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

81–90 of 169 posts

Re: Surveillance cameras debunk the bystander effect

#81

Post by pessimizer »

kristiandupont wrote: post #65
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…

I am curious: do you consider yourself to be on the left or right end of the political spectrum? I ask because even if your message is not explicitly political, it indicates to me that you might be leaning to the right and I am curious about what the root-differences between that and someone like myself who is probably more left leaning really are. Clearly it's related to fear, but I have fears too (like climate chan…

I agree with everything said here and I'm unambiguously on the very far left. Its just observational. Sometimes it's dangerous to intervene. Sometimes the people who intervene get killed. That's just a fact. If somebody is drowning on the Chicago side of Lake Michigan when the waves are bad, if you jump in to help you're 80% going to die. You're as likely to die as the person you're trying to help. You might not even help their odds, they may manage to swim back and you will still drown. If a pimp hits a prostitute, and you intervene, he may kill you. In some places, he probably is going to kill you. And he's not going to kill her. He's going to kill you.

I don't know how to convince someone that happens a lot. It happens a lot, though. A lot of people still intervene, especially if everything happens quickly, and just get killed. But most people I think need to start sharing looks with strangers, figuring each other out and who looks like they can think of a plan, and who might be able to fight, and hope that you time and execute well enough with your new confederates so none of you get seriously hurt.

Somebody can be Islamaphobically screaming at two south asian women on the train, maybe hit one of them, and you and a couple other strangers get up to protect them, and that person stabs all three of you to death.

Re: Surveillance cameras debunk the bystander effect

#83

Post by treerock »

mcqueenjordan wrote: post #37

I know this is an "armchair academic" comment, but I wonder if `places that are likely to have active surveillance` strongly intersects with `places that the bystander effect is less likely`. In other words, I wonder if there's a crippling selection bias. The reason I think this is possible is because I'm way more likely to help someone if I don't think I'm endangering myself by doing so. Areas that are actively surv…

Could possibly have the opposite effect?

I believe the study showed that the probability of any individual getting involved increases if there is no-one else present. i.e. they are the only one who can help.

Surveillance cameras might make people feel someone else will take responsibility.

Re: Surveillance cameras debunk the bystander effect

#84

Post by harg »

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…

On the first point, I believe the study used surveillance footage so it's likely the majority of people would've been unaware they were being filmed.

Re: Surveillance cameras debunk the bystander effect

#85

Post by ohazi »

pure-awesome wrote: post #79

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 real…

Relatedly, if you ever need to delegate something like a 911 call, you're supposed to single out a person and tell them, specifically "you, go dial 911" rather than shouting "someone call 911!"

Apparently this makes it far more likely to actually happen.

Re: Surveillance cameras debunk the bystander effect

#86

Post by stordoff »

eridius wrote: post #41
inlined wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I have specifically had this explained to me as being due to the bystander effect. "Someone call 999/911" - chances are no one will do it, due to the bystander effect; "You (points) call 999/911" - they probably will.

Re: Surveillance cameras debunk the bystander effect

#87

Post by squirrel »

A relevant, classic bystander-effect experiment (Darley and Latane 1968) put several participants, all subjects of the experiment, in a waiting room. Smoke began to come into the room through a vent. In most groups, no one acted for a very long time, even after the smoke led to breathing problems for participants. By contrast, when only one person was in the room, not a group, that person would almost always leave the room or call for assistance.

Differences from the OPs (very interesting) study: 1. In the smoke room, participants know they are in an experimental setting, though they do not know that the waiting room is part of the experiment. 2. The entire group is visible in the waiting room. (In a crowd outside, you don’t know who else might be acting or watching. In the waiting room you can see that no one else is doing anything.) 3. The threat is to you personally as well as to the others in the group - an injury or a fight involving others is less personally affecting than smoke that is making you cough in an enclosed room. 4. D & L experimented with small groups including a single person and saw dramatically different results in the latter case. I’d be interested in seeing what happens late at night when there are just one or two people around - what do the camera show then?

Of these I suspect 2) has the greatest effect. If I see that literally no one in the room is doing anything, I may figure that the situation is probably under control or isn’t a big deal. In a big crowd outdoors I can’t draw that conclusion as clearly.

Re: Surveillance cameras debunk the bystander effect

#88

Post by groestl »

ohazi wrote: post #85
pure-awesome wrote: post #79

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 real…

Relatedly, if you ever need to delegate something like a 911 call, you're supposed to single out a person and tell them, specifically "you, go dial 911" rather than shouting "someone call 911!" Apparently this makes it far more likely to actually happen.

Also, if possible, touch that person while telling them to call 911 - helps them get moving if they are petrified.

Re: Surveillance cameras debunk the bystander effect

#89

Post by agurk »

ohazi wrote: post #85
pure-awesome wrote: post #79

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 real…

Relatedly, if you ever need to delegate something like a 911 call, you're supposed to single out a person and tell them, specifically "you, go dial 911" rather than shouting "someone call 911!" Apparently this makes it far more likely to actually happen.

I have also been told in training for these kind of events to also tell that person to come back and tell you once they've done it. Apparently people have a tendency to wander off once they've done their task, leaving you not knowing if it's been completed & when help's arriving.

Re: Surveillance cameras debunk the bystander effect

#90

Post by rubber_duck »

jsjw7sbw wrote: post #70
rubber_duck wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think awareness of the effect changes the behavior more - at least for me - I usually wouldn't act in situations where someone needed help because I don't feel particularly qualified but knowing that nobody else is likely to respond I try to help. This makes social science even less reliable.

> nobody else is likely to respond They are now. But maybe after some time everyone will think someone will help them anyway and stop. And so the cycle continues.

I just try to help untill I see someone more qualified take over to avoid the issue. Don't know if it's because I'm aware of this effect or just maturing but I know when I was younger I just avoided situations like this and I had a few recently where I did actually try to help.
Post reply on HN