Genovese Syndrome (Bystander Effect) and Mobbing

Where would you prefer to be if you needed help during a crisis? Would you choose a crowded place where there’s a higher chance of finding assistance, or a room where only one person can see you? I can almost hear you say that a crowded place would make you feel safer. But perhaps these experiments might make you reconsider your decision.

In the early hours of March 13, 1964, a dramatic murder case unfolded. Kitty Genovese, a 28-year-old woman, was stabbed in front of an apartment building across the street from where she lived, above a row of shops on Austin Street in the Kew Gardens neighborhood of Queens. Two weeks later, The New York Times published an article claiming that 38 witnesses had seen or heard the attack, yet none of them called the police or came to her aid. Witnesses reported that they assumed someone else had already called the police or stepped in to help.

The incident led to the investigation of what is now known as the bystander effect or "Genovese syndrome" and inspired numerous studies on the phenomenon.

Bibb Latané and John Darley conducted an experiment inspired by the Kitty Genovese case we just discussed.

In this experiment, participants were divided into three groups and asked to fill out a questionnaire. The first room contained a single participant, the second room had three participants, and the third room had one participant along with two confederates (fake participants).

As the participants filled out the questionnaires, smoke began to seep into the room. How did the participants in each of the three rooms react?

In the first room, where the participant was alone, 75% of them left the room to report the smoke.

In the second room, where there were three participants, this rate dropped to 38%.

In the third room, where two confederates glanced at the smoke and then turned their attention back to their questionnaires, the actual participant’s likelihood of reporting the smoke dropped to 10%.

The findings of the experiment revealed a negative correlation between the number of people present and the likelihood of taking responsibility.

Although it may seem counterintuitive, the decrease in the likelihood of helping behavior as the number of people increases is understandable. Responsibility also involves taking risks. Feelings of inadequacy in crisis resolution, the ability to comprehend complex situations, and the emotional impact of potentially being exposed to the same danger can inhibit helping behavior. As the number of people increases, so do the options for others to take on this risk instead of the individual. This situation leads to a diffusion of the sense of responsibility, fostering thoughts like “Someone must have already helped, or someone will help soon.”

But what if the scene being played out this time involves mobbing?

The demotivating act in the workplace that has been on the agenda of the business world recently—mobbing. We also encounter the bystander effect in mobbing situations. As T?naz (2006a) points out, when other employees who are aware of the mobbing do not take any action to stop it, they should be considered as being complicit with the perpetrator. The reluctance of these employees to take any stance, their failure to stop the bully, or their tendency to ignore the situation will lead to the victim feeling even more isolated and thus suffering greater harm from the mobbing process. In some cases, it has been observed that certain employees who witness mobbing may occasionally join in due to their closeness to the perpetrator, fear of the bully, or other reasons. T?naz (2006a) categorizes these employees involved in the mobbing process based on their behaviors into diplomatic bystanders, accomplice bystanders, overly involved bystanders, indifferent bystanders, and two-faced snake bystanders.

Diplomatic Bystander: This individual generally prefers conflict resolution through reconciliation and acts as a mediator in conflicts. While some people appreciate their mediation efforts, others may find them undesirable.

Accomplice Bystander: This type of bystander is usually aware of the mobbing perpetrated by a superior, supports the bully, but tries not to be noticed for their allegiance, remaining loyal to the perpetrator.

Overly Involved Bystander: This bystander attempts to engage with the victim's situation but eventually causes discomfort and dissatisfaction due to overstepping the victim's boundaries. In some cases, the victim may start perceiving this bystander as a second bully.

Indifferent Bystander: This person neither supports the victim nor the perpetrator, showing complete disinterest and insensitivity to the psychological harassment occurring.

Two-Faced Snake Bystander: Although they may appear to stay out of the situation, these individuals actually serve a particular viewpoint or agenda. They often support the bully or refuse to help the victim out of fear of being targeted themselves. This type of bystander displays behavior aimed at self-preservation while pretending to be innocent.

When we are subjected to mobbing and need help, we feel safer if there are many people around us, right? The more people aware of our situation, the more help we can get. Or is it not so? It might be more effective to focus on a single person and ask for help. If someone else is being subjected to mobbing in our environment, recognizing this effect can make a big difference. Although the bystander effect is not considered a crime, it has an impact on the victim that is almost as significant as that of the perpetrator. We hope that you can recognize and intervene when necessary, being aware of this influence that guides you. Silence is complicity.

This effect, which can appear in every aspect of life, turns us into silent monsters when we are not aware of it. We watch every scene played out on the stage, thinking we are mere spectators. But when life itself is the real stage, our role in this play should not be that of a “silent monster.”

References:

Beycan, B. (2006). Mobbing in the Workplace: Causes, Effects, and Solutions. Ministry of Family, Labor, and Social Services. Retrieved from https://ailevecalisma.gov.tr/media/2514/burcubeycan.pdf