Kitty Genovene Case Study

“Something happens to individuals when they collect in a group. They think and act differently than they would on their own. (17)” States Carol Tavris in her article, “In Groups We Shrink From Loner’s Heroics”. Tavris believes people who are in groups tend to act in a more sluggish manor than those alone. She states many examples of this theory in her article, including the story of Kitty Genovese which is stated in the first paragraph. Kitty was stabbed repeatedly and killed in front of her New York apartment. No one did anything to stop this heinous action from taking place. Within her essay she obtains rhetorical appeals to prove that her

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

First ‘The Bystander Effect’, states ‘that individuals are less likely to intervene in emergency situations when other people are present’. Latne & Darley, (1970) cited in Byford J.( 2014 pp 232). Simply put, where emergency situations arise, if more than one person is present the likelihood of someone in distress being helped reduces. This is the ‘diffusion of responsibility’ effect were each bystander feels less obliged to help because the responsibility seems to be divided with others present’. (Byford J., 2014 pp233) An example of Bystander Apathy shown within a video (The Open University 2016).

Sometimes people do not get involved in the situation because they are detached from the situation or the person in the crisis. For example, in the poem “Not Waving but Drowning,” by Stevie Smith there was a man in need of help. This man displayed a happy and joking personality, and because of this no one genuinely knew what was happening in his life. His need for help was not evident on the surface. No one came to his aid because they did not realize he was in jeopardy. People were not involved in his life and therefore felt detached from the situation

To panic by Clarke’s definition means to let go of all “social responsibilities to reveal raw selfishness” (Clarke 35). Clarke also uses many other examples to prove that during natural disasters, the likelihood of a human panicking is very low and humans are prone to help each other. For example, he uses America Airlines Flight 1420 to show that humans helped each other. First, Clarke dispels the panic myth using Germany and Japan as an example to showcase in times of strife that panic is very rare. He also acknowledges that 1 and 75 people are prone to panicking. Clarke mentions that even in life threatening situations, people are more prone to helping strangers and saving lives while following societal norms that showcases that human

This study investigated the accounts of individuals involved in the London underground bombings in 2005. Throughout this investigation, thematic analysis was conducted on six eyewitness accounts, highlighting their feelings and actions, which came about as a result of the incident. From these accounts I obtained 4 key themes, which were consistent components of the six accounts. Evidently, I found that the two most common themes were ‘helping behaviour’ and the ‘panic’ myth. This was rather unexpected, as initially, I expected to find irrational and helpless behaviour, due to the panic and stress of being trapped in a bombed underground. To conclude, the investigation illuminated the concept of helping others before helping ones self. Thus, contradicting the concept of survival of the fittest, as in this case the ‘fittest’ were those who took it upon themselves to assist other passengers in need. Therefore, highlighting the power of empathy which was risen with experiencing the disaster.

The Kitty Genovese story is a tragic one and is a controversial topic when ethics come into play. Though she screamed for help repeatedly while being stabbed the observers from the surrounding apartments did very little to assist the young woman. One observer in specific did shout “Leave the girl alone” and that deterred the assailant for a brief moment but whether or not he acted ethically is something of a different matter. According to Duty-Base Ethics which by definition states “the doctrine that actions are morally correct if they comply with existing obligations owed another and ourselves,” one could deduct that this observer did not act

Apathy is one of the most difficult issues to over come. Disasters can be a abstract concept to individuals who haven’t experienced them. This can lead to decisions that may not fully address a problem, or to victim blaming. People who experience a disaster may have their perspectives change from apathy to empathy. This can be a powerful as an individual may see the need for additional programs or aid. Additionally, it may have an effect on the mentality of people

To illustrate this idea (Transition from Opinion to Example), I want to discuss my (Who?) recent (When?) experience on the number six train. While sitting on the train, I heard a loud commotion coming from the other side of the train. I looked closely and noticed that there was an elderly woman (Who?) suffering a panic attack (What?). Several of the passengers stood around her, and all of them looked at each other, debating if she was having a seizure or having a heart attack (What?). In the end (Time order transition word), I hesitated like the others and I did not even attempt to provide any assistance (What?). Looking back (Time order transition word), all of us on the train just stood there and did absolutely nothing, waiting for one of us to step up and help (What?). Like the article demonstrates, the train passengers individually failed to react in an emergency situation because of the presence of others (How does it connect to your

In the 2007 article “the bystander effect” the author Dorothy Barkin’s was talking about the reasons why most people decide not to get involved in complex situations. Many think that the reasons maybe very obvious such as the fear of possible danger to one’s self or having to go through long legal proceedings. However, the author talks about two main reasons for such actions. The first being ambiguity, the fact the most people do not know how to evaluate different situations and there lays most for the decision making. As knowing what the problem that you are facing in that moment, that alone creates a high-pressure environment that most people would not like to be involved in. Not to mention, being able to help effectively

They assured us, they would be among the first to help [in a real emergency]” (Darley and Latane 770). Then Darley and Latane explained why bystanders act the way they do, with their final example. [It involved an individual in a room and a tape recorder playing simulating an individual having major speech difficulties. More individuals, that thought they were alone, came out to help the person having difficulties (the tape recorder). Every time the individual listening to the tape recorder thought that there were more people with them, they were less likely to respond.]

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.

Bystanders can easily found in real life such as, they can be found in the places like at work, school, on the roads, and other places involving many people. These circumstances aren’t simply ignoring the situation, but their unconscious psychology plays a big role in how they react to an emergency. In this situation, people think someone else can provide help, so that, this results in people remain as the spectators. This phenomenon is called bystander effect, and this is if more witnesses are in an emergency event, the less people are likely to intervene. This bystander effect is often called as, Genovese Syndrome which is named after death of Kitty Genovese, who was murdered in 1964 while a lot of witnesses were in the same place. After this incident, many psychologists conducted many investigations and experiments on this topic in order to analyze bystanders’ psychology in encountering certain situations. However, a lot of research papers focused on the phenomenon itself, rather than talking about how the one on one situation or one to plural number of people can result differently, and how age, gender, and relationship affects psychology of bystanders associating to the topic. Therefore, this paper will explain how the group size and group type affects bystander effect throughout researches and conducting my own survey. Hopefully, this paper can provide the future scope in encouraging the people’s behaviors in encountering the emergency circumstances.

If you saw someone being attacked on the street, would you help? Many of us would quickly say yes we would help because to state the opposite would say that we are evil human beings. Much research has been done on why people choose to help and why others choose not to. The bystander effect states that the more bystanders present, the less likely it is for someone to help. Sometimes a bystander will assume that because no one else seems concerned, they shouldn't be (Senghas, 2007). Much of the research that has been done supports this definition of the bystander effect. There have also been recent situations where this

The bystander effect was first observed by the media and social psychologists in 1964 through the case of Kitty Genovese, a 28-year old woman. On her way home from work, Genovese was stabbed multiple times over the course of 30 minutes. The murderer was able to leave the scene multiple times and come back to stab Genovese more. While this was happening, 38 people observed this from their window. Despite the number of people who viewed the incident, no one reported this incident was happening to the authorities. While this was written off as an effect from living in a large city by the media, psychologists John Darley and Bibb Latané realized something else was occurring: the bystanders all realized that other people were watching and assumed that another person would report the incident. This caused social inhibition amongst all of the viewers which in