Surveillance cameras debunk the bystander effect
1–10 of 169 posts
Re: Surveillance cameras debunk the bystander effect
#2> Instead of more bystanders creating an immobilizing “bystander effect,” the study actually found the more bystanders there were, the more likely it was that at least someone would intervene to help.
Perhaps with more people around one person considers that he will gain support, so the danger of acting will be minimized.
Re: Surveillance cameras debunk the bystander effect
#3> Instead of more bystanders creating an immobilizing “bystander effect,” the study actually found the more bystanders there were, the more likely it was that at least someone would intervene to help. Perhaps with more people around one person considers that he will gain support, so the danger of acting will be minimized.
Would be interesting to see if it went up linearly or some other function of the number of ppl.
Also, what do they define as a 'bystander'? If it's ppl with pre-existing relationships (which would not be clear from CC footage) it doesn't particularly go against the bystander effect.
Re: Surveillance cameras debunk the bystander effect
#4isn't it also possible the fact that alot of people have heard of the bystander effect they more willing to do something because they believe no one else will?
Re: Surveillance cameras debunk the bystander effect
#5This article incorrectly claims that the bystander effect is when a group of people are less likely to help than an individual, when in fact the bystander effect is when an individual becomes less likely to act in the presence of a crowd. The article repeatedly makes this claim, but it's not hard to look up how the bystander effect is described and defined to see how completely wrong this is.
Re: Surveillance cameras debunk the bystander effect
#6This article incorrectly claims that the bystander effect is when a group of people are less likely to help than an individual, when in fact the bystander effect is when an individual becomes less likely to act in the presence of a crowd. The article repeatedly makes this claim, but it's not hard to look up how the bystander effect is described and defined to see how completely wrong this is.
> This article incorrectly claims that the bystander effect is when a group of people are less likely to help than an individual
You are right. On the other hand, it may well be the correct popular definition of 'bystander effect'. Pop-sci (and pop-psych in particular) terms have a habit of being subtly redefined in the process of research→book→podcast→watercooler.
Re: Surveillance cameras debunk the bystander effect
#7> Instead of more bystanders creating an immobilizing “bystander effect,” the study actually found the more bystanders there were, the more likely it was that at least someone would intervene to help. Perhaps with more people around one person considers that he will gain support, so the danger of acting will be minimized.
Would be interesting to see if it went up linearly or some other function of the number of ppl. Also, what do they define as a 'bystander'? If it's ppl with pre-existing relationships (which would not be clear from CC footage) it doesn't particularly go against the bystander effect.
Yes, I wonder how they distinguished someone being alone or with friends, as that would be important.
Re: Surveillance cameras debunk the bystander effect
#8It's quite shocking to me how many social science and social psychology experiments have been debunked in recent years. It's as if the whole field is filled with false research. They should do what psychology has done and start a massive replication effort of most cited results. [0] That should bring back some credibility back to the field.
[0] https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/scientists-rep...
Re: Surveillance cameras debunk the bystander effect
#9This article incorrectly claims that the bystander effect is when a group of people are less likely to help than an individual, when in fact the bystander effect is when an individual becomes less likely to act in the presence of a crowd. The article repeatedly makes this claim, but it's not hard to look up how the bystander effect is described and defined to see how completely wrong this is.
Um, what? The article doesn’t do this at all. This is straight from the 2nd paragraph:
“The “bystander effect” holds that the reason people don’t intervene is because we look to one another. The presence of many bystanders diffuses our own sense of personal responsibility, leading people to essentially do nothing and wait for someone else to jump in”
It’s clearly talking about individual behaviour in the presence of a crowd. You basically restated this exact point, then claimed the article didn’t make it!
Re: Surveillance cameras debunk the bystander effect
#10This article incorrectly claims that the bystander effect is when a group of people are less likely to help than an individual, when in fact the bystander effect is when an individual becomes less likely to act in the presence of a crowd. The article repeatedly makes this claim, but it's not hard to look up how the bystander effect is described and defined to see how completely wrong this is.
Um, what? The article doesn’t do this at all. This is straight from the 2nd paragraph: “The “bystander effect” holds that the reason people don’t intervene is because we look to one another. The presence of many bystanders diffuses our own sense of personal responsibility, leading people to essentially do nothing and wait for someone else to jump in” It’s clearly talking about individual behaviour in the presence of…
But does it really debunk that effect?
The article essentially claims that the more people there are the more likely it is that _someone_ will intervene. Which isn't the same as no one feeling less inclined to help since there are other people around.