The murder of Catherine (Kitty) Genovese in New York in 1964 by Winston Moseley has generated numerous academic publications. One of the major focal points in the debates is the role of gender in bystanders' reactions to violent incidents. Some analysts drew on experiments that found that men did not intervene in incidents involving a man as a perpetrator and a woman as a victim to explain the lack of intervention in the incident by the so-called 38 bystanders falsely reported by The New York Times in 1964. This current article analyzed three videos containing four different assaults that occurred on the busy streets of Argentina, the United States and the United Kingdom to assess whether the gender of the perpetrators and victims affected bystanders' reactions or not. In Incident 1 and Incident 2 involving men as perpetrators with female victims, none of the male and female bystanders physically intervened. In Incident 3 involving a man as a perpetrator and a woman as his victim, both male and female bystanders intervened to save the victim. However, in Incident 4 involving a woman as a perpetrator with a male victim, nobody intervened instead, some of the bystanders laughed at the male victim. The article concludes that whilst gender seemed to have determined intervention in Incident 3 (saving a female victim from a violent man) and its lack in Incident 4 (leaving a male victim to save himself from a violent woman), other factors could be responsible for lack of intervention in Incident 1 and Incident 2 and these include the duration of the assault, the level of violence applied by the perpetrator and bystanders' perception of their own safety. The implications of the bystanders' reactions were highlighted.

温斯顿·莫斯利（Winston Moseley）于1964年在纽约谋杀凯瑟琳·基蒂（Catty）Genovese，引起了许多学术刊物。辩论的主要重点之一是性别在旁观者对暴力事件的反应中的作用。一些分析家利用实验发现，男人没有干预涉及男人作为犯罪者和女人作为受害者的事件，以解释所谓的38名旁观者在事件中缺乏干预的情况，《纽约时报》在2000年错误地报道了这些旁观者。 1964年。当前的这篇文章分析了三个视频，其中包含在阿根廷，美国和联合王国繁忙的街道上发生的四次不同的袭击，以评估肇事者和受害者的性别是否影响了旁观者的反应。在事件1和事件2中，涉及作为犯罪者的男性和女性受害者的男性和女性旁观者均未进行身体干预。在事件3中，一名男子为肇事者，一名女子为受害者，男女旁观者均进行干预以挽救受害者。但是，在事件4中，一名妇女与一名男性受害者成为作案者，但没有人干预，一些旁观者嘲笑了该男性受害者。文章的结论是，尽管性别似乎已确定了对事件3（将一名女性受害者从暴力男子中救出）的干预，而在事件4中却没有（将男性受害者从暴力妇女中救出），但其他因素可能是造成这种情况的原因。缺乏对事件1和事件2的干预，其中包括袭击的持续时间，犯罪者和旁观者对其自身安全的看法所施加的暴力程度。强调了旁观者反应的含义。