment complex, at 3 am, after finishing her shift at a local bar. After parking her car in a lot adjacent to her apartment building, she began walking the short distance to the entrance, which was located at the back of the building. As she walked, she noticed a figure at the far end of the lot. She shifted directions and headed towards a different street, but the man followed and seized her. As she yelled, neighbors from the apartment building went to the window and watched as he stabbed her. A man from the apartment building yelled down “Let that girl alone!” Following this, the assailant appeared to have left, but once the lights from the apartments turned off, the perpetrator returned and stabbed Kitty Genovese again. Once again, the lights came on and the windows opened driving the assaulter away from the scene. Unfortunately, the assailant returned and stabbed Catherine Genovese for the final time. The first call to the police came in at 3:50 am and the police arrived in two minutes.
When the neighbors were asked why they did not intervene or call the police earlier, some answers were:
“I didn’t want to get involved.”
“Frankly, we were afraid.”
“I was tired.”
”I went back to bed.”
After this initial report, the case was launched into nationwide attention with various leaders commenting on the apparent “moral decay” of the country.
In response to these claims, Darley and Latané set out to find an alternative explanation.
Why does the bystander effect occur?
In 1970 they proposed a five-step decision model of helping, during each of which bystanders can decide to do nothing: notice the event or in a hurry and not notice). Interpret the situation as an emergency or assume that as others are not acting, it is not an emergency. Assume responsibility or assume that others will do this. Know what to do or not have the skills necessary to help. Decide to help or worry about danger, legislation, embarrassment, etc.
Latané and Darley identified three different psychological processes that might prevent a bystander from helping a person in distress.
The first process is diffusion of responsibility, which refers to the tendency to subjectively divide the personal responsibility to help by the number of bystanders. Diffusion of responsibility occurs when a duty or task is shared between a group of people instead of only one person. Whenever there is an emergency situation in which more than one person is present, there is a diffusion of responsibility. It is about tree ideas:
The moral obligation to help does not fall only on one person, but the whole group that is witnessing the emergency.
The blame for not helping can be shared instead of resting on only one person.
The belief that another bystander in the group will offer help.
The second process is evaluation apprehension, which refers to the fear of being judged by others when acting publicly.
The third process is pluralistic ignorance, which results from the tendency to rely on the overt reactions of others when defining an ambiguous situation. Pluralistic ignorance occurs when a person does not agree with a certain type of thinking but believes that everyone else adheres to it and as a result, follows that line of thinking even though no one believes it.
While the bystander effect has become a cemented theory in social psychology, the original account of the murder of Catherine Genovese has been called into question. By examining the court documents and legal proceedings from the case, the authors found three points that deviate from the traditional story told. While it was originally claimed that thirty-eight people witnessed this crime, in actuality, only a few people physically saw Kitty Genovese and her attacker; the others just heard the screams from Kitty Genovese. This means that they would not have been able to physically see the murder take place. The potential inaccurate reporting of the initial case has not negated the bystander effect completely, but it has called into question its applicability and the incomplete nature of research concerning it.
There are further explanations in response to this basic model.
Researchers have looked at the regions of the brain that were active when a participant witnessed emergencies. One’s initial biological response to an emergency situation is inaction due to personal fear. After that initial fear, sympathy arises which prompts someone to go to the aid of the victim. These two systems work in opposition; whichever overrides the other determines the action that will be taken. If there is more sympathy than personal distress, the participant will help.