After reviewing the case on Kitty Genovese (1964) I came across this article on a high school homecoming gang rape in which 20 people stood by and watched (and/or participated) - in which no one stepped in to help the girl. These kinds of stories are very disturbing, however, they are important in research regarding the psychological aspects that witnesses go through when witnessing a crime. Some psychologists believe this is known as the 'bystander effect'. People become so concerned over what may occur to them (socially and physically) if they were to go to the police and report the crime they witnessed. The idea that "there are more people around, why should I be the one to help?" is troublesome for investigators and the victim because something should (or could) be done to help, but nobody comes forward at the time of need. This fear of retaliation hinders the investigation process and undermines the whole point of law in these sort of situations. The context of this situation makes me wonder if some sort of "incentive" program be put in place to try and coax witnesses to step forward and help out the police during the initial investigation. But then the question comes to mind - what incentives could there be if the witness were to comply (taking into consideration their life may be in danger if they "tattle")? There are many psychological questions that come into play on these very sensitive subjects.
Article on the Kitty Genovese Murder (1964)
Homecoming Gang Rape Article
These stories are truly disgusting. I understand the concept of the bystander effect, but I don't think it should be used as some kind of excuse. After reading the two articles from the links provided, I looked up some other stories on this concept.
http://listverse.com/2009/11/02/10-notorious-cases-of-the-bystander-effect/
Some of them are large-scale, and some of them just involve a few people. In any case, it's disturbing no matter how many people were victimized.
It's so upsetting to me that people don't even have enough decency to call the police. It can be done in private and anonymously. Even if they don't want to testify in court and implicate themselves, they can find a random phone and disguise their voice. Like Kitty's brother said, the people don't have to physically stop the violence. A simple phone call could help.
As far as incentives go, I see the problem with trying to get people to come forward. Especially if gangs are involved, the person that 'tattles' could become a target. Usually there is no incentive people are willing to receive if they have to risk their safety. They could go into the witness protection program, but it's not always effective. It also changes the witnesse's entire life (and sometimes has many undesirable results).
When there is an emergency, the more bystanders there are, the less likely it is that any of them will actually help.
Pluralistic ignorance is where they assume nothing is wrong because nobody else looks concerned.
Bystanders go through a five-step process, during each of which they can decide to do nothing.
Notice the event (or in a hurry and not notice).
Realize the emergency (or assume that as others are not acting, it is not an emergency).
Assume responsibility (or assume that others will do this).
Know what to do (or not)
Act (or worry about danger, legislation, embarrassment, etc.)
http://changingminds.org/explanations/theories/bystander_effect.htm
Example:
The fact took place in Naples on May the 26th: after a gunfight between different groups belonging to Camorra in the street near Montesanto underground stop a Romanian man was injured by mistake. The man, a Romanian player, was walking towards the underground station with his wife. After the shooting they run away in the direction of the station and the man died just at the entrance of the underground while people passed by without paying any attention or even escaping as if the man was a danger. The underground cameras recorded all the sequence of the event. The last video related to the death of the man is the most worrying and meaningful one I think. Watching it I had the strong impression of being in front of one of the videos which report experiments performed on bystander effect: a person who pretends of being sick in a street full of people and nobody who takes care. Unluckily this time it’s not just an experiment with actors aimed to study people’s reactions when someone is in the need of help.
http://italianopinionist.wordpress.com/2009/06/19/examples-of-indifference-bystander-effect-and-people-starving/
My thoughts on this is that the bystander effects is the presence of other people who creates a diffusion of responsibility. Because there are other observers, individuals do not feel as much pressure to take action, since the responsibility to take action is thought to be shared among all of those present.
Its also the way our society have developed. We tend to behave in correct and socially acceptable ways. When other observers fail to react, individuals often take this as a signal that a response is not needed or not appropriate.
I remember reading about the Kitty Genovese murder in high school and being absolutely shocked that no one helped her. Now, as a college student, I'm still horrified by the fact that no one helped her, but I can sort of see the situation from the bystanders' perspective, too. A situation like the Kitty Genovese murder can shock bystanders and make them fearful and unwilling to risk their lives to save someone they do not know. Personally, I often tend to put myself in the middle of a dangerous situation without stopping to think twice about my own safety. However, I have not witnessed any situation nearly as horrific or dangerous as her murder. And, I know that there have been some situations like bar fights during my college career that I knew were unnecessary and were hurting innocent people and I chose not to become involved because I knew there was nothing I could do to change the outcome. Particularly in public settings like bars, I know that I tend to wait a few moments and base my behavior on the reactions of other people in the crowd. Is that a good thing? Probably not. Should I be more willing to risk my life and reputation to help a person who is being singled out? Maybe ... but there may be antecedents to the violent behavior that I don't know or understand. I guess I don't see the bystander effect as an excuse; I see it as an explanation for some individuals' lack of action or involvement in dangerous situations.
I've learned about the Kitty Genovese murder in high school and in my college course. In my social psychology class we discussed the topic in depth. I could not believe that as a human species that we would allow another to die at the hands of others. This shows how powerful the bystander effect is. When there are a large number of people present, the less likely people are to help a person in distress. At m job we discussed that if an emergency were to happen, then we would direct one individual to go get help. So that way you know someone is coming instead of assuming that someone else has already taken the initiative to call 911 or to get help. When an emergency situation occurs, observers are more likely to take action if there are few or no other witnesses.
There is no incentive for tattling. In the presence other people will create a diffusion of responsibility. Individuals do not feel as much pressure to take action, since the responsibility to take action is thought to be shared among all of those present.
In the role of being a bystander is important. It’s important to know how and when to react in any given emergency situation. As far as an incentive I don't believe there is one. I believe society is just selfish when it comes to other people needs. The question is why people don’t help if another person is in a crisis situation regardless if you diffuse your responsibilities or not. If everyone was like this the world would be a horrible place to live.