The Power of Transference: A Take on The Bystander Effect

Sociology and Psychology

Photograph: John Lau

On March 13th, 1964, Kitty Genovese was murdered outside her apartment in New York. After 2 weeks of investigation, the New York Times published an article which claimed how, among the 38 citizens who witnessed the murder, none of them called the police. Karl Ross –– a neighbor of Kitty who witnessed her getting stabbed by the murderer, phoned another one of Kitty’s neighbors to call the police. Karl’s explanation was “I didn’t want to get involved” –– the phrase that became the famous rejoinder of the Bystander Effect. This case was considered to be one of the driving forces to implement the 911 emergency call system. Before the 1960s, there was no centralized number to call in an emergency situation. This system allowed emergency communication and responses to be customized in ways that best suits the needs of the community.

Sociologists, psychologists, and journalists have spent the last 50 years investigating the connection between the bystander effect and the diffusion of responsibility –– two phenomenons that are embedded in people’s lack of action due to the presence of other bystanders. As a result, witnesses feel less personal responsibility to step in. The bystander effect is a social psychological theory that makes an individual hesitant to intervene the problem in the hopes that someone else will eventually help. Another major reason why bystanders fail to react in such situations is due to the fact that they believe that the majority behaves passive towards the situation: no matter how bad the situation seems to be, it is socially acceptable and reasonable. Hence, people instinctively adhere to the same thinking and conform to their surroundings. This process of following a pattern without actively thinking is called pluralistic ignorance. Additionally, evaluation apprehension is also a component that plays into the bystander effect. It is the fear of being judged by others when acting publicly when no one else is, and therefore, inhibits reactions that may include offering unwanted assistance or facing legal consequences.

Ten days after Kitty Genovese’s murder, psychologists John Darley and Bibb Latané conducted research to explain how those 38 bystanders are connected to the social-psychological principles that they knew. In their research, it was statistically proven that 85 percent of the participants who witnessed a 2-person situation helped the victim, whereas only 62 percent of participants who were in a three-person situation, and 31 percent in a six-person situation stepped in to help. Darley and Lantané attributed this result as the diffusion of responsibility, where, despite a feeling of anonymity, the liability dilutes across multiple bystanders across the room as people assume the others would help the one in distress. Yet, the result is often portrayed as altruistic inertia.

Let’s view this from a different aspect. What happens when one person decides to step up and help the person in need of assistance? It is shocking to see the drastic turn of events. It only takes one person to become the catalyst to inspire others to take action. Metaphorically speaking, in a chemical solution, the catalyst creates a reaction that enables the reaction needed to happen. To put this in perspective of an emergency situation, when one person steps in to help, their surroundings will follow this pattern and foster a sense of empathy to assist the ones in need. Margaret Mead –– a well-known cultural anthropologist once said to “never doubt that a small group of thoughtful citizens can change the world.” The power of transference comes in when that small group becomes the catalyst for other people to follow. It is needless to say that everyone feels massive uncertainty when wanting to take action in a difficult situation. However, deep down everyone shares some sense of moral obligation and responsibility to make that change, and it all boils down to who takes the first step. Scientific studies show that the brain's initial biological response is inaction due to personal fear. If there is more sympathy than personal distress, sympathy will then arise, prompting someone to help the victim.

Would things have ended differently in Kitty Genovese’s situation if 911 existed back then? The emergency phone system has changed since then, but has our pattern of apathy changed along with it? At this time in our history, we must learn to always understand that we should not expect others to be the first to act in a crisis. It is vital for us to be active witnesses and turn helping into a habitual response. We should try not to worry about the consequences of helping despite the risks we might face because our actions will most likely save others from danger. Most importantly, we must muster up the courage to speak up and involve others as well because within each of us lies the capacity of heroism.