When I was young, I’d naturally get an unsettling feeling whenever I had to walk past a homeless person. My mother would take my arm, pull me to her other side, tell me to look away, and to just keep walking. But my innocent self couldn’t accept this cold routine, nor could I understand why everyone on the street repeated it. Why must we be taught to ignore the responsibility of helping those in need?

Determined to challenge this mindset, I took my prized piggy bank and started saving any spare change I could find: with the intent of giving it to the homeless man who sat near my art school. My donation wouldn’t make a significant impact, but I felt a sense of pride in rejecting those immoral norms—taking one small, but right, step toward a better purpose.

This idea of blending into societal norms, even at the expense of compassion, brings me to the subject of my first blog post: the death of Kitty Genovese. On the night of March 13, 1964, 28-year-old Catherine Susan "Kitty" Genovese was walking home to her apartment building in Queens, New York. As she approached the front door, a man suddenly grabbed her and began stabbing her as she screamed for help. Hearing the commotion, a neighbor, Robert Mozer, shouted from his window, "Let that girl alone!" The attacker fled, but Kitty, gravely wounded, managed to crawl to the rear of the building. Tragically, her assailant, later identified as Winston Moseley— a married father of three with no prior criminal record—returned. He stabbed her, raped her, stole her money, and left her to bleed out that night.

Investigating this case fills one with a chilling sense of disbelief. The brutality Kitty endured, coupled with the lasting anguish it caused her loved ones, is deeply disturbing. As with many tragic events, it's hard not to wonder: could something have been done to prevent it? Would one action have changed the course of events?

The answer to that haunting question is painfully simple: yes, something—or rather, someone—could have rewritten this woman’s destiny. Kitty was attacked in New York City: a densely populated place where most blocks are surrounded by people. In fact, there were thirty-eight witnesses to her assault, yet only two took any action. If just one person had intervened decisively that night, Kitty Genovese might have survived.

The tragedy casted a colossal shame not just on the bystanders of that night, but one on society. (Are we, too, capable of meekly spectating as injustice unfolds before us?) As the story of Kitty Genovese reverberated through the media, it shocked the public. Psychologists soon identified this social phenomenon as ‘The Bystander Effect.’

The Bystander Effect describes how people are less likely to help in emergencies when others are present. The likelihood of interventions decrease as the number of bystanders increase. Ironically, individuals are more prone to assist when alone than in groups. Following Kitty’s murder, The New York Times launched debates about the current societal "moral decay.” Some neighbors explained their inaction with phrases such as, "I didn’t want to get involved," "We were afraid," and "I was tired. I went back to bed."

The public’s outraged reaction to Kitty Genovese’s murder prompted psychologists Bibb Latané and John Darley to explore why people sometimes help in emergencies and sometimes don’t, identifying the factors that influence our choice to act. They identified three psychological barriers that affect intervention: diffusion of responsibility, evaluation apprehension, and pluralistic ignorance. We can see the relevance of this model in the way the public neglects the homeless. While several explanations have been proposed, Latané and Darley’s work remains foundational in both sociology and psychology.

Diffusion of responsibility occurs when the presence of others diminishes an individual’s sense of obligation. Latané and Darley tested this by staging emergencies and measuring response times. They found that larger groups responded more slowly, though non-helpers often showed signs of distress, indicating uncertainty rather than apathy. In groups, people assume someone else will act, which leads to collective inaction. When passing homeless individuals—especially in cities with thousands of people rushing by daily—it's easy to save our money and reassure our guilty conscience that someone else will offer help. 

Evaluation apprehension is the fear of being judged for taking action. People may hesitate, fearing embarrassment, uncertainty, or even that their involvement could make matters worse. Worries about legal repercussions or being overshadowed by someone more capable may be relevant. When it comes to homelessness, many refrain from contributing due to the assumption that their individual efforts are ineffective.

Pluralistic ignorance arises when individuals look to others to interpret an ambiguous situation. If no one seems concerned, people assume there’s no emergency, which is damaging to our alertness. This influence allows issues to persist until the consequences are unjustifiable. A fitting illustration is Hans Christian Andersen’s story ‘The Little Match Girl’, where a poverty-stricken girl struggles to survive on a freezing New Year’s Eve. As she lights matches to warm herself, people pass by, ignoring her plight. Each assumes someone else will help, and the girl ultimately succumbs to the cold. The next morning, the townspeople surrounded her body, filled with pity, but her fate had already been sealed.

Although the Bystander Effect has become widely accepted, later studies have questioned the outstanding aspects of Kitty Genovese’s case. Research by Manning in 2007 examined court documents, revealing that many believed facts were exaggerated. For example, while it was said that 38 people witnessed the crime, most only heard screams and didn’t see the attacker. The second fatal stabbing happened in a stairwell, out of view for most witnesses. These insights have prompted some to reevaluate the Bystander Effect's relevance in this situation, yet they have not diminished the overarching theory it sparked.

Latané and Darley’s research, along with Kitty’s case, both continue to shape social psychology, with ongoing studies exploring human behavior in emergencies. The Bystander Effect remains a crucial area of study, relevant not only to dramatic crimes but also to everyday situations. Whether it’s attempting to cheer up a person who may need it, intervening in an escalating public conflict, or even helping out your local homeless community, we all have the ability to defy the immoral standards that society has constructed. The choice is ours: find the courage to act for what we know is right, or we stand by, hoping someone else will.

11/24/2024