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

71–80 of 169 posts

Re: Surveillance cameras debunk the bystander effect

#71

Post by clort »

archgoon wrote: post #34
pfundstein wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Societal norms are constantly evolving; what is normal today might have been unthinkable in the past when these studies were conducted.

Also; awareness of the bystander effect may have led to increased pro-activeness. This is really something that would need to have data going further back to figure out if the original effect existed. See another post in this thread where someone has recieved specific training to counteract the bystander effect.

also, the way I read it is that bystander effect was posited to be something like

  nobody else is doing anything and therefore I won't do anything
but if society has changed and somebody does get involved, it would be more like

  that other guy is doing something and therefore I will get involved too
because we are social animals and we do what feels right, what we see others doing. So, although the outcomes might have changed, the process is still the same.

I remember reading a book some years ago (Lauren Slater, Opening Skinners Box) about some of the psychological experiments which had been done in the past. One of the general conclusions of those experiments that stood out to me seemed to be that only about 30% of people would actively take initiative if given the chance, but that generall people would follow social leads. I remember passing this book around at work to a couple of friends who both said that they felt that reading about this concept made them feel as if they were more aware of the social pressures to not act in situations and that they would therefore be more likely to step up as a result.

Re: Surveillance cameras debunk the bystander effect

#72

Post by cm2187 »

Iv wrote: post #32
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...

Social psychology is very hard. Making correct experiments is hard, costly, often unethical and highly culture-dependent. You can only get so far with questionnaire handled to middle-class/high-class university students...

Plus I would expect it would also be a function of the legal system. Some countries like France are typically hostile to self-defence / vigilanties as opposed to a country like the US. If you intervene and the assaulter gets hurt, you might be in significant legal troubles.

Re: Surveillance cameras debunk the bystander effect

#73

Post by cyborgx7 »

usaphp wrote: post #62
archgoon wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also; awareness of the bystander effect may have led to increased pro-activeness. This is really something that would need to have data going further back to figure out if the original effect existed. See another post in this thread where someone has recieved specific training to counteract the bystander effect.

I doubt that average Joe would know anything about bystander effect studies.

I have come across the bystander effect often enough in popular culture, that I would say a very significant amount of people is aware of the concept, even if they might not remember its specific name.

Re: Surveillance cameras debunk the bystander effect

#74

Post by zambal »

simonh wrote: post #57
ptero wrote: post #55

Cultural background probably has a lot of influence on this. Where I grew up (a small city in Eastern Europe) it would be unthinkable not to intervene in many cases (although some things like gang or drunk fights would be excluded). The mentality in a capital would be completely different. As people move their habits can significantly influence prior "general findings".

And yet this study took place in a capital city, a major urban centre and a country tow, but found no significant difference in the results between them. That's despite big differences in the local crime and violence rates (I expect Cape Town being the outlier).

Two capital cities to be precise. Cape Town is one of the three capital cities of South Africa.

Re: Surveillance cameras debunk the bystander effect

#75

Post by pessimizer »

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'm understanding that's not the finding, although that's the popularly understood point. You would expect each person to be individually less likely to help when there are other people around. Somebody else might have already intervened, and you might just be getting in the way. Not everybody can help, at least not at once. I mean, in some situations, people actually fear to intervene, and have a legitimate fear for their own safety, but if they can call the police once they're secure (or if they are clearly secure e.g. viewing from a distance), people do it. A lot of people called about Kitty Genovese as it was happening, watching it from their apartments. That became a newspaper article - which was basically typical right-wing linkbait: it wasn't slow police response, it was the heartless crowd that killed Kitty.

That Slate dot com tier take became a theory, developed experiments, and discovered something that was obviously mathematically true: if not everybody in a group helps someone that they see in distress (only a subset do), but individuals always help when alone, then in groups, the average time before response for each individual is going to go up, and the average likelihood of any response at all from a particular individual is going to go down.

This would be true even if people were always helped faster by groups rather than individuals, and a subset of every group always intervened. The types of people that bystander experiments found to be likely interveners could just adhere to the stereotypes that people think of as physically authoritative and look to when something occurs. People look to them to intervene (large, male, athletic, maybe ethnic or rough looking in criminal/street situations) maybe those people intervene because there no one for them to pass the responsibility off to.

Re: Surveillance cameras debunk the bystander effect

#77

Post by watwut »

pfundstein wrote: post #23
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...

Societal norms are constantly evolving; what is normal today might have been unthinkable in the past when these studies were conducted.

Yep. I used not to act in situations, because I assumed it is not my business, that I will look like nosy idiot who messes into things without them being her business and nothing is the correct/expected/respectful action. Some articles I read convinced me of the opposite, that it is ok for me to react and the previous passive strategy often amounts to enabling.

Therefore, I act differently now.

Re: Surveillance cameras debunk the bystander effect

#78

Post by mrmonkeyman »

Tharkun wrote: post #50

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…

Where the fuck do you live? Somalia, Rwanda, USA?

Re: Surveillance cameras debunk the bystander effect

#79

Post by pure-awesome »

I had a realization the last time we had a fire drill:

It wasn't scheduled, so when the alarm went off, we all looked at each other for a few moments like "is the siren just on the fritz or should we walk out?" After awhile we decided we'd better get going so we all lazily strolled outside.

On the way, I noticed one of my coworkers in a fire marshal uniform, in the corridor, calling out for people to evacuate.

I realized this is a perfect way to prevent the bystander effect: just give a random person a "uniform" (a whistle, a badge, a hat, or a vest, anything simple like that works) and tell them that when the alarm goes off, they are responsible for telling people to leave.

It's as simple as that. Instead of us staring at each other trying to decide whether the group considers it serious enough to go along with, just having that person singled out as the "official" one was enough to get the momentum going.

Re: Surveillance cameras debunk the bystander effect

#80

Post by benj111 »

NegatioN wrote: post #59
feanaro wrote: post #40

Two things: - Cameras may have caused the Hawthorne effect: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawthorne_effect - The article (the news one, haven't read the original yet) talks about the increase of probability that some bystander will act, with increase in group size. The bystander effect study talks about the decrease of probability that a particular individual will act, with decrease in group size. These two things ma…

We should also consider that if there's a larger crowd of bystanders, an individual will feel more sure that others will help them as long as they act. "Safety in numbers" so to say.

I would guess there's a goldilocks zone. To many and it becomes impersonal so people can walk away. Too few and people don't feel assured of getting back-up?
Post reply on HN