Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Surveillance cameras debunk the bystander effect

citylab.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 169 posts

Re: Surveillance cameras debunk the bystander effect

#41

Post by eridius »

inlined wrote: post #31
jacobolus wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The claim is that when there are several people standing around and some emergency arises, everyone will just assume someone else is going to help, and no one will end up helping.

I’ve been taught multiple times that due to the bystander effect, should you take command of a situation and need to delegate you should always delegate specifically (e.g. tell one person to call 911 rather than shouting that someone should)

While that's certainly good advice, I don't think that's really a "bystander effect" correction as it is if there's multiple people and nobody takes charge then nothing gets organized, and if you don't delegate specifically then nobody knows who you're talking to and this produces confusion.

Re: Surveillance cameras debunk the bystander effect

#42

Post by your-nanny »

Just noting here that there is no necessary contradiction between the probability of at least one bystander helping increasing with number of bystanders, and the individual propensity of helping going down with an increasing number of bystanders, even assuming that people have the same propensity function.

Re: Surveillance cameras debunk the bystander effect

#43

Post by eridius »

Nevermindmyview wrote: post #10
stupidcar wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The whole point of the "bystander effect" is that this diffusion of responsibility leads to nobody intervening. Nobody cares if the chances of a specific bystander intervening goes down when there's a crowd, all that matters is whether someone intervenes, and the bystander effect claimed that a crowd meant the chances of intervention would go down overall.

Re: Surveillance cameras debunk the bystander effect

#44

Post by eridius »

wnevets wrote: post #4

isn'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?

You could also argue the opposite: That because the bystander effect is well-known now, surely that means other people in the crowd will be more willing to act, and therefore you don't have to.

Re: Surveillance cameras debunk the bystander effect

#46

Post by your-nanny »

Jerry2 wrote: post #8

It'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...

One result that disagrees with other results does not "debunk" anything. It merely changes our confidence in the hypothesis.

It's not even clear that this result contradicts that social psych result.

Re: Surveillance cameras debunk the bystander effect

#47

Post by thinkingemote »

ganesh7 wrote: post #16

Of course the real problem is the uplifting attitude that is written. Where really violent crime is happening as now in Western European cities, London, Berlin, etc. people got to know the very real consequences of 'intervening' frequently resulting in seriously harming oneself or even getting killed. There have been instances where the police was not able to help. There are regular occurances of rescue teams being a…

It's a different thing really. The old theory is not bystander doesn't intervene because it's dangerous but that they thought otter people would help.

In the UK when it's dangerous the police protect themselves as a matter of priority often retreating. This led to one situation of the knife terrorist attack on London bridge where the public did intervene and risk their own lives when the police stayed back. However it's not the case all the time with groups of people and the bystander effect and that example actually disproves the bystander effect too!

Re: Surveillance cameras debunk the bystander effect

#48

Post by your-nanny »

eridius wrote: post #43
Nevermindmyview wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The whole point of the "bystander effect" is that this diffusion of responsibility leads to nobody intervening. Nobody cares if the chances of a specific bystander intervening goes down when there's a crowd, all that matters is whether someone intervenes, and the bystander effect claimed that a crowd meant the chances of intervention would go down overall.

I imagine psychologists care a great deal about that difference.

Re: Surveillance cameras debunk the bystander effect

#49

Post by thinkingemote »

semi-extrinsic wrote: post #22
ganesh7 wrote: post #16

Of course the real problem is the uplifting attitude that is written. Where really violent crime is happening as now in Western European cities, London, Berlin, etc. people got to know the very real consequences of 'intervening' frequently resulting in seriously harming oneself or even getting killed. There have been instances where the police was not able to help. There are regular occurances of rescue teams being a…

Hmm, searching around for the type of statistics you are talking about, I get articles to a couple of anecdotal stories that are frequently repeated on sites like Jihad Watch, Voice of Europe, RT, etc. Unless you can provide some actual statistics, I would dismiss this as unfounded far-right propaganda.

It's conflating a couple of recent examples (london bridge knife terror attack trial reports is one) where the police protect themselves and wait for backup but the public try to intervene against their orders and trying to imply there's an agenda by the police to let these things happen.

Re: Surveillance cameras debunk the bystander effect

#50

Post by Tharkun »

This is all anecdata, but the article and the study are totally contrary to my experience.

Over the years I've witnessed a variety of incidents where bystanders did nothing -- however once someone makes the first move, it seems to become easier for others to lend a hand.

When I was a teen, I dated someone who was a red cross volunteer, which prompted me to take a couple of first aid classes. This has easily been the most useful subject I've ever studied.

I've been witness to a suicide attempt, a cardiac arrest in a bar, an elderly lady who fell down the stairs at the opera, several cases of guys beating on their wives in public, two drunken attempted robberies, a variety of (literal) gay bashing, random subway violence, and oodles of shit I can't recall. The latest was two weeks ago: a hit and run with a teen victim with a very nasty headwound.

In every one of those cases, no one did anything. The old lady at the opera was the worst, I hadn't seen it happen, but I noticed a crowd of people on the staircase on my way out. Maybe 20 people standing around her in a circle. I asked if anyone had called for an ambulance yet, and no one even gave a coherent response...

I've also been the victim of a random assault, in a very busy park in broad daylight, and no one helped out. No one even dialed the emergency number, no one even approached me to ask whether I was ok afterwards. There were probably around a hundred witnesses.

I don't know whether this is a regional problem; most of these incidents occurred in Belgium. Belgians aren't the most outgoing or the most eager to take risks in general, but still.

Don't count on others to make the first move. Learn first aid and help out whenever someone is in trouble. Even if it does mean you'll be late for that important meeting or you could get blood on your shirt.

Violence is a bit trickier; what's worked well in my experience is to walk up to the aggressor, but to pick someone else from the crowd and plainly tell them "give me a hand". That gets the ball rolling.

Edit/addendum: every time something like this happens, I get an adrenaline rush and am scared out of my mind. I'm sure this happens to the other witnesses as well. I get it, it's hard to push through that, but do it anyway.

Post reply on HN