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

111–120 of 169 posts

Re: Surveillance cameras debunk the bystander effect

#111

Post by pbhjpbhj »

intended wrote: post #12
woliveirajr wrote: post #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.

Or simply that in this case, the bystander effect didn’t occur. It’s also why today when something goes wrong, people are told to look directly at specific people and say “call the cops”/ “hold their head” and so on,

"call the cops and tell me when they will arrive" (in order to get feedback and ensure the caller relays the emergency nature of the situation).

Re: Surveillance cameras debunk the bystander effect

#112

Post by pbhjpbhj »

eridius wrote: post #44
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.

Or your lack of helping is normal and so is excusable and one motivation (fear of doing wrong) is depleted.

Re: Surveillance cameras debunk the bystander effect

#113

Post by scottishfiction »

GordonS wrote: post #107
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…

> 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. Wow, I had no idea Belgium was so violent!

And you still have no idea. These are anecdotes collected over a long period from which you can infer nothing.

Re: Surveillance cameras debunk the bystander effect

#114

Post by mehrdadn »

goto11 wrote: post #28

The infamous murder of Kitty Genovese in 1964 was reported the medias as 38 witnesses in an apartment block saw or heard the murder but none did anything to save her, not even call the police. In 2007 someone digged into the story and discovered that this was wildly exaggerated. Only a few witnesses has seen the violence and they did in fact call the police - the police just didn't respond in a timely manner. https:/…

That sounds less like "wildly exaggerated" and more like just plain wrong in every way.

Re: Surveillance cameras debunk the bystander effect

#115

Post by michaelt »

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…

  when the alarm went off, we all looked
  at each other for a few moments [...]
  After awhile we decided we'd better
  get going so we all lazily strolled
  outside.
That's normal and expected; in most large buildings in my country, there is a weekly fire alarm test, so of course no-one sprints for the door during the first 60 seconds of hearing the siren. It's not like there's visible smoke or flames.

In a way it's even desirable; no-one's getting trampled or crushed when people leave the building at a walking pace.

Re: Surveillance cameras debunk the bystander effect

#116

Post by mmsimanga »

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…

When I was growing up in a medium sized town in Africa. The community was particularly active when it came to apprehending criminals be it a thief or someone who had just assaulted a woman. The young men of the town would chase down the criminal. They always got caught because everyone would participate. The alleged criminal would then be frog marched to the nearest policeman. Look perhaps one or two members of the public would throw in a punch or a kick at the thief but mostly they just held him. The last thing you wanted was to be charged for assaulting a criminal. Anyway other vigilante communities were not as gentle as in my town and alleged thieves got seriously hurt and couple even died from mob justice. So there was a big drive to stamp out the public apprehending criminals. This introduced some uncertainty and sometimes people don't act. In short we are making the right laws and making people aware of them. But sometimes the effect is that we are left uncertain hence we don't act.

Re: Surveillance cameras debunk the bystander effect

#117

Post by cf141q5325 »

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.

The attacks on firefighters and medics have been increasing at least in Germany, though finding reporting about it is a bit difficult since politicians used it a s a pretext to change the level of penalty for attacks on medics and firefighters and included cops in the category. Especially including the last group but not doctors and nurses in clinics makes it look more like another law and order push then anything else. As such statistics often tend to group together cops with first responders, which makes any comparison useless.

This is especially problematic since its a historical logical loop in Germany to charge people getting beaten up by cops for attacking a police officer. If they hadnt attacked a police officer it would have been illegal for the cop to beat them up and the prosecutor would be forced to charge the officer for assault. If there is however a open case against the victim, the charges will get dropped most of the time or at least paused in especially controversial cases till after the trial is over. As such you are highly incentivized to never report a cop for assault, especially as even statements of singular police officers get routinely valued higher then reports from multiple bystanders who dont know the victim. If you dont have a tape of what happened your chances of going to jail are high. This isnt something limited to protests and other large public events, there is an infamous case where police officers mixed up a 60yo translator assigned to a suspect with being connected to the accused and she ended beaten up in a police station and charged with attacking police officers. She was lucky that the judge believed her medical examiner that the reports of the cops at the station couldnt be true given the evidence. The other witnesses disagreeing with that story would have likely not been enough. The charges for assault against the cops were however dropped as usual.

German source: https://www.sueddeutsche.de/muenchen/prozess-um-gewalt-auf-d...

You can find statistics about attacks on firefighters and medics (and not police officers) here for Bavaria (in German though but just scroll to the first graph)

https://www.br.de/nachrichten/bayern/gewalt-gegen-rettungskr...

It is more problematic then the shown increase from 250/265 to 327 since medics and firefighter representatives mention a high number of unreported cases. The article mentions a survey among 800 of them had 92% reporting getting insulted or threatened and 1/4 getting physically attacked during the last 12 month. Link to the study in the article is unfortunately down.

Re: Surveillance cameras debunk the bystander effect

#118

Post by jnty »

goto11 wrote: post #28

The infamous murder of Kitty Genovese in 1964 was reported the medias as 38 witnesses in an apartment block saw or heard the murder but none did anything to save her, not even call the police. In 2007 someone digged into the story and discovered that this was wildly exaggerated. Only a few witnesses has seen the violence and they did in fact call the police - the police just didn't respond in a timely manner. https:/…

It's not a coincidence that the 'original story' completely elides any negligence or wrongdoing by the police.

Re: Surveillance cameras debunk the bystander effect

#119

Post by michaelt »

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…

  the article and the study
  are totally contrary to
  my experience
The article's definition of bystander intervention includes 'drunks held back from fighting by their buddies', assisting after the fight is over, and things like that.

And they only looked at conflict between people in city centres - so suicide attempts, cardiac arrests, falls, and hit-and-runs would all be excluded.

The article's findings sound plausible to me, given the inclusion and exclusion criteria.

Re: Surveillance cameras debunk the bystander effect

#120

Post by matwood »

GordonS wrote: post #107
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…

> 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. Wow, I had no idea Belgium was so violent!

Unfortunately, there is violence everywhere in the world.
Post reply on HN