Have you ever been in situation that seemed to call for immediate, vigorous action but you did nothing? It may even have been a life-and-death situation but something seemed to hold you back. Cowardice? Probably not. Apathy? Unlikely. You are still among the majority of good, well-intentioned people.
Picture it-Queens, New York, March 1964. A woman in her twenties named Cathy Genomes was killed in an attack on her own home street at night as she was going home from work. In a city the size of New York an incident like this one would have been quickly forgotten except that soon after the city police commissioner happened to be having lunch with A.M. Rosenthal of the New York Times. The Commish happened to let some facts slip about the case that made it fairly remarkable. These facts were bewildering, leaving everybody looking for explanations and scapegoats.
Genovese had not died a quick, quiet death. It had been a long, loud, protracted, tortured event. The killer had chased her in the street three times over a period of thirty-five minutes before he finished knifing her to death. Thirty-eight of her neighbors watched her being attacked from their windows without even bothering to pick up a phone and call the police! Within a week, the Times published a very long article emphasizing what was called the “bystander angle.”
The sound of the neighbors’ voices and the suddenness of the lights being switched on in their windows might have interrupted the attack and scared him away. But each time he came back, sought her out, and began stabbing her again. Not one person called the police during the attack; one woman did finally call the police after Cathy was dead.
The main, shocking and horrifying point of this story is one of inaction. Nobody understood. Even the murder witnesses themselves. A few people did say they were “afraid” or “didn’t want to get involved.” This is transparently bogus. A simple call to the police could have saved Cathy’s life without endangering the witnesses, or taking up too much of their free time.
So what happened? The press had a field day with this, of course, suggesting we were a nation of selfish, uncaring people who didn’t want to be bothered. Many ascribed it to “TV Violence” (heard that one before?) and many called it the “depersonalization” of city life, whatever that is.
Now I’m going to skip ahead of this sensation-mongering and give you a real explanation. Two New-York psychology professors, Bibb Latane and John Darley found the most unlikely explanation of all-it was that thirty-eight witnesses were present! With so many people around, the witnesses seemed to think that someone else would help. The second has to do with something called “social proof” and involves a pluralistic ignorance effect. Is the man lying in an alley having a heart attack or is he a drunk sleeping it off? Are the sounds from the street gunshots or a truck backfiring? Is the next-door couple having a loud spat or is he killing her? There is a tendency rooted deep in human psychology to look around you for social cues as to what to do in ambiguous situations. So while everyone is looking around at others, a lone individual would immediately understand and take action. The idea of safety in numbers may be sometimes misleading.
In the first experiment done by these psychologists, a New York college student who was faking an epileptic seizure got help 85% of the time from one passerby but only 31% of the time when five people were present. So how can you apply this information to save a life, say your own?
If you’d been in an accident and were staggering around about to lose consciousness, or were having a heart attack, or any number of things, be very clear about what is happening to you. Don’t just go around yelling for help or you’ll be ignored; the bigger the crowd, the better the chance you’ll get blown off. Personalize your demands! Say, “You there in the glasses-call 911! You there with the muscles-keep these people away from me so I can breathe. You in the tank top-help me stand up. You with the cell phone-call an ambulance!”
Get the picture? Be as precise as possible about your need for help. Do not allow bystanders to come to their own conclusions or they will ignore you. Again, it’s all in an understanding of the context. Pick out one individual and tell them exactly what to do, then another, assigning them a specific task. They’ll help you.
