Why do we not help each other when we are in need? Bystander
behaviour:
Introduction to Bystander Behaviour:
What is a healthy neighbourhood or community? (The Open University, 2014) Expresses a healthy
neighbourhood or community is simultaneously a group of people who take care of one another and
interact, forming relationships. While also, not being noisy into each other’s lives. Attwood et al.,
(2003, p. 58) cited in The Open University (2014) explains a 2001 government survey’s results found
that 84% of participants defined a neighbourhood as being a group of people who look after each
other. Harris and Gale (2004, p.16) cited in The Open University (2014) acknowledges that a
‘Manchester neighbourhoods’ study (documented in a published title of ‘Looking out for each
other’) additionally found that participants believed that a neighbourhood as being a ‘safety zone’ to
protect each other.
Even though this is what a lot of people consider to be a healthy neighbourhood; sometimes, this is
not what behaviour of individuals in a neighbourhood reflect. This is what we will be discussing in
this study note. Why do we help each other in some situations and not in others?
The Impact of Catherine ‘Kitty’ Genovese and James Bulger Murder Cases:
Many tries have been conducted to research social psychology centred prosocial/ helping behaviour
as stated by Penner et aal. (2005) based of sources like, McDougell (1908) as cited in The Open
University (2015) A situation that inspired this research was Catherine ‘Kitty’ Genovese’s murder.
She was murdered on the 13th of March in 1964, within New York by a man called Winston Mosely.
Rosenthal, 2008 [1964] cited in the Open University (2014) states that this occurred when Kitty was
returning from work at night-time, outside her home. The attack lasted for longer than half an hour-
which involved her being stabbed 6 times. The Open University (2014) explains that one person
went as far just to yell at the attacker, “to leave her alone.” A coroner highlighted, that Catherine
would have survived if an ambulance arrived a few minutes later- meaning if someone would have
called earlier, she could have survived. It is explained that murders during the 1960s in New York
was far from being unheard off; however, the fact that there were so many witnesses that did not
seem to act appropriately fast enough, drew extra attention to this crime case. The New York times,
on the 27th of March, reported that 38 people witnessed Catherine’s murder outside her home. In
this report, it stated that these witnesses let Catherine down. They only helped her after she had
died. The public and researchers wanted to understand why she was neglected in this way;
therefore, it started a debate to answer this question, which led into many related research projects.
Social Psychologist Bibb Latané and John Darley wanted to investigate this topic in terms of
psychology (Evens, 1980, cited in The Open University, 2015) These two were curious if the number
of witnesses involved and the witnesses’ behaviour had a correlation. This research perspective was
not absent of criticism- Cherry (1995) cited in The Open University (2015) believed that Latané and
Darley’s work here, was impacted by their social psychology background. Latané and Darley’s
research uncovering Catherine’s murder was centred on interpreting the independent variable (the
group size) effect on the dependent variable (the witnesses’ behaviour) The seemingly unique
situation of Catherine’s murder, developed into a huge research area in psychology, on bystander
behaviour. A play, film and book were created later based on her murder. Rosenthal (2008) cited in
The Open University (2014) referenced that this murder brought to the surface the lapse in the
neighbour hood’s format. The witnesses were negatively criticized by professionals, journalist and
commenters- they were labelled as a “cold society” due to their seemingly neglectful behaviour.
, Unfortunately, Genovese’s death is not a unique situation of seemingly a lack in a healthy, strong
community (The Open University, 2014) James Bulger was with his mum at a Liverpool’s Strand
shopping mall in Merseyside in February 1993. James Bulger was a two-year-old, taken by two ten-
year-olds. They took him through areas of Liverpool, including the suburbs of Bootle and Walton for
two hours- then ended this trip with taking him to a railway track, where they killed him and left him
on the tracks. This case drew the shocked and curious eye of civilians from around the world (The
Open University, 2014) due to the seriousness and uniqueness of the case, from the fact that this
extremely dreadful crime was committed by two ten-year-olds. The killers were children themselves-
surely, they should be innocent, as well, right? Another significant detail of the case that drew
curiosity, was that there were shockingly 38 witnesses. The same amount witnesses in the Catherine
‘Kitty’ Genovese case.
The Open University (2014) educates that negative behaviour towards James was witnessed by
many of these individuals (I suspect these individuals did not predict the extreme fate of James in
the end, despite it being stated that they did witness the mistreatment of James by his soon-to-be
killers. Otherwise, I bet at least someone would have acted more. But, in my opinion, as cases like
this are so incredibly rare, the witnesses did not predict the potential result- which hopefully, helps
explain the witnesses’ arguably neglectful behaviour. I guess you cannot prevent something that you
could not even predict)
The Open University (2014) highlights that some witnesses stated they noticed the killers hurting
James as they took him around town. Notably, only 2 of the witnesses intervened by challenging the
killers. These specific witnesses were mentioned later, to be filled with undoubtable guilt, that they
should have forced James back to his mother even stronger. Morrison (1996, p.68) cited in The Open
University (2014) explains the witnesses were branded the label of the ‘Liverpool 38’ in reference to
their perceived lack of help they provided when it was most needed. The Guardian (1993, p. 25)
cited in The Open University (2014) in a piece of writing called ‘Lesson of an avoidable tragedy’- they
wrote a piece about the James Bulger crime case, mentioning while referencing the witnesses and
questioning the general public, that is the “have a go?” behaviour now a piece of history- no longer a
current helpful resource. Highlighting, the bystanders unfortunate, lack-lustre help. As I said before,
a healthy neighbourhood is meant to be built on characteristic of being friendly, respectful of privacy
and there if help is needed. The Open University (2014) stated the importance that even though
these bystanders were not James’ literal neighbours, they were neighbours, in terms of living in the
same society as him. In this sense, they can be easily as seen as being absent in their role of
protecting other neighbours (in this case, James)
Latané and Darley’s experiments:
The Open University (2014) explains that Latané and Darley wanted to conduct an experiment to
find out why individuals would help others in some situations but, not in other situations. What
influences control the actions of bystanders? They conducted many variations of their studies,
where each of which, they manipulated a specific variable to see the results this manipulation would
make- one of which was with a partnership with colleague, Judith Rodin. This variation of their study
that they conducted with Rodin was called the ‘the lady in distress.’ One thing they wanted to test
was whether the presence of others influence individual’s reactions to emergencies. They wanted to
find out if there was a difference in bystander behaviour compared with, if there was just one other
bystander around, if the individual were on their own or if they were with a large group of
bystanders.
