Verified by 
Law and Crime
What Would You Do?; No, Really?!
What Would You Do?; No, Really?!
Posted July 29, 2010
Imagine Jay Leno, during one of his 'Jaywalking" adventures asking people on the street "Who was Kitty Genovese?" Would they know? Would You? Maybe, maybe not; but rest assured that most Intro and Social Psych students are well aware that on March 13, 1964, Catherine Susan Genovese, aka Kitty, was brutally murdered in a Queens, New York...in either plain sight or earshot of numerous neighbors and residents of the aprtment building in which she lived. While Kitty is no doubt remembered by friends and family, her legacy has seen fruition in decades of psychological research into what has come to be called 'the bystander effect' and 'diffusion of responsibility. Simply stated, these phenomena refer to the likliehood that bystanders to a crime or wrongdoing, are likely to resist taking action if they believe others will do so.
Several years later, funded by a national Science Foundation grant, psychologists John Darley and Bibb Latané described an experiment which they confirmed, at least in part, the reason why those who could have helped Kitty Genovese, didn't. Their article in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, entitled, "Bystander Intervention in Emergencies: Diffusion of Responsiblity", became a seminal social-psychological explanation for why people who might otherwise help someone in need do not do so, particularly if they believe that either help has laready been summoned, or that others will help. And while a recent re-examination in The American Psychologist by Manning, Levine and Collins, suggested that the events surrounding Kitty Genovese's murder be seen as parable, its poignancy remains unchanged.
Flash forward to the current era and the newest television phenomenon called "What Would You Do?", featuring newsman John Quiñones. The premise is quite simple. Two parts Candid Camera, one part Darley and Latané, and a dash of Hollywwood thrown in for good ratings! Consider the following staged scenarios:
- A 15 year old is being pressured to agree to marry a man decades her senior, before fellow restaurant-goers
- A Mexican man is being beaten by a group of racist street thugs...in broad daylight
- Prospective participants in a hair-growth infomercial stare on in horror as a fellow participants scream in pain and pull out handfuls of hair after using the so-called miracle product
- A group of rowdy teens valndalize a car while people just walk on by.
When I first saw the show, I was struck with that same kneejerk reflex to dismiss it as another psychologically exploitative reality TV show. Who were they, I thought, to perform these emotinally high-stake experiments on unsuspecting people? Was this another step closer to art imitaitng life initaitng art in a perverse and topsy turvy Truman show in search of ratings.
Historically, I have had difficulty with shows like this that seem to prey on us; shows like Extreme Makeover, Home Edition and the recently defunct Find My Family, both of which, albeit highly emotional and ostensibly humanitarian, seem to lose their message in the commericalism and production ballywho. This one; however, seemed different, because it actually made me think...what WOULD I do? Would I stand up to someone who was bullying someone else? Would I intervene, even if others were around? Would I do the right thing simply because it was...the right thing?
A few years ago, Canadian author Robert Sawyer wrote a science fiction trilogy called the Neanderthal Parallax, in which evolution had taken a hard right turn 40,000 years ago to deliver Neanderthals to a position of dominance, and humanoids into one of subordination...sort of like Planet of the Apes. What I found most fascinating was that in this looking glass society, there was absolutely no crime. This was due to the medical implantation of a realtime audio/video feed of every moment of the person's life into a central registry, which could be accessed by the authorities. Big Brother was always watching...or at least, recording. No deed, either good or bad, went un-monitored.
But lest I digress, back to the topic at hand. Why do good when no one is watching, and more compellingly, why do good when others (who could also do that same good) do not. I have heard it said that the right thing is that which you do when no one is watching...when no one stands ready to praise or reward you...when it is just as easy to walk away. These are the thoughts that have crossed my mind since watching this show, and I respect the producers for giving us an opportunity to flex our moral muscles, even if there is no mirror available to parade those muscles before.
Importantly, the fake bad guys on "What Would You Do?" are not allowed to turn around and attack the do-gooders. But in real-life, nothing stops the real bad guys from turning around and venting their rage against me if I should indeed step in or intervene in some direct way. And it sure creeps me out to think that the next time I see someone in distress or a situation that calls for action, that there may be a camera hiding in an unmarked mini-van, poised to beam my cowardice into 200 gazillion homes.
But maybe, just maybe, I will think twice, and act in some helpful way. It is my hope. Such might have saved the life of a terrified woman who died violently and alone on the streets of New York almost a half-century ago.
