Bystander effect and diffusion of responsibility.

On a cold winter night 29 year old Kitty Genovese was murdered in the Kew Gardens section of Queens, New York in three separate attacks.  Kitty’s Genovese murder in an apartment complex and the witnesses’ reluctance to call the police to report the murder caught the attention of the people and the psychologist around the world. In the course of the investigation police found that at least 38 people had some knowledge that somebody was attacked. “For more than half an hour 38 respectable, law-abiding citizens in Queens watched a killer stalk and stab a woman in three separate attacks in Kew Gardens.”(March 27 1964, New York times, cited by Boston boomer on his blog, Confluence).  Many witnessed Winston Moseley; murderer of Kitty coming back and forth to his car and torturing the victim. Nobody, but a lady called the police when she found Kitty was lying dead in the stairways. The news coverage on the front part of New York Times on March 27 1964 by Martin Gansberg made the case more sensational and eventually led to a ground breaking research on social Psychology and the discovery of new information about human behavior: bystander effect and the diffusion of responsibility.

 After the Kitty’s murder became public and sensational many analyst including social scientists called it as inhumane and suggested the incidence as the alienation of others apathy. Social psychologists John Darley and Bibb Latané started this line of research in 1964. The main reason of the research was why no one stepped up to help Kitty though they heard her cry for help. The hypothesis resembled the case of kitty Genovese. Besides the findings when one of the witness admitted that she heard Kitty’s cry for help but she didn’t want to get involved and neglected it. In another face was no one saw the whole scenario of the murder. Some saw her just being chased and thought it was a mere argument between couples.  Also when a lot of rooms were lighted in the complex the witnesses considered that the incident was seen by other people too; and thought that others might come for rescue or report the case to the emergency personnel.

To find out what exactly happened the psychologists Darley and Latane performed an experiment with the university students. About 59 students were called for the experiment and they were told that the experiment is about the main problems faced by the college students who live in the cities like New York.  They were also told that to maintain the anonymity, they will be placed in a separate cabin and can communicate through intercom.  This was actually a deception. The subjects were given a limited time to speak. After they expressed their experience the connection was cut off and they could only hear. When the experiment began after a while one of the participants starts to show signs of seizure, he speaks with a stammering voice and then falls crying for help. The microphone of the subject cuts off after the allotted time. The seizure was fake and prerecorded. To make it sound real the microphone was cut after the allotted time. The goal of the experiment was to measure the speed at which the participants inform the incident and how it varies when more than one people are watching the scene. (JOHN M. DARLEY BIBB LATANÉ, 1964)

            The result matched the hypothesis. When the subject knew that he/she is the only one who knows about the incident 85% of them reported immediately. When there were more than one people who knew about the incident the rate of reporting decreased. It was only 31%. When they were asked why they didn’t come out to report, the subjects said that others would do it. So, because of the diffusion of responsibility the subjects knew if it is not reported they need not have to feel completely guilty. 

The experiment had overhead microphones too. What was heard in the microphone made it obvious that many of the subjects wanted to help the person with seizure. Since the participants were also said that the experiment is a serious one and not to leave the cabin unless for a special reason; they thought it is insincere to disobey the rules.  Here the authoritative power also came into play while in the real incident of Kitty Genovese such power was not existent. Since the constraints are not identical to the real scenario the outcome of the results are not totally credible. However like in the apartment’s room where the neighbors are debarred from communication so were the participants separated in the cabin. This condition has however increased the credibility of the experiment.