Critique paper

Critique Paper
Name
Institution

Abstract
Darley and Latane are perhaps the most renowned psychologists in the field of social behavior. This paper is an analytical approach to their works, notably their research following the gruesome murder of Kitty Genovese and the scientific debate that ensued. While they offered what was arguably an excellent response to the queries then, over time, dissenting opinions have been voiced. They opined that the inaction of all 37 witnesses was motivated by sheer human behavior which is easily influenced by surroundings. They stood undisputed for decades prior to dissenting voices being heard. Some of their harshest critics poked holes in their logic, especially arguing that their experiments were established in settings which ignored many significant factors. These factors include prevalent attitudes at the time, general criminal patterns in the area and even factors beyond the reach of the witnesses. For instance, critics have highlighted the difficulty in reaching the police hotline numbers at the time. This paper examines the findings of Darley and Latane vis a vis the thoughts of their critics.

The Kitty Genovese murder opened a divisive and equally informative debate into the possible reactions of individuals when faced by emergencies. These are usually situations which call for the most drastic actions with little or no tangible background and experience to rely upon. As psychologists and scientists were desirous of understanding the rationale behind an individual’s actions in an emergency, they set out to research further on the witnesses to the Genovese incident.

Key amongst them was the 1968 article by Darley and Latane who extensively studied the bystander effect. They opined that the knowledge motivated the inertia of each member of the crowd that they were indeed part of a group (Plötner et al., 2015).
They developed the phenomenon of diffusion of responsibility whereby individuals who witness a crime as a group are likely to commute the responsibility of helping to the next person. Experiments conducted by the two psychologists buttressed this. In an investigation, students were made to believe that they were conversing with their colleague through an intercom. The colleague then suffers a seizure, and the students’ reaction was gauged. It was established that where students thought they were the only ones aware of the emergency, they acted more promptly. The delay in response was proportionate to the increase in the number of individuals thought to be mindful of the crisis (Hortensius et al., 2018). They found that while the delay may have been indicative of inertia, it was not accurate to aver that the individuals were indifferent to the happenings. They argue that these individuals were merely subject to the psychological phenomenon of social influence and that they were bound to act differently were they independent of other control.
Through these experiments, Darley and Latane claimed to have supported their theory of diffusion of responsibility. The rationale they offered is that an individual acting alone is likely to bear all consequences of inaction as opposed to when they can share it with other individuals present. They provided a five-point requirement for there to be any action on the part of bystanders. These were that; the bystander must notice an event and term it an emergency, the bystander must then see a need for assistance and apportion to themselves personal responsibility, the bystander must then decide to help and act upon said decision (Van Bommel et al., 2016)
However, it is noteworthy that some critics of these findings have faulted the manner in which the conclusions were reached upon. Manning has argued that the premises relied upon by Darley and Latane were more likely than actual. These include the fact that the police hotlines at the time were not as reliable as they are currently. Also, the attitudes towards gender-based violence were more permissive than they now are (Manning et al., 2007). Issues of race, which were conspicuously missing in Darley and Latane’s research have been brought up by critics such as Cherry, who argue that the murderer was a man of color while the victim was a white woman. This was likely to provoke a different reaction from the bystanders based on their racial inclination.
In conclusion, Darley and Latane’s failure to appreciate other factors in their study may have been caused for their inaccuracy. It is important to note that, human behavior is influenced by a myriad of factors and is not restricted to social influence.

References
Hortensius, R., & de Gelder, B. (2018). From empathy to apathy: The bystander effect revisited. Current directions in psychological science, 27(4), 249-256.
Manning, R., Levine, M., & Collins, A. (2007). The Kitty Genovese murder and the social psychology of helping: The parable of the 38 witnesses. American Psychologist, 62(6), 555.
Plötner, M., Over, H., Carpenter, M., & Tomasello, M. (2015). Young children show the bystander effect in helping situations. Psychological science, 26(4), 499-506.
van Bommel, M., van Prooijen, J. W., Elffers, H., & Van Lange, P. A. (2016). Booze, Bars, and Bystander Behavior: People Who Consumed Alcohol Help Faster in the Presence of Others. Frontiers in psychology, 7, 128.