According to Fischer et al. (2011), social psychology is defined as the scientific discipline that intends to realise the causes and nature of the behaviour of individuals in any given situation. Hence, it observes the behaviour of human that is influenced by people and other social context. The issue of bystander intervention was extensively studied after the incident of Kitty Genovese in 1964 (Cialdini, 1998). Manning, Levine & Collins (2007) mentioned that this incidence can be considered as the source of signal misdeed and crime. In this instance, Cherry (1995) adopted a critical approach to the investigation of culturally embed nature of manner by which bystander intervention has been theorised. Lastly, Murakami (2001) looks at an example of the bystander effect. The aim of this essay is to integrate sources in social psychology which critiques theories and research of bystander intervention. The prevailing discussion highlights important aspects of pluralistic ignorance and diffusion of responsibility from the respective authors cohesively.
Lemann (2014), defines the bystander effect as the act where people are less prone to offer required help when in the group in contrast when they are alone. Moreover, Cialdini (1998) mentioned that bystander intervention is based on the fact that how and when people act in response to a situation, where other people or person are in requirement of assistance. The effect of bystander takes place where the existence of other demotivates the individual from interference at the time of emergency (Lemann,2014).
Psychologists John Darley and Bibb Latane popularises the conception of a murder of Kitty in New York. Kitty was pierced to death external to her flat where bystander did not take any step, just watched the crime and called the police (Cialdini, 1998). Darley and Latane examined the bystander impact on perceived diffusion of responsibility, onlooker and pluralistic ignorance. Bystanders are prone to an interface if there are no or fewer witnesses and social influences (Cialdini, 1998). In a case of Kitty, all witness infer from the inaction of neighbour as their help was not required (Cialdini, 1998). Darley and Latane conducted an experiment to investigate the immediate solution, where people can offer help to another individual in an emergency situation (Cialdini, 1998). On the experiment, 85% who thought they were alone tried to help. Otherwise, 31% who thought they were in a group with others tried to help on a student having a seizure (Cialdini, 1998). This shows that as group sized increased, the number of people trying to help decreased (Cialdini, 1998).
Darley and Latane hypothesised that impact of bystander was based on two specific elements, the diffusion of responsibility and pluralistic ignorance (Cialdini,1998). The factor of diffusion responsibility is based on any individual who is not able to bypass the accountability to provide help reasonably (Cialdini, 1998). In addition, Levine and Crowther (2008), asserted that in case of a group it is much simple and easier to deduce that anyone else will provide assistance in case of required action and reduces the prospect to help others. On the one hand, the pluralistic effect of ignorance is based on the uncertain situation either if the situation is subjected to emergency or not and most effective among stranger groups (Cialdini, 1998). Cialdini (1998), stated any individual would look across the individual to observe how others are reactant and if no one in a group is reacting, then it is concluded that situation would not be the emergency situation.
Manning et al., (2007) suggests that all 38 did not watch the murder and there were only 2 attacks rather than two attacks and until the arrival of police, Kitty was still alive. This issue compressively examined by Darley and Latane and theorised the inaccurate information by bystander effect. However, Manning et al, (2007) criticises that experiment of Darley and Latane ignored the inclusion of physical attack situation that accurately stimulates the context of Kitty murder and their witness and experiment also ignored the translation of other important attribute of murder in the paradigm of experiments. Manning et al., (2007) argued that this experiment failed to consider the fact that 111 service was not there for calling the police. There was no movement for women rights this violence against female were quite acceptable and ignored as compared to present time period (Manning et al., 2007). It is probable that witness was not influenced by the effect of pluralistic ignorance as they were not able to assess and view the behaviour of each other in an accurate manner.
According to Cherry (1995), the significance of the social scheme and witness interaction is useful for the intervention of situational issues. Cherry (1995), devotes time to investigate the influence social and cultural facets of the bystander case of Kitty Genovese. The least intervention of the case of Kitty about bystander inaction and violence against women in the 1960’s. Author believes that the Darley and Latane’s experiment should have a wider perspective and take into account cultural and societal factors.. There is more psychological research conducted for men than women (Haraway, 1998). Moreover, the objective of experimental research has to be culturally sensitive, which represents gender equality among men and women (Haraway, 1998). Hence, the influence of sociocultural elements.
Cherry (1995) asked questions and looked at different point of view which conveys the outcome. The example questions involve questioning about a genetic make up for “help”, encouragement of a helping behaviour, learning bystanders and the cultural aspect of helping those who are in need (Cherry, 1995). A person’s values, environment and culture will likely to intervene in an emergency situation. On the contrary, Darley and Latane focussed mainly on situational variables (Cialdini, 1998). Cherry (1995) is less inclined to experimental design but more to do with societal assumptions which includes gender, class and race. In addition, Cherry (1995) points out that the diffusion of responsibility and pluralistic ignorance theories are the product in case to case basis which is not merely present in any given consequence. Cherry (1995) emphasised that Darley and Latane’s study only looks at experimental design but not the power and gender differentiation between men and women. Cherry (1995) argues Kitty was no just murdered she was also raped by Winston Moseley, who happened to be African-American.
The statement in the 1960s event focussed on bystander non-intervention whereas the focus should acknowledge that it was not just an attack, but a rape and murder (Cherry, 1995). Therefore, Cherry assumes that the social context cannot be disregarded on studying human behaviour. It is important to consider a wide social context, such as gender differences, in looking at reason for inaction (Cherry, 1995). Female perspective and different from males due to variation of sociocultural influences (Cherry, 1995). The main implication of bystander theorisation is identified as the existing approaches for the relevant issue that are perspective to culture embeddings to fewer extents. Cherry (1995) argues that bystander effect should be analysed and examined on the basis of own culture, experiences and backgrounds. In addition, the adoption of critical approaches can facilitate the increased congruence of the manner by which bystander intervention can be theorised and further investigated in diverse contexts. A high awareness of bystander significance for the case is accountable for the adoption of critical approaches that enhances the improved congruence of the manner, by which bystander intervention can be theorised and further studied.
Finally, Murakami (2001) conducted an interview of people involved in gas attack in a subway system in Tokyo. Researcher found that a victim was left unattended and unseen by the people around. On this scenario, social psychology plays vital role with the integration of theories and on how culture affects the bystander intervention. Diffusion of responsibility occurs while the victim was left behind, the scene happened where there are too many people and none felt obligated to help the victim. Pluralistic ignorance takes place is where people in the subway system has to save themselves first and the victim was unnoticed to be in an emergency situation. Tokyo is the one of the busiest place in Japan, people have strong cultural identity, specially men (Chan & Hayashi, 2010). The concept of masculinity and adaptation to social cultures are important before Japanese men seek or provide help (Chan & Hayashi,2010).
In summary, the bystander intervention has raised issues which critique theories and research in the world of social psychology. The murder of Kitty Genovese on bystander effect has been theorised and studied by different authors. The main theories discussed involve the diffusion of responsibility and pluralistic ignorance. The victim and bystander account gives the amenable for qualitative evaluation by an adoption of crucial approaches in a discipline of social psychology. This can be move beyond the face worth of communication and have effective utilisation in the theorisation of power relations. In future study, few question can be further investigated as social psychology is based on subjective theory and based on deviation till the studies, the experiment can improve the body of knowledge by a statistical validation.
By Mark Antonio
References
Chan, R., & Hayashi, K. (2010). Gender roles and help-seeking behaviour: promoting professional help among Japanese men. Journal of Social Work, 10(3), 243-262. doi:10.1177/1468017310369274
Cherry, F. (1995). Kitty Genovese and culturally embedded theorising. In The Stubborn Particulars of Social Psychology (pp. 16-29). London: Routledge.
Cialdini, R.B. (1998). Cause of death: Uncertain(ty). In M.H. Davis (Ed.), Annual Editions-Social Psychology 98/99 (pp. 197-201). Guilford, CT: Dushkin/McGraw-Hill.
Fischer, P., Krueger, J. I., Greitemeyer, T., Vogrincic, C., Kastenmüller, A., Frey, D., … & Kainbacher, M. (2011). The bystander-effect: a meta-analytic review on bystander intervention in dangerous and non-dangerous emergencies. Psychological bulletin, 137(4), 517.
Haraway, D.J. (1998) ‘Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective’, Feminist Studies, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 575–97.
Lemann, N. (2014). A call for help: What the Kitty Genovese story really means. The New Yorker, March 10, 73-77.
Levine, M., & Crowther, S. (2008). The responsive bystander: how social group membership and group size can encourage as well as inhibit bystander intervention. Journal of personality and social psychology, 95(6), 1429.
Manning, R., Levine, M., & Collins, A. (2007). The Kitty Genovese murder and the social psychology of helping. American Psychologist, 62(6), 555-562.
Murakami, H. (2001). Tokyo metropolitan subway: Kodemmacho station. In, Underground (pp 183 -189). NY: Vintage International.