New York. 1964. Kitty Genovese. Stabbed to death by a serial rapist and murderer.
Duration of murder: about 35 minutes.
Location: around her neighborhood.
Number of witnesses: at least 38.
None of the witnesses reacted or could account for their indifference afterwards.
The American public was appalled by their apathy towards the emergency.
Singapore. 2001. David (not his real name). Brutally assaulted by a youth gang.
Duration of assault: about 20 minutes.
Location: outside a popular shopping mall.
Number of witnesses: at least 40.
None of the witnesses responded or could justify their lack of concern afterwards.
The public was dismayed by their indifference towards the emergency.
So has Singaporeans finally been infected by the apathetic attitude that urban dwellers are stereotypically attributed with? Fortunately, for our society’s sake, the answer (from a social scientist's perspective) is a resounding NO. These incidents do not reflect unsympathetic attitudes of people; instead, it displays a powerful and consuming social force that inhibits helping behaviour (yes, even in life and death situations): The bystander effect.
Simply, the bystander effect posits that the presence of other passive bystanders reduces helping behaviour in an emergency. Latane and Darley (1970) proposed three distinct processes that may account for the regularly observed tendency of bystanders to restrain each others’ responsiveness in emergencies: social influence, evaluation apprehension and diffusion of responsibility.
The Singapore case study will be used to elaborate how these three processes contribute to the bystander effect.
Social influence asserts that an individual evaluates the responses of other bystanders to facilitate identification of the possibly unclear helping situation; gaining signals about the seriousness and genuineness of the emergency and normative indications about appropriateness of responses. Perhaps when the assault started, most bystanders were in shock as such an incident would rarely occur under broad daylight in a relatively crowded public setting. However, as the action continues to unfold, the bystanders remained stagnant (perhaps not knowing how to react). This inaction of several bystanders inhibits intervention as any individual comprehends the situation as less severe and critical than it really is (simply because no one is responding!).
Evaluation apprehension contends that individual bystanders believe others are mindful of their responses. Hence, the presence of others readily reduces intervention as they are concerned that others can observe and appraise their behaviour negatively. In this instance, bystanders may want to avert the negative appraisal of being a ‘busybody’ or ‘self-righteous person’. Alternatively, they may be fearful of on-looking gang members in the vicinity; hence, putting them in an unnecessarily dangerous position. In any case, the situation is high-risk in nature, thus, making bystanders more unlikely to intervene as they may not want to be labeled as ‘fools’ by others, especially if they get a bashing for ‘dabbling in someone else’s affairs’ (this appears to be a culture-specific perspective exclusive in Singapore).
Diffusion of responsibility serves as the mechanism for bystanders to ease the costs related to non-intervention. The mere presence of others lessens any expected blame for inaction as the costs would be shared. Additionally, the awareness that others are present and available to respond allows the shifting of some responsibility for helping, thus, intervention can be inhibited as the number of passive bystanders increases. Given that there were about 40 people in the vicinity of the assault (a relatively large crowd), the level of inhibition was greatly increased. Moreover, most bystanders present at the scene were laypeople (e.g., students, housewives etc.), hence, it could be assumed that none of them possessed the neccessary situational awareness and competency to handle the brawl adequately; hence, further diffusing personal responsibility in this instance.
The bystander effect is an overwhelming and undesirable social force that prohibits helping behaviour (even in times of emergency). Personally, it is my desire to see more confounding observations being made with regards to this phenomenon; that help is offered regardless of the inhibitory social forces at play. Despite the relative strength of this phenomenon to restrain helping, it still does not justify our inaction adequately, especially on a moral basis. Though this effect can be used to alleviate the guilt and responsibilities of unresponsive bystanders, the detrimental consequences are not eradicated or lessened– especially if a life is at stake!
Several studies have examined several variables (such as gender, environmental setting, severity of the emergency, familiarity with victim etc.) that may affect the responsiveness of bystanders and impressive results have been published. Perhaps it is now time to research on how this undesriable social force can be reduced or eliminated - especially in high-risk situations.
Indeed, we're all slaves to what controls us; be it our personal beliefs or social circumstances. Let us then be slaves of love and true righteousness that in whatever we do, we esteem others above ourselves; looking to each others' interests and preferences.
Rather than justifying our apathy with social inhibition (even though scientific research has given us 'legitimate' reasons to do so), let us be different and refute apathy caused by social inhibition.
Master the social situation rather than be mastered by it.
*Latane, B., & Darley, J. M. (1970). Help in a crisis: Bystander response to an emergency. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.