Social Psychology 495individuals who make altruistic choices, particularly in the right hemisphere (Morishima
et al., 2012). This area was also more active during decision making that involved a
greater cost of helping the individual.
More importantly, why do people sometimes refuse to help when their own lives
are not at risk?
WHY PEOPLE WON’T HELP On March 13, 1964, at about 3:15 in the morning, Winston
Mosely saw Catherine “Kitty” Genovese in the parking lot of her apartment complex,
stabbed her, left, and then came back nearly half an hour later to rape and stab her to
death in the entryway of the complex. Upon learning of the crime, a reporter for The New
Yo r k Ti m e s wrote a story in which he claimed that at least 38 people heard or watched
some part of the fatal attack from their apartment windows and that not one of these peo-
ple called the police until after the attack was over (Delfiner, 2001; Gado, 2004; Rosenthal,
1964). This story outraged the public and has since become a symbol of bystander apathy.
In recent years, the truth of that fateful event has come to light, and the details may be
more complex than originally reported. According to trial records, the two attacks occurred
much closer in time than originally believed. At the first attack, a man shouted out his win-
dow “Leave that girl alone!” and Moseley fled. Another man supposedly called the police
after that first attack, although there is no record of the call. The second attack took place
in the entryway to the apartment complex—a far more sheltered area in which there could
have been only a few witnesses. At this point, another witness, Sophia Farrar, told a friend
to call the police while she went to Kitty Genovese’s aid and held her until an ambulance
arrived (Cook, 2014; Manning et al., 2007). Even though some did call for help and at least
one came to Kitty’s aid, there were several witnesses who still stood by and did nothing. One
man, whose apartment door opened onto the entryway where the second attack occurred,
cracked open his apartment door, saw the attack—and closed the door (Cook, 2014).
People were outraged by the apparent indifference and lack of sympathy for the poor
woman’s plight. Why did those people simply stand by and watch or listen? Social psy-
chologists would explain that the lack of response to Kitty Genovese’s screams for help was
not due to indifference or a lack of sympathy but instead to the presence of other people.
Forty-three years later on June 23, 2007, 27-year-old LaShanda Calloway was
stabbed to death during an argument in a convenience store. It took 2 minutes for some-
one to call 9-1-1. Surveillance video captured the attack, including the five shoppers who
stepped over her bleeding form and continued shopping. One customer did stop—to take
a picture of Ms. Calloway as she lay dying on the floor (Hegeman, 2007). When other peo-
ple are present at the scene or are assumed to be present, individuals are affected by two
basic principles of social psychology: the bystander effect and diffusion of responsibility.
The bystander effect refers to the finding that the likelihood of a bystander (someone
observing an event and close enough to offer help) to help someone in trouble decreases
as the number of bystanders increases. If only one person is standing by, that person
is far more likely to help than if there is another person, and the addition of each new
bystander decreases the possibility of helping behavior even more (Darley & Latané, 1968;
Eagly & Crowley, 1986; Latané & Darley, 1969). In the case of Kitty Genovese, there were
38 “bystanders” at the windows of the apartment buildings, and none of them helped.
There is some evidence that only six or seven people actually saw parts of the attack, while
others heard what some interpreted as a lovers’ quarrel. No one apparently witnessed the
entire event from start to finish, and the greater part of the assault actually took place out
of the hearing of any witnesses (Rasenberger, 2006). Still, not one person called the police.
Social psychologists Bibb Latané and John Darley conducted several classic experi-
ments about the bystander effect. In one study, participants were filling out questionnaires
in a room that began to fill with smoke. Some participants were alone in the room, whereas
in another condition there were three participants in the room. In a third condition, one par-
ticipant was in the room with two confederates of the experimenter, who were instructed to
notice the smoke but ignore it afterward. In the “participant alone” condition, three fourths
bystander effect
referring to the effect that the
presence of other people has on the
decision to help or not help, with help
becoming less likely as the number
of Dystanders increases.