Issue 1 Spring 2022

Latané and Darley’s famous “seizure experiment” helped support
the speculated role of diffusion of responsibility on the inaction of
witnesses. In this experiment, researchers told 72 university
students that they were participating in a discussion about
college life, although they were discreetly organizing a fake
emergency. Each participant, placed in a separate room, talked to
the other “participants” using microphones and speakers,
unaware that the voices they were “talking” to had been prerecorded.
To create the simulation of an emergency, one of the
voices mimicked that of a person experiencing a seizure. Results
showed that different numbers of supposed “participants” in the
group discussion created vast differences in the time it took for a
study subject to ask for help. Out of the subjects who believed
that they were in a one-to-one conversation with the person
experiencing the seizure, 85% reacted quickly and left to ask for
help. On the other hand, only 31% of the participants in the second
condition, who believed that there were four other bystanders,
attempted to help the victim. Because even those that did not
respond were concerned for the victim, Darley and Latané
concluded that indifference or apathy did not cause inaction,
contrary to popular belief. Individuals simply push away the duty
to help a victim when there are many other bystanders around,
causing the bystander inaction that inevitably leads to the victim’s
demise.
Criticisms
Over the years, the bystander effect has become one of the most
studied social-psychological phenomenons and is a staple in
nearly all American psychology textbooks. However, ever since
authors and journalists such as Jim Rasenberger and Rachel
Manning revealed various errors in the original tale of the
Genovese murder, the famous phenomenon has been challenged
by many. Contrary to the large number of 38 witnesses assumed
to have witnessed Mosely stabbing Genovese, in reality, there
were very few people who actually saw the crime. Genovese was
attacked two times by Mosely. She was first attacked outside her
apartment building with a hunting knife until Rober Mozer shouted
from his window to stop Mosely; while she was heavily wounded,
Genovese at this point had been alive. However, because the fatal
second attack took place in a secluded hallway inside her
apartment, even those who had witnessed the first attack
could not have definitively realized that there was a horrific murder
taking place right under their noses.
As the newly made corrections to the murder of Kitty Genovese
weakened Latané and Darley’s argument about the effect of the
number of bystanders on the odds of an individual helping a
witness, many began to find flaws in the assessment of the
bystander effect. Some argue that bystander inaction could result
not from the increased number of other witnesses, but from one’s
fear of offering unwanted help or one’s concern over being
misunderstood as the perpetrator and facing the unjustified
consequences. Many witnesses also misinterpreted the situation
as a mere “lover’s quarrel” rather than a vicious assault, which
again brings to question the main reason for their inaction in
Genovese’s murder.
We will never find out whether the bystander effect described by
Darley and Latané was truly the driving force of the neglect seen in
Kitty Genovese’s murder. However, it is undeniable that the
phenomenon can apply to various situations that we see in
everyday life. Truthfully, I cannot say that I have never fallen prey to
the bystander effect: when I’m in the bustling streets of Manhattan,
I do not give a dollar to every homeless man I see on the streets, as
there are just too many of them. Looking back, I realize that I justify
my inaction as I walk past by thinking that there are plenty of
others with more money than me who can help these
underprivileged people. It’s just our nature to push off the
responsibility of intervening in an emergency to others. So sure,
perhaps the inaction seen in the Genovese murder was not only
caused by a large number of witnesses. Maybe the idea of “safety
in numbers” is not a myth after all. Regardless, the bystander
effect and its two factors, pluralistic ignorance and diffusion of
responsibility, can teach us how to act in an emergency. Ignore the
urge to look to others and take responsibility when you have any
inkling that you are witnessing an emergency: the worst
consequence if you misunderstood the situation may be a feeling
of embarrassment for a couple of minutes. If you are not, however,
and you help the victim immediately, you can save a life and avoid
being eaten away by the harrowing guilt you would have felt if you
had allowed the victim to die.
25