The Bystander Effect - Forensic's blog

Case of Kitty Genovese

On March 13th, 1964, Kitty Genovese returned home from her late-night shift at a nearby bar. Parking her car, she began the short walk towards the rear entrance of her apartment building. Suddenly, a figure emerged from the shadows, forcing Genovese to alter her course. Despite her screams, the man lunged at her, unleashing a brutal attack.

Alerted by the commotion, residents of the surrounding apartments became unwitting spectators. One neighbour even shouted down in an attempt to intervene. However, a brief retreat by the assailant, followed by the dimming of apartment lights, encouraged him to return and inflict further harm. This chilling cycle repeated, with Genovese’s cries for help punctuated by periods of uneasy silence from the overlooking windows.

Tragically, the first call to the police only came in at 3:50 am, nearly half an hour after the initial attack began. Responding officers arrived within two minutes, but it was too late. The Genovese case became a national sensation, sparking outrage and prompting social commentary about the perceived decline of societal values.

The Chilling Reality: Diffusion of Responsibility and Pluralistic Ignorance

The bystander effect, also called bystander apathy, was first studied in the aftermath of the Kitty Genovese murder in 1964 and describes a situation where the presence of others inhibits helping behaviour. With more witnesses, the responsibility to act diffuses, leading individuals to assume someone else will take charge. This phenomenon can be attributed to two fundamental psychological mechanisms:

Diffusion of responsibility—When multiple bystanders are present, the sense of individual responsibility for intervening diminishes. People believe that someone else will take action, leading to collective inaction.
Pluralistic ignorance—In an emergency, bystanders often look to others for cues on how to interpret the situation. If others appear calm or uninvolved, the bystander might interpret the situation as less urgent, reducing their motivation to intervene.

The chain of doubt: factors that paralyse action

Ambiguity: people are more likely to intervene in clear-cut emergencies. If the situation is ambiguous or the nature of the threat unclear, bystanders might hesitate to act, unsure of the appropriate course of action.

Fear of Retribution: the potential for personal harm or retaliation from the perpetrator can be a significant deterrent. Fear of getting hurt or involved in a conflict prevents some bystanders from intervening. Witnessing an emergency or assault can trigger a primal freeze response. This reaction often stems from a complex mix of anxieties: fear of inadequacy in helping, uncertainty about the situation’s true nature and even concern for your safety.

Evaluation Apprehension: Individuals might be concerned about being judged by others for their actions. The fear of appearing foolish or incompetent can lead to inaction, especially in situations where others seem uninvolved.

Social Cohesion: the presence of strangers can be more paralysing than the presence of friends or acquaintances. People might be less likely to intervene in unfamiliar situations due to a lack of social connection with the victim or other witnesses.

Studies associated with bystander effect

Several ground-breaking studies conducted by Bibb Latane and John Darley explored how the presence of others influences how quickly people take action in emergencies. Their research revealed a fascinating connection between the number of bystanders and the time it takes for someone to intervene. In one experiment, participants were placed in different scenarios: alone in a room, working alongside two genuine participants or with two confederates who feigned normalcy. While filling out questionnaires, smoke unexpectedly filled the room. When participants were alone, a significant majority (75%) reported the smoke to the researchers. However, this number dropped dramatically to just 38% when participants were with two other people. The most striking result came from the group with the confederates who deliberately ignored the smoke – a mere 10% of participants reported the issue.

Further research by Latané and Rodin (1969) supported these findings. They discovered that when people witnessed a woman in distress, 70% were willing to help if they were the sole witness. However, this willingness to intervene dropped to around 40% when other people were present.

Bystander Intervention Strategies

1.Identifying the incident: the first step involves recognising that something unusual is happening. This could be a witnessed crime, an accident or someone in distress.

2. Interpreting the situation: not all unusual events are emergencies. Bystanders must decide if the situation poses a genuine threat or requires intervention.

3. Taking responsibility: the bystander weighs their role in the situation. They consider factors like personal safety and the consequences of intervening.

4. Formulating a response: once the situation is deemed an emergency, the bystander must decide on the most appropriate action. This could involve directly helping the victim, calling for help or delegating the responsibility to someone else.

5. Taking action: the final stage is the most crucial. The bystander must overcome any hesitation and translate their decision to intervene into concrete action.

Conclusion

The bystander effect serves as a stark reminder of our social responsibility. Together, we hold the immense capacity to make a positive difference in the world. By understanding the psychological factors that hinder intervention and actively promoting helping behaviours, we can create communities where people feel empowered to act, ensuring that cries for help are never met with silence. Remember, your intervention could make a critical difference the next time you witness an emergency. Let’s break the chain of doubt and choose to be the active bystander who steps forward to help.

References

APA Dictionary of Psychology. (n.d.). https://dictionary.apa.org/bystander-effect
Bystander Effect. (n.d.). Psychology Today. Retrieved June 23, 2024, from https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/bystander-effect
Emeghara, U. (2023). Bystander Effect in Psychology. Simply Psychology. https://www.simplypsychology.org/bystander-effect.html
Liebst, L. S., Philpot, R., Bernasco, W., Dausel, K., L., Ejbye-Ernst, P., Nicolaisen, M. H., & Lindegaard, M. R. (2018). Social relations and presence of others predict bystander intervention: Evidence from violent incidents captured on CCTV. Aggressive Behavior, 45(6), 598-609. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21853
MSEd, K. C. (2023, June 7). How Psychology Explains the Bystander Effect. Verywell Mind. https://www.verywellmind.com/the-bystander-effect-2795899
The Power of Bystander Altruism. (2023, March 18). Psychology Today. Retrieved June 23, 2024, from https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/other-side-of-positive-emotions/202303/the-power-of-bystander-altruism

Authored by

Vaishnavi Narreddy

Vaishnavi Narreddy is a recent graduate with a master’s degree in Forensic Science, specializing in Forensic Psychology. She is excited to bring a unique perspective to the world of corporate investigations. Her areas of interest include intelligence, uncovering fraud, and threats. Outside of academics and work, she is an avid reader, writer, and extreme movie buff.