The Bystander Effect In The Murder Of Kitty Genovese

The bystander effect also arises from a diffusion of responsibility as each bystander can better rationalize his or her lack of action. In some cases, people assume that in a large group, there will be someone else that is more qualified to help and therefore, each person feels less obligated to act. For example, a doctor is far more qualified to provide medical assistance to a victim and likewise, a police officer or stronger-bodied man can better subdue a perpetrator. If the crowd of bystanders is large,

Social psychology first examined the phenomena later termed “bystander effect” in response to a 1964 murder. The murder of a young woman with as many as 38 witnesses and none who helped until it was too late. The bystander effect is individuals seeing an emergency situation but not helping. There are many reasons why individuals do not respond: diffusion of responsibility, not noticing or unsure if it is an emergency, and not wanting to be liable if the person still dies are a few.

Picture this. Someone is on their daily 3.5km run and as they pass the bus stop a woman grabs her chest and collapses. There are crowds of people passing by her but no one’s stopping to help. They probably aren't going to stop and help, because no one is stopping they are going to think if those many people aren’t stopping to help then she is fine, they might also be thinking someone else will help her. Now picture this that same person is out just for a walk around the park and they hear someone cry out for help, no one’s around but them so they probably would go over and help them. These situations are representing the bystander effect. John Darley and Bibb Latane came up with the bystander effect, the bystander effect states that the more people that are present the less likely anyone is to help someone in need. The bystander effect can be connected to the characters in William Golding's Lord of the flies. People just stand by in emergency situations when other people are around, and them no helping the victim can have some serious consequences.

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).

Walking along the busy street of Manhattan, Katie becomes light headed passing out; although she is in a large group of people, no one stops to help. This phenomenon is called the “bystander effect.” A bystander is often anyone who passed by, witnessed, or even participated in a certain situation (Polanin, Espelage & Pigott, 2012). The bystander effect is the idea that the larger the group, the less likely an individual is to be helped. The likelihood of someone getting helped is inversely compared to the number of people who are around witnessing the event at the time. This phenomenon has played a huge role in the increase of civilians failing to be helped in the past years, and is starting to have more light shined upon it. Knowledge of

I believe that knowing you’ll get fined or punished if you witness a crime and don’t report it will limit the number of bystanders in the world because why lose five to ten thousand dollars when all you need to do is call 911 and report the crime. This law could possibly decrease the amount of crimes because suspects will know people will be reporting crimes if witnessed. The law only requires witnesses to report the crime if it doesn’t put the witness in danger or peril so the fear and excuse of being afraid will no longer be a factor for bystanders.

The bystander effect is defined as the higher the number of people who notice an emergency, the less of a chance that those bystanders will help the victim (as cited in Aronson, Wilson, Akert, & Sommers, 2015). The importance of the bystander effect is unparalleled because it determines whether humans will still help in a situation when there are other people available. Bystanders can deal with situations ranging from the mundane to the dire, but what matters is the number of those who take action.

It states that when the amount of bystanders increases, the likelihood of one of the bystanders assisting drastically decreases. Many feel that if they have no obligation to help they should not, almost as if it's none of their business. To victims, a bystander who doesn’t take action is as equally evil as the perpetrator. The easiness of laughing along with others, or acting as if you saw nothing is correlated to the fact that it is easier than ever to be influenced in today’s society. Too often, ignoring the humiliation of another is seen. It may be the easy way out, however, it is certainly not the morally correct way

Humans are typically very emotional. Sometimes, we even mess with our emotions on purpose, like watching a sad movie, or going on a rollercoaster. This is all great, but crying over a dog dying in a movie, yet not caring enough to help a person in need, isn’t. Seeing someone in need should cause us to feel enough pain for them that we want to do anything we can to help. Walking on by “should insult our values”, knowing that we could’ve done something (Allred and Bloom 334). Being worried about your own safety is understandable. However, not helping someone because you are scared they might sue you is just selfish. People are scared because “under American law, liability generally exists for action, not inaction” (Allred and Bloom 335). We may be liable for helping or possibly at financial risk, but that is a chance that should be taken to save a life. Changing the law would allow people to aid others without feeling

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

A common misconception about the American legal system is that if one does not do something, then that person cannot be held liable nor found guilty of any crime. The tendency to stay uninvolved can also be categorized as the bystander effect. When we see a crime being committed we are to believe that someone else will help the victim or try to stop the crime. This could be what leads our belief that if we just do nothing then we are free. Doing nothing is a choice and sometimes you can be punished if you choose to do nothing.

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.]

Another common response exhibited by bystanders that would fall into the category of diffusion of responsibility would be indirect intervention. Indirect intervention is when someone notices a crime is happening and feels some responsibility to do something, but simply feels that they do not want to handle the situation for a number of reasons so they choose to tell someone else about it (Goodstein, and Shotland 1984). This gives the bystander the ability to convince themselves that they did do “something” to get the victim help. A number of studies have been done, not only to prove this concept of defused responsibility, but also to understand it. One such study is, “Exploring Bystander Presence and intervention in Nonfatal Violent Crimes.” This study, done by Miethe and Hart, found that bystanders were present at 65% of violent crimes, 68% of physical attacks, 49% of robberies and 28% of sex crimes, yet sex crimes have the highest rate of being reported by a bystander (2008). This is somewhat confusing, but is thought by many scholars to be the case because when less people are around the ones that are present feel a greater responsibility to do something about

The bystander effect is both a social and psychological phenomenon in which an individual’s inclination towards showing helping behaviours are minimised by the influence of other people. Research has found that the more people acting as bystanders in a situation, the less likely it is that helping behaviours will be demonstrated. However in the correct conditions, where conditioned cues increase self-awareness, it is possible to reverse the bystander effect phenomenon. The bystander effect is prevalent in everyday life, and often decorates the news, shocking the world, especially when authority figures such as police men and women succumb to the effect. Diffusion of responsibility, ignorance of others interpretation of an event and self-consciousness are all social processes which appear to lead to social inhibition of helping behaviours and one of the main theories of the bystander effect is provided Latané and Darley (1970) whose cognitive model provides a series of decisions that can lead to social inhibition. The bystander effect is influenced by the conditions an individual is in when an event occurs, for example the bystander effect appears to be most dominant when an individual is in a group of strangers with low group cohesiveness. FINISH

A bystander, to me, is somebody who can possibly help during a time of need but chooses not to. Even if it is something as simple as someone falling down the stairs, I feel you still need to help. It was sad to hear about the Kitty Genovese story, she could have easily been saved, yet people were too lazy or too tired. It makes me wonder how people managed to live with themselves afterward. All 37 of those people were bystanders, and the bystanders are just as guilty as the offender. Growing up my dad always told me if I saw something taking place that I knew was wrong but did not do anything, I was just as guilty as the person doing it. That has