Bystander Effect And Crises : Bystander Effects

Everyday humans are presented with new opportunities and situations. These events can change the way they think and make decisions. But it's the way it can change ones relationships that can really hurt one's ability to care. There is a total of 7.442 billion people alive today. Yet only a small portion of that are people one truly cares about. For many people, a specific setting, situation or emotion can alter the way people can think rationally.

The bystander effect is a social psychological scenario where a person who is in an urgent situation is not given any help by the people around due to the discourage from the presence of others (whatispsychology.biz, 2017). Social psychologists, John Darley and Bibb Latane, introduced the bystander effect in the 1960s after the murder of Kitty Genovese, a young woman who was stabbed to death outside her home in New York City. It took her attacker more than half an hour to kill her, and during that time, thirty-eight people saw her being murdered, and they did nothing to help her. “The responsibility for helping was diffused among the observers” (Darley & Latane, 1968).

In the essay “Thirty-Eight who saw Murder didn’t call the Police”, Martin Gansberg describes how selfish and inconsiderable some people can be. He claims that society should be more involved in taking action when seeing violent or life threatening events occurring in their communities.

People have a tendency, known as social proof, to believe that others' interpretation of the ambiguous situation is more accurate than their own. Hence, a lack of response by others leads them to conclude that the situation is not an emergency and that response is not warranted. Finally, empirical evidence has shown that the bystander effect is negated when the situation is clearly recognized as an emergency. In a 1976 study published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Lance Shotland and Margaret Straw illustrated that when people witnessed a fight between a man and a woman that they believed to be strangers to each other, they intervened 65 percent of the time. Thus, people often do not respond appropriately to an emergency situation because the situation is unclear to them and as a result, they have misinterpreted it as a non-emergency based on their own past experience or social cues taken from others.

1. After the 1964 murder of Kitty Genovese, John Darley and Bibb Latane were in shock as the rest of the city/world that a 28 year old lady could be stabbed in a neighborhood with about 38 by standers or more and say or do nothing. Why didn’t anyone try and help her? How could people stand by and watch this go on? People speculated that the failure of people to get involved might be due more to the influence (socially) that bystanders have on each other. To test this theory, Darley and Latane, two psychologists, decided to conduct a study. “Diffusion of Responsibility” Everyone hopes that someone else will be the first to step up

The general statement made by the author, Anna Quindlen, in her work Getting Involved, is that it is vital for human beings to be apathetic, and care for one another. More specifically, the author argues that isolating oneself from local conflict will not resolve any issues. She writes, “Neighbors heard screams and shouts and the unmistakable sound of something hitting a human being…But nothing was really done until…[the] little girl was taken to the hospital, where she was pronounced dead.” In this passage, the author is suggesting that being a bystander is detrimental and can lead to severe, preventable outcomes. In conclusion, the author’s belief is a topic that need to be spoken upon more often, the society is in desperate need of compassion

Darely, J. M., & Latane, B. (1968). BYSTANDER INTERVENTION IN EMERGENCIES: DIFFUSION OF RESPONSIBILITY. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8(4), 377-383. Retrieved October 2013, from doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0025589

In the Chapter “In the Unlikely Event of a Water Landing,” from the book Opening Skinner’s Box, by Lauren Slater. Slater describes a crime scene in which the witnesses didn’t do anything to help a woman that was being stabbed, she also tells us about a few experiments that were conducted in regards to how people would react when help is needed in certain situations, will they report the situation to anyone or just go about their business like nothing is going on. Calling for help or assisting someone in a time of need isn’t always something that people do as an immediate reaction, especially when there’s a crowd of people present.

The Bystander effect is a controversial theory given to social phenomenon where the more potential helpers there are, the less likely any individual is to help. A traditional explanation for this Bystander Effect is that responsibility diffuses across the multiple bystanders, diluting the responsibility of each. (Kyle et al.) The Bystander effect, also known as the Genovese Syndrome, was created after the infamous murder of “Kitty” Catherine Genovese in 1964, on the streets of New York in front of thirty-seven witnesses. After studying the Genovese syndrome and doing research on how this phenomenon occurs today, it is clear The Bystander effect is not theory, but actually fact.

This essay will ‘compare and contrast’ two approaches made in investigating the ‘bystander effect’. It will discuss in some depth as to what exactly is meant by the bystander effect, illustrating when this concept was first shown and why. An outline will be made of the different methods used, those being experiments and discourse analysis, explaining each one in turn, within the framework of two cases. The first being the murder of ‘Catherine Genovese,’ 1964.and the second ‘James Bulger’ 1993. The essay will then show examples of the differences and similarities between each method. Concluding with a summary of findings into the two approaches to investigating the Bystander Effect.

In 2010, Alfred Tate-Yax, a 31 year old homeless man, in Queens, New York bled to death as more than 20 people ignored him for nearly an hour before emergency services arrived. Alfred was brutally stabbed several times after saving a woman, who fled the scene before he collapsed, from being mugged. One man even rolled him over to see his bleeding wound but walked away and acted as if he didn’t see anything. Although he ultimately risked and sacrificed his life to save a stranger his kindness wasn’t returned by any of the approximately 20 indifferent bystanders who passed or even made contact with him. Surely, if someone would’ve called the police sooner this heroic man might still be alive. How was it really that difficult

The bystander effect, is a “social psychological phenomenon that refers to cases in which individuals do not offer any means of help to a victim when other people are present”(Weiten). Such reactions usually occur when individuals do not want to risk getting involved in the situation. In Chronicles of a Death Foretold, even though the townspeople do not desire the murder of Santiago Nasar,their unwillingness or lack of courage to take action in preventing this “foretold murder” consequently allows for the murder to happen. The idea of disturbing the status-quo and risk of involvement overshadows the Sucré citizens’ moral values. Even though a scale of individual willingness to avert the crime is presented such as Colonel Lazaro Aponte’s fulfilling his duty ,Clotilde Armenta’s multiple attempts and Father Armando’s total indifference; none of the townspeople want to be directly implicated in the matter.

My article was Darley’s and Latane’s, “Bystander Intervention in Emergencies: Diffusion of Responsibility.” They conducted this study to figure out how would people react in various group sizes in an emergency situation. As well as which one those individuals in different size groups would go and call for help. The concept of this was taken from the famous case of Kitty Genovese, who was stabbed to death multiple times and finally was killed in her own neighborhood and no one intervened. This is known to be the bystander effect. However, in this research experiment, people were either in groups of 2, 3, or 6 and then they would overhear the person having an epileptic seizure. It was predicted that due to the presence of

Darley and Latane begin their essay by using solid examples of when the bystander effect presented itself, and why people were harmed because of it. They explain why nice people do not help in certain situations, and why someone can pass by a person in distress when others are around, and why more people respond when no one is around. Darley and Latane show what it takes for people to respond; they have to actually realize that it is an emergency and not a ruse or a normal occurrence. Sitting idly by while a dangerous situation is happening does not make someone a bad person, it just reveals their humanity.

Introduction: The bystander effect is a normal occurrence that happens when the presence of others decreases an individual’s probability to intervene in an emergency situation. There are many reasons to why the bystander effect occurs, the main reason being the fact that the individual’s sense of responsibility is reduced when there are other people witnessing the situation. Culture plays a significant role in determining if a bystander will or will not aid during certain situations. Western countries such as Australia, United States, Germany and Ireland are all known to have an individualist culture, where people are seen as