The Bystander Effect: Analyzing Unresponsiveness in Public Distress

Introduction

The bystander effect is an occurrence where the greater the number of individuals present, the less likely the individuals helps a distressed person (Fischer et al., 2011 p.517). With an occurrence of an emergency, people observing mostly take action when there are few individuals or when there are no other witnesses. Nevertheless, huge crowd assumes each other to take responsibility therefore, ultimately no single person takes the action. A study by Edwards (1999 p.377), showed that, although seventy percent would assist a distressed female if they were alone, it is only 40% who offered help in the presence of other people. There are thousands of incidents daily which require our response. This essay explores two cases one which occurred in the 1960s where Catherine Genovese was murdered and another case, of the 1990s, which indicates the murder of James Bulger. Additionally, the paper will explore and explain the unresponsiveness of onlookers in the face of distress in the streets. The study will aftermath end by comparing and contrasting these two cases by discussing their similarities and differences.

As per Byford (2014 p.227), the murders of Catherine Genovese as well as James Bulger prompted psychological studies on ‘bystanders' intervention' to determine the elements that dictate whether bystanders (including neighbours) will or will not respond to a distressed individual in an emergency occurrence. The first case was the 1964's murder of Catherine ‘Kitty' Genovese in New York. She was a young lady who was attacked while returning home from work one late night in the street where she lived. At the time of the incidence, which took almost 30 minutes, she was brutally stabbed many times before she died just adjacent to her door (Byford (2014 p.227), After an inquiry by the police, it was found that the attack had been witnessed by thirty-eight Catherine's neighbours. It was also discovered that the neighbours heard the screams of Catherine while others observed the occurrence from their house. Unfortunately, it was only one individual who tried to yell at the attackers to leave Catherine alone. Finally, one neighbour managed to call the police, though Catherine was already out of breath. It was later discovered that Catherine could have survived if an ambulance arrived some minutes earlier (Byford (2014). It was very unfortunate that many witnessed the occurrence which ended tragically.

Similarly, thirty years after the murder of Catherine, another case of abduction and murder of James Bulger, a 3-year-old boy emerged. In 1993 February, Bulger was abducted from the Strand shopping mall by Robert Venables and Jon Thompson who were both 10 year-olds (Byford, 2014 p.226). It was stated that, just after they left the shopping Centre, the three walked via a suburb of Bootle and Walton for almost two hours and later isolated James in an area of railway track where they killed him. The killing and its subsequent trial attracted the attention of the media both abroad as well as in the UK. One of the shocking facts that were discovered was that the two boys were only ten years old. Additionally, during the trial of the suspects, in 1993 November, the thirty-eight witness appeared in the court of law and testified that they saw Venables, Thompson and Bulger walking via the streets of Merseyside. Most of the bystanders confirmed being aware that James was distressed. Others confessed observing behaviour which was inappropriate towards James: where the two old boys were seen to be ‘rough'; to James as well as the fact that they ‘dragged' and ‘kicked' him. It was only a few witnesses who reported to have challenged Thompson and Venables urging them to take the injured child to his mother. Unfortunately, no ‘bystanders' took action that could have prevented the abduction outcome. Though the onlookers were not immediate residents to Bulger, their reluctance to take action is observed as the violation of the virtues that describe everyone as responsible citizens, good neighbours, and community members who live together and share a common space and who ought to look for each other especially during distress.

Differences and Similarities

Similarities

While the two cases differ, the two share similar information dynamics. The two approaches revolve around some commonly unwanted instance of physical pain. For instance, Catherine Genovese was killed in the place where she lived while returning home after work. At the time of the occurrence, which took almost thirty minutes, she was stabbed brutally many times before dying just adjacent to her door. Similarly, James Bulger was abducted from the Strand shopping centre by Venables and Thompson. The three walked via a suburb of Bootle and Walton for almost two hours and later isolated and killed him. Additionally, since both cases revolve around an unwanted situation, they require intervention. As stated earlier, at the time of the attack, which took almost thirty minutes, Catherine was stabbed brutally many times before dying. It was discovered that the neighbours heard Catherine while screaming for help and even some residents observed her via their windows. This was an indication that she needed help which could only come from the neighbours. Similarly, in the murder of James Bulger witness observed behaviour which was inappropriate towards James. Unfortunately, none of the 38 ‘bystanders' took action that could have prevented the outcome of the abduction. In a study by Maresca (2016 p.378), there is a conclusion that, whether onlookers stare at person requiring need and they pass responsibility to another individual or whether Pluralistic Ignorance inhibits the onlookers from the action, there is always a need for interventions. Moreover, the two cases witness gathers information by observing peers. For example, since no witness intervened, onlookers interpreting the circumstance in a certain manner. In the case of James, Bulger witnesses stated that they had a belief that either Venables or Thompson was one of the toddler's brothers. To the onlookers, the mode of interaction, as well as the situation, seemed like a "young child" under the care of an older sibling.

From the two cases, it is evident that helping behaviour in an emergency does not depend much on "the kind of the person" or "the values the person subscribes to"; rather it only depends with the present circumstance. For example, James Bulger was a three-year-old boy. Additionally, it was later evident that most of the witnesses were not James Bulger's immediate neighbours. On the other hand, Catherine ‘Kitty' Genovese was described as a young woman who was a working-class individual. Most of her witnesses were immediate neighbours who saw her being stabbed and killed at her doorstep. Moreover, Latane and Darley (1968 p.215), concluded that the whole occurrence in Catherine case had no connection with alienated or ‘un-neighbourly' residents. As per the study, it was a manifestation of a broader occurrence: namely, people's response to emergencies. This is an indication that the helping behaviour in an emergency is not dependent on "the kind of the person" or "the values the individual subscribes to".

In the Bulger’s case, there is a perception that ‘strangers' are not responsible (or do not have the right) for family affairs' interference. Journalists, Commentators, as well as professionals, blamed the actions of ‘indifferent' onlookers on a wider social problem, a ‘cold society' filled with selfish city resident's and who are alienated from the society, and oblivious to responsibilities towards fellow citizens" (Rosenthal, 2008 [1964] cited in Byford, 2014, p. 226)

Differences

After the two occurrences, John Darley and Bibb Latane gave some explanations as to the failure of the thirty-eight onlookers to intervene and take action. Latane & Darley (1968 p.215), stated that Catherine's neighbours were not at all ‘indifferent' or ‘apathetic' which was Contrary to the reports of the media. In their view, they were disturbed by what they witnessed and were concerned for the welfare of Catherine Genovese. The challenge was that no one intervened until it was too late. On the other hand, In James case, the newspapers branded the onlookers ‘the ones who saw but didn't act' (Morrison, 1996, p. 68). There is also evidence that the witnesses were not James Bulger's immediate neighbours, which meant that their failure to intervene as a kind of ‘apathetic' or ‘indifferent' In the community.

About Genovese case, there is a sense of Diffusion of responsibility. Sagone et al., (2013), suggest that Diffusion of responsibility indicates that onlookers fail to react since they feel that other onlookers should intervene and offer assistance. All onlookers waited for the "many" neighbours to react therefore failing to react all together while in the case of Bulgers there is a sense of Pluralistic Ignorance. Munsch et al., (2014, pp.40-62) believe that Pluralistic Ignorance is related to helping behaviour and it is present when witness think that other observers are interpreting the circumstance in a certain manner. In this case, some witnesses stated that they thought that the older boys were a sibling; Venables and Thompson were too young to take care of a toddler without the supervision of an Adult

Conclusion

The murders of Catherine Genovese as well as James Bulger prompted psychological studies on ‘bystanders' intervention' to determine some elements which dictate whether onlookers will or will not take action in an emergency. In the two cases, it was observed that, while the two cases differ, the two cases share similarities. First, the two approaches revolve around some commonly unwanted instance of physical pain. Similarly, since both approaches revolve around an unwanted situation, both require intervention in the case. Nevertheless, in the cases, the witness gathers information by observing peers. Besides, the helping behaviour in an emergency is not dependent on "the kind of the individual" or "the values the person subscribes to", rather it only depends on the present circumstance. However, there are also some differences in that, Latane & Darley (1968 p.215) stated that Catherine's neighbours were not at all ‘apathetic' or ‘indifferent' while it is evident that since the witnesses were not immediate neighbours to James Bulger there was a kid of ‘apathetic' or ‘indifferent'. It is also clear that In Genovese case; there is a sense of Diffusion of responsibility while in the case of Bulgers there is a sense of Pluralistic Ignorance.

References

Byford, J. (2014) ‘Living together, living apart: the social life of the neighbourhood’, in Clarke, J. and Woodward, K. (Eds) Understanding Social Lives, Part 2, Milton Keynes, The Open University.

Edwards, A.P., 1999. The relationship between helping behaviour and verbal immediacy (Doctoral dissertation).

Fischer, P., Krueger, J.I., Greitemeyer, T., Vogrincic, C., Kastenmüller, A., Frey, D., Heene, M., Wicher, M. and Kainbacher, M., 2011. The bystander-effect: A meta-analytic review on bystander intervention in dangerous and non-dangerous emergencies. Psychological bulletin, 137(4), p.517.

Latane, B. and Darley, J.M., 1968. Group inhibition of bystander intervention in emergencies. Journal of personality and social psychology, 10(3), p.215.

Maresca, J., 2016. Bystander: Stand by or Take Action? Research and Processes Involved with Bystander Intervention.

Munsch, C.L., Ridgeway, C.L. and Williams, J.C., 2014. Pluralistic ignorance and the flexibility bias: Understanding and mitigating flextime and flexplace bias at work. Work and Occupations, 41(1), pp.40-62.

Sagone, E. and De Caroli, M.E., 2013. Personality factors and civic moral disengagement in law and psychology university students. Procedia-Social and Behavioural Sciences, 93, pp.158-163.