Kitty Genovese syndrome is one of the most popular cases in the field of social psychology. The incident itself is entirely brutal, even the form of murder can be examined as a case on its own. I do not know how accurate it is to call it syndrome, but in general it has become a phenomenon remembered like this. I'll explain it in a little more detail. First of all, I am talking about acne, and then I will talk about why the event gave birth to a psychological theory. It feels like a semi-scientific article.
On March 13, 1964, Catherine (Kitty) Genovese set out on his way to the stud house where he worked. He was attacked by Winston Moseley. The attack took 35 minutes and this attack was repeated 3 times in 35 minutes. When Kitty shouted for help, the assailant ran away and continued to stab and beat.
There are several scenarios related to the murder, one I mentioned above. The other one is that Kitty has escaped to his apartment after the first attack, but it is a common fact that he is called for help. What is happening? The following is the case; even if one of them answered the call for help and did not call the police.
After the incident, the police could get detailed statements from 38 people, but none of them looked for policemen at the time of the attack. Here is the place where the wrath of the wise man says; 38 people say the attack is watching the anbean, but not even one person is calling the police.
The event naturally attracts attention to the psychology community and researches and experiments are starting. As a result of these investigations and experiments, the Bystander Effect and Diffusion of Responsibility theorem emerges. Why are these? Let's look at them.
Also called Spectator Disinterested. The quiche is not helping the victim when there are other people around. Help behavior and the number of spectators around are inversely proportional. So the more people around, the less likely it is to be helped.
In this case, there are three factors that may cause the Spectator Effect. The first of these is Multiple Red, which I can explain by saying, "The others do not help, so there is no help." The second is Social Inhibition; to stand out, to make mistakes, to worry about ruining the situation. In more detail, I will discuss the above Diffusion of Responsibility.
It's a psychological phenomenon. Large groups reveal that the people in their care do not behave in a helping way. In short, we can say that everyone throws the ball together. Particularly crowded groups, these people feel like they are going to do what they need, like apartment blocks or the street. They share responsibility.
Darley and Latané, who have been working on the Dissemination of Responsibility, have found some information on how the process of helping behavior has evolved. Namely;
The first step involves problem / inversion.
In this step the audience really decides whether there is an emergency.
In my most critical step, I personally decide whether to act or not.
He decides what to do.
Eventually, it gets into action.
Again, as a result of the same research, they found factors that affect the spread of responsibility. What it reduces, what information it increases.
What Increases Responsibility Dissemination?
Anonymity: Those who do not know the victim often stay behind and expect the crowd to ask someone else for help.
Suspicious Situations: They do not understand what is, who is the victim, or can not decide whether or not it is really a help. They are therefore hesitant to help.
Decrease Responsibility Dissemination
Knowing the victim: Those who have some sort of closeness with the victim (gender, race, language, religion) or who have knowledge about the victim are helping at a higher level.
Calling a Specific Person Help: When you cry out to the crowd, "someone help me!", Pointing out the person and saying "you call the ambulance immediately!"
Getting Help: People often fail to help because they do not have enough skills. Those who have received first aid training, for example, are more willing to help an accident.