Weakness Of The Masses

Have you ever been in a situation where, becausewhere they were greeted by experimenters,
of the numbers in your group, you didn't reallythey were told they could choose only one piece
give it your all? For example, maybe on anof candy. In some cases, the experimenter asked
academic group project you weren't as diligent asthe children their names, while in other cases the
you would have been had you been solelychildren were allowed to remain anonymous. The
responsible for the assignment. Or, maybe you'veexperimenter would then leave the room, as
helped push a stalled car to safety with somethough they had to go get something. Unseen
other people but didn't really push your hardest.observers took careful note of how the children
When we find ourselves in groups, there is aresponded: When alone, 7.5 percent took more
diffusion of responsibility. Sometimes we don'tthan one piece of candy; when in groups, 20.8
know whether we should even involve ourselvespercent took more than one piece! It was also
in the first place, since there are so many otherinteresting to observe that the children who
people who could take action. Have you everremained anonymous stole more candy than did
seen someone pulled over on the side of thethe children who gave out their names.
road, but you just kept driving along with all theDe-individuation prompted many of the
other cars speeding by? When there are largetrick-or-treaters to go against what was socially
numbers of people involved, we tend to assumeacceptable and steal more candy.
someone else will respond and take action first, orOne particular case in history stands out as a
we might conclude that our help is not reallyclassic example of Bystander Apathy. Catherine
needed.Genovese, a young woman living in New York
Numerous studies demonstrate that whenCity, was murdered one night when returning
someone is in trouble or in need of help, as thehome from work. The unfortunate truth of the
number of bystanders increases, the number ofmatter was that, in a city like New York, her
people who actually help decreases. Termeddeath was just another of countless murders.
"Bystander Apathy," this effect occurs because, inConsequently, the incident didn't receive any more
almost any situation, the more people that arecoverage than a few short lines in The New York
present, the more we feel a diffusion ofTimes. Genovese's story would have remained an
responsibility. Our sense of social pressure isobscure and incidental case had it not been for
lessened when we feel that there might be anythe publicity given one additional fact of her killing.
number of people more capable of helping thanA week later, A.M. Rosenthal, editor of the New
we are.York Times, went out to lunch with the city police
Another experiment conducted in New Yorkcommissioner. Rosenthal asked the commissioner
highlighted this tendency for "Bystander Apathy."about another homicide in the area, but the
It determined that when a lone individual observedcommissioner, mistakenly thinking he was being
smoke leaking from under a door, 75 percent ofasked about the Genovese case, revealed a
those studied reported the smoke. In groups ofshocking piece of information that had been
three, however, reporting incidences dropped touncovered by the police. Genovese's death had
38 percent. If in that group two peoplenot been a silent, hidden, or secretive occurrence.
encouraged the third person to do nothing,Rather, it had been a loud, drawn-out, public
reporting of the smoke dropped to 10 percent.event. As her attacker chased her down and
Often we don't know whether we are reallystabbed her three separate times in a 35-minute
witnessing an emergency or not. For example, ifperiod, thirty-eight neighbors watched from their
we see a man collapsed on the floor, we mightapartment windows and didn't even call the police!
waver between two conclusions: Did he just haveRosenthal promptly assigned a team to
a heart attack or did he pass out because he'dinvestigate this incidence of "Bystander Apathy."
been drinking too much? So, bystanders may beSoon after, the New York Times came out with
"apathetic" more because of uncertainty thana lengthy, front-page article detailing the incident
insensitivity. And if they are uncertain, then theyand the alleged reactions of the neighbors:
often don't help because they don't know ifFor more than half an hour, 38 respectable,
they're responsible for doing so.law-abiding citizens in Queens watched a killer stalk
Everybody else observing the event is also likelyand stab a woman in three separate attacks in
to be looking for social evidence. Because mostKew Gardens. Twice the sound of their voices
people prefer to appear poised and levelheadedand the sudden glow of their bedroom lights
when in the presence of others, they are likely tointerrupted him and frightened him off. Each time
search for that evidence with brief glances athe returned, sought her out, and stabbed her
those around them. Therefore, everyone seesagain. Not one person telephoned the police during
everyone else looking unflustered and failing tothe assault; one witness called after the woman
act. When people clearly know their responsibilitieswas dead."
in a recognized and obvious emergency, however,Everyone was completely stunned and baffled.
they are remarkably quick to respond.How could people just witness such a scene and
Festinger, Pepitone, and coined the termdo absolutely nothing? Even the very neighbors
"de-individuation" in 1952. De-individuation refers toalluded to in the article didn't know how to explain
how, when we find ourselves in a group, wetheir inaction. Responses included, "I don't know,"
become less self-aware and also less concerned"I was afraid," and "I didn't want to get involved."
with how others will evaluate us.19 Think of all theThese "explanations" didn't really answer anything.
people you've heard yell obscenities at sportingWhy couldn't one of them have just made a
events. Do you think they would do that if theyquick, anonymous call to the police? Different
were in a small, intimate group watching thatbranches of the media--newspapers, TV stations,
same event? Basically, de-individuation means thatmagazines, radio stations--pursued their own
when in a group, we feel more anonymous andstudies and investigations to explain the incredible
therefore less individually responsible for ourscenario, all o f them finally arriving at the same
actions, often causing us to say or do things thatconclusion: The witnesses simply didn't care. They
we would not normally feel comfortable with.concluded that there was just no other
Diener, Fraser, Beamnan, and Kelemn conducted aexplanation, or so they thought.
study that showed how de-individuation can leadDo you really think thirty-eight people did not care
to antisocial behavior. On Halloween, researchersenough to make an anonymous phone call? Did
evaluated 1,352 trick-or-treaters--either alone or inthe researchers not understand the diffusion of
groups--who had the chance to steal candy fromresponsibility? The neighbors did not react, thinking
twenty-seven Seattle homes. The researcherssomeone else would help or someone else would
figured that Halloween would be the perfectcall the police. Most of us are good people. If each
occasion to conduct such a study because theindividual neighbor knew it was up to them to
children would be in costume, making them morephone the police and get help, I guarantee they
anonymous. When the children came to doorswould have made the call.