The Kitty Genovese murder and the social psychology of helping - The parable of the 38 witnesses

Department of Psychology, Lancaster University, Lancaster, England, United Kingdom
American Psychologist (Impact Factor: 6.87). 10/2007; 62(6):555-62. DOI: 10.1037/0003-066X.62.6.555
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT This article argues that an iconic event in the history of helping research -- the story of the 38 witnesses who remained inactive during the murder of Kitty Genovese -- is not supported by the available evidence. Using archive material, the authors show that there is no evidence for the presence of 38 witnesses, or that witnesses observed the murder, or that witnesses remained inactive. Drawing a distinction between the robust bystander research tradition and the story of the 38 witnesses, the authors explore the consequences of the story for the discipline of psychology. They argue that the story itself plays a key role in psychology textbooks. They also suggest that the story marks a new way of conceptualizing the dangers of immersion in social groups. Finally, they suggest that the story itself has become a modern parable, the telling of which has served to limit the scope of inquiry into emergency helping.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The purpose of this paper is to discuss the effects of mass media’s ability to rapidly spread sensational messages. With the view that the accuracy or truth of the ‘sensational message’ can change, either evolving naturally within our collective perception or through more deliberate ways, this then presents some scenarios in which ever more flexible notions of truth in the future may provide not only challenges but also opportunities. Using different perspectives but always with a bit of lightheartedness, two events that are separated by half a century and a vast expanse of technological advances are presented as lenses with which to examine our collective obsession of the sensational and how this obsession may influence our perspective as well as our subsequent choices. Looking towards the increasingly connected future, the challenges and economic implications of our susceptibility to sensational media are explored so that in the end, the readers will have gained insights on mass media’s power to flex our notions of truth.
    Telematics and Informatics 06/2014; DOI:10.1016/j.tele.2014.05.005 · 0.71 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Recent financial fraud legislation such as the Dodd–Frank Act and the Sarbanes–Oxley Act (U.S. House of Representatives, Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, [H.R. 4173], 2010; U.S. House of Representatives, The Sarbanes–Oxley Act of 2002, Public Law 107-204 [H.R. 3763], 2002) relies heavily on whistleblowers for enforcement, and offers protection and incentives for whistleblowers. However, little is known about many aspects of the whistleblowing decision, especially the effects of contextual and wrongdoing attributes on organizational members’ willingness to report fraud. We extend the ethics literature by experimentally investigating how the nature of the wrongdoing and the awareness of those surrounding the whistleblower can influence whistleblowing. As predicted, we find that employees are less likely to report: (1) financial statement fraud than theft; (2) immaterial than material financial statement fraud; (3) when the wrongdoer is aware that the potential whistleblower has knowledge of the fraud; and (4) when others in addition to the wrongdoer are not aware of the fraud. Our findings extend whistleblowing research in several ways. For instance, prior research provides little evidence concerning the effects of fraud type, wrongdoer awareness, and others’ awareness on whistleblowing intentions. We also provide evidence that whistleblowing settings represent an exception to the well-accepted theory of diffusion of responsibility. Our participants are professionals who represent the likely pool of potential whistleblowers in organizations.
    Journal of Business Ethics 03/2012; 106(2):213-227. DOI:10.1007/s10551-011-0990-y · 0.96 Impact Factor
  • Source