As you wait to cross the street, a blind man is standing in front of you.
Without warning, he begins to cross the street even though the light has not
changed in his favor. He seems to be in no danger until you see a car about a
half mile away speeding towards him. Totally unaware of the situation, the man
continues walking across the street. As you and many others watch in horror he
is struck by the car. Although every single one of you had plenty of time to
rescue him, you just watched, hoping that someone else would do it. After all,
you don\'t know him so it\'s really none of your business. This is what is
referred to as \"bystander apathy\". People close enough to see, hear and
possibly touch one another are socially distant and totally indifferent to the
fact that another human being may be dying, in immediate danger, or asking for
help. This extremely sad urban problem is just that- a problem of cities. The
likelihood of this occurring increases with the number of people present and it
is probable that there will be many people to witness an event when it happens
in high density cities. Urban sociologists, social psychologists, and
criminologists have argued for years that the size of cities is directly related
to the amount of \"social pathology\" they contain. The legal consequences are
not severe. Unless an individual is a certified medical doctor, they have no
obligation in Alberta to help anyone in need. So generally, they don\'t. The
personal consequences may be more severe. Feelings of guilt and regret may
follow an event, especially if it ends fatally or if the individual feels that
they could have done something significant. Because of this, people attempt to
convince themselves and others that they were justified in their inaction
because \"it wasn\'t their place\", \"I didn\'t want to do it alone\", or \"I
didn\'t want to get involved.\" Excuses like this often stem from fears of being
seen as abnormal, possible physical harm, public embarrassment, possible
involvement in police procedures, lost work days and jobs, and other dangers.
Urban people are very concerned with the way they appear to others. Anything
that may separate them from the \"in-group\" of society is usually seen as too
risky to take part in. And strangely enough, helping people in need is seen as
one of these risks. A study was done on seminarian students to see how likely
they were to stop for a young student in distress. As reviewed by Brenner and
Levin, out of the total 40 that passed the distressed student, only 16 stopped
to help. Before allowing the students to come upon the confederate in need, the
experimenters presented students with either writings about job applications, or
the Good Samaritan Parable. This proved to have no effect on the likelihood of
the student offering to help. I find this somewhat perplexing; one would think
that especially after being shown text about helping someone in need as being
\"the right thing to do\" that they would stop because of the guilt that may
plague them. But the study showed that the main factor determining the choice to
stop was whether or not they were in a hurry. I personally doubt that there
would be any repercussions for being late if the reason was helping a fellow
seminarian in need. But this study proves that people think otherwise. It has
also been proposed that territoriality and social distance may be good
predictors of willingness to prevent criminal behaviours. As presented by Gillis
and Hagan, the disorganization theorists (Simmel et al.) claim that the
unwavering activity of urban areas results in psychological withdrawal from
others as a way to avoid stimulation overload. People in cities are no more
likely to help neighbors than complete strangers, but their \"social
accountability\" holds them responsible for friends and family. According to
Gillis and Hagan, people are more willing to intervene when the violation is
against a person than when it is against property. This is most probable because
people perceive the property damage as less serious than attacking the person.
But for both the property and personal attacks, people indicated that likelihood
of intervention was related to proximity to home. Willingness to intercede is
more likely when the crime was occurring near a persons\' home. This is known as
\"space-associated intolerance\" and supports Gillis and Hagan\'s hypothesis
that territoriality plays an important part in intervention. Possibly the reason
that the Kitty Genovese homicide was seen as so horrific is because not only did
it violate the law, but the norms concerning territoriality as well. Because
Gillis and Hagan\'s data come from questionnaires, the subjects may respond the
way that they believe that they should act, rather than the way that they would
act. I believe that without a similar incident actually occurring to someone,
that it would be almost impossible to say what you would do. Testers are
requesting emotions that you most likely have never experienced before. Darley
and Latane argue that persons witnessing emergency situations, especially
frightening ones, experience conflict. Logical or irrational fears may get in
the way of obvious humanitarian norms about helping the victim. In certain
circumstances, any norms favoring intervention may be weakened, leading
bystanders to choose the easiest resolution to the conflict; by looking the
other way. One such circumstance may be the presence of other onlookers. The
responsibility of helping the victim may be diffused among the observers, which
limits the potential blame that can be placed on any one individual. As well,
the thoughts of the possibilities of someone already doing something about it
lessens the individuals feeling of responsibility. If the case is that there is
only one person present at the scene of the attack, any possible help must come
from that person. Although there is the option to ignore the need, pressure to
intervene mounts on them. When a person perceives themselves as the only person
who know of the victims\' condition they are much more likely to respond, and to
do so quickly than if in a group (more than one other bystander). Also stated by
Darley and Latane is that the victim is equally as likely to get help from two
bystanders as one. Responding time is also critical to the likelihood of action.
Failure to respond to a situation after approximately 3 minutes greatly
decreases the likelihood of any type of intervention, including reporting the
incident or asking for help. Although we all may wish to think that a person\'s
moral behaviour is separate from thoughts about rewards and punishments,
evidence proves otherwise. People\'s fears of being punished for not intervening
are greatly lessened when within a group because the blame cannot be placed
directly on them. Variations in sex and medical competence of other bystanders
has no important affect on response. Darley and Latane\'s study contradicts the
bias that males tend to assume more responsibility and take more initiative than
females in giving help to dependent others. Females are shown to respond just as
quickly as male subjects. Darley and Latane state that although subjects may
have failed to intervene or report the emergency, that there were few signs of
apathy and indifference thought to distinguish \"unresponsive bystanders\". When
asked about the incident afterwards, subjects often responded with concern as to
whether or not the victim was \"all right.\" Many of the seemingly apathetic
subjects showed physical signs of nervousness, possibly more than the subjects
who did respond. Darley and Latane argue that the unresponsive subjects simply
did not respond because they were still in a state of decision making. They
claim that these people are not \"dehumanized by urbanization\" or
\"depersonalized by living in the cold society.\" I personally believe that the
explanation for the increased physical nervousness is that the unresponsive
subjects were fearful of the consequences for something that they knew was not
morally right. Subjects that did respond did not show that extent of nervousness
because they knew that they did what they should. I think that they gave the
experimenters the answers they thought were \"correct\" because they were
ashamed to report socially undesirable rationalizations, like \"I didn\'t want
to get involved.\" I personally have no doubt that in a situation that demands
immediate action, that a person does not take 3 minutes to respond. If
individuals really cared about others, they would not think twice about
intervening to better someone else. I am presenting myself as a case study for
\"bystander apathy.\" I personally am appalled by the thought of being able to
look the other way when there is someone in need. I cannot possibly understand
how someone can attempt to justify the fact that they did not intervene to help
someone in distress when they know that they could have. I have been in a few
situations where I have been a bystander of misfortune and am usually one of the
few, if not the only, to intervene. When I was in my first year of university, I
went to a private Christian university in British Columbia. Perhaps this had an
impact on the way that I think, and how leaving a person in need to fend for
themselves is never a consideration. I traveled home quite often, about once a
month. I was late for my flight home for Christmas break. As I was checking in,
I heard a loud thud and a woman began to yell for a doctor. I turned to see an
elderly man lying on his back, obviously unconscious. Without thinking twice
about it, (and not being a doctor of any sorts), I ran through people who were
staring at the poor man and began to help him. I used the emergency training
that I had, and checked for a pulse and checked his eyes and some other things
that I simply cannot remember. I cradled his head in my hand and spoke to him in
hopes of getting a response, after his vital signs showed me that he seemed to
have fainted. After a few minutes, he came to, so I sat him up and attempted to
comfort him as best I could. He told me that his wife was missing and that there
was no record of her getting on a connecting flight. After assuring him that
everything was going to be Ok, and deciding that he was well enough to fare on
his own, I raced to catch my plane. All the while I was surrounded by people
that did not even offer to help. The fact that I was late to catch my plane or
that it was possible that I would have to wait longer to see my family and
boyfriend did not even occur to me. This is why it is unimaginable to me to not
help someone in need. A strange thing happens when I refuse to be an apathetic
bystander. I get ridiculed and told that I am too hasty with my decisions. When
I stopped to help a man who\'s car had broken down in -40 degree weather and
drove him to safety, my mother told me that it was not a smart decision. When I
am forced to think of all the things that could have happened to me, sure, I
think that I may suffer from a bit of naivete. But when I ponder what could have
happened to the person if I would not have helped out, I do not think that I
made a mistake. Something that I think is equally as unfortunate as the problem
of bystander apathy is the general lack of ideas proposed to solve it. In
California, and now in Alberta, there is a law that prohibits any medical doctor
from leaving an injured person, no matter who they are. A good example of this
is a soccer game that I attended this summer. The guys\' team of the league that
I am in was playing a Spanish team. To make a long story short, things got very
out of hand and the Spanish team ended up attacking and beating up our team. A
mother of a Spanish player was trampled in the rush towards our side of the
field. The doctor on our team ran immediately to help her, while behind him some
Spanish players had decided to gang up on one of our players, which eventually
left him unconscious. The doctor did not leave the woman\'s side until he was
sure that she was all right. I believe that this smoothed things out a little
between the two teams; one reason that I am all for this law. I think that if
cities increased their sense of community and responsibility for each other,
that people would be more inclined to intervene in adverse situations. People
are more likely to help someone that they feel a bond to. The media could also
play a big part in helping prevent bystander apathy. There are many anti-smoking
and anti-violence campaigns that create posters and commercials for their cause.
The media has a significant impact on urban life, and I believe that this could
make a big difference. Many years ago, a young woman by the name of Catherine
(Kitty) Genovese was stabbed to death in the middle of a street in a residential
area in New York City. This case received little attention until several weeks
later when it was revealed that at least 38 people had witnessed the event, but
not one chose to act. For more than half an hour, Kitty cried out for help to no
avail. All 38 people chose instead to watch from the safety of their own
apartments, not one lifted the telephone to call the police; something that
could have been anonymous and did not require any direct intervention. Since
that day, many have decided to focus on the anomie and social distance that
seems to characterize cities and other urban areas. Physical proximity is now is
totally unrelated to social closeness. Just because you are near enough to
collide with someone doesn\'t mean that you are going to touch them; touch them
with a kind word, a smile, or saving them from harm. Despite the people \"in
blue\" and those of us naïve enough to lend a hand, the city tells of a sad
story. A story that speaks of people who pretend that they don\'t care about one
another; it\'s just too much hassle in their busy lives to reach out to another
human being.
Bibliography
Bibliography Gillis, A. R. and John Hagan.
1983. \"Bystander Apathy and the Territorial Imperative\" Sociological Inquiry
53(4): 449-460. Brenner, Arline R. and James M. Levin. 1973. \"Off-Duty
Policemen and Bystander \"Apathy\"\" Journal of Police Science and
Administration 1(1): 61-64. Darley, John M. and Bibb Latane. 1968. \"Bystander
Intervention in Emergencies: Diffusion of Responsibility\" Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology 8(4, PT1): 377-383
Word Count: 2434