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

151–160 of 169 posts

Re: Surveillance cameras debunk the bystander effect

#151

Post by dragonwriter »

techdmn wrote: post #135
technothrasher wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Touching somebody while asking them to do something for you works in most situations, not just a traumatic one. It creates a heightened level of intimacy, which makes the other person feel more obligated to help.

This sets off pretty big alarm bells for me. Touching people is a pretty personal thing, and doing it with ulterior motives seems wrong. P.S. Don't touch me.

Increasing the likelihood of someone doing exactly what you are asking them to is an overt rather than an ulterior motive of accompanying nonverbal communication. (That said, people do have different sensitivities to touch and this can backfire, but in an emergency situation maximizing the expected results of the request to call aid is going to be the highly favored course of action.)

Re: Surveillance cameras debunk the bystander effect

#152

Post by abfan1127 »

techdmn wrote: post #135
technothrasher wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Touching somebody while asking them to do something for you works in most situations, not just a traumatic one. It creates a heightened level of intimacy, which makes the other person feel more obligated to help.

This sets off pretty big alarm bells for me. Touching people is a pretty personal thing, and doing it with ulterior motives seems wrong. P.S. Don't touch me.

thats the point. It makes a general shout "Call 911" and makes specifically personal, "You, the person I am touching and staring into your eyes, call 911, now!"...

Re: Surveillance cameras debunk the bystander effect

#153

Post by esotericn »

techdmn wrote: post #135
technothrasher wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Touching somebody while asking them to do something for you works in most situations, not just a traumatic one. It creates a heightened level of intimacy, which makes the other person feel more obligated to help.

This sets off pretty big alarm bells for me. Touching people is a pretty personal thing, and doing it with ulterior motives seems wrong. P.S. Don't touch me.

A life or death situation, and you're worried about someone tapping someone on the shoulder.

I'd worry about karma!

Re: Surveillance cameras debunk the bystander effect

#154

Post by technothrasher »

techdmn wrote: post #135
technothrasher wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Touching somebody while asking them to do something for you works in most situations, not just a traumatic one. It creates a heightened level of intimacy, which makes the other person feel more obligated to help.

This sets off pretty big alarm bells for me. Touching people is a pretty personal thing, and doing it with ulterior motives seems wrong. P.S. Don't touch me.

Touching people is a pretty personal thing

Yep, the increased sense of intimacy that can make somebody feel more obligated to you can also make somebody feel uncomfortable and pressured. It's a technique that can definitely backfire. Using it with strangers won't necessarily give you the result you thought it would. However, I suspect in a "call 911" type of situation the other person is already uncomfortable and it's worth psychologically pulling them closer in order to focus their attention.

Re: Surveillance cameras debunk the bystander effect

#155

Post by vhollis »

There are two issues with how this study is discussed and it may not be a reproducibility issue exactly. 1) published in american psychology - samples europeans and south africans... Without sampling Americans where the effect was first displayed I don’t think we can call it ‘largely a myth’. There are huge potential cultural factors here for why someone might intervene or not. 2) There’s a sampling issue. Looking at police reports means committed crimes, while something intervened may not be reported to the police

Re: Surveillance cameras debunk the bystander effect

#156

Post by komali2 »

vonmoltke wrote: post #138
komali2 wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's not like there's visible smoke or flames. I get your desire for lack of panic, but the lollygagging around fire alarms terrifies me. If you wait around to see smoke, you are now dramatically more likely to need rescue, or just die. Remember how obnoxious it is when campfire smoke blows in your direction, and how quickly you scramble to get out of the way. How you still have to blink for a couple seconds to cle…

> Tldr if you hear a fire alarm, stand up and leave without a moment's hesitation. No need to run, just get out quick. Please!! That is specifically counter to the FDNY's guidance on alarms in high rise buildings. You get up, congregate at a stairwell, and wait for instructions from the fire safety director. Simply leaving the building without knowing the nature or location of the emergency is dangerous, and staying…

Good point, language is important. I should have said "act immediately." I meant more like "get out from your desk."

The idea is to move.

Re: Surveillance cameras debunk the bystander effect

#157

Post by Izkata »

phaemon wrote: post #95
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 I worked support at a university, in the dim and distant past, it was our responsibility to clear the labs if a fire alarm went off. Students did just generally sit there until they were told to move. I think if you have more than a dozen people in your org, it's a good idea to appoint a couple of them (in case one is on vacation/off sick/the arsonist) as fire wardens. Not least you have someone who is actually…

> Students did just generally sit there until they were told to move.

In my dorm, the fire alarm reliably went off every week or so. Always a false alarm, so we ended up just ignoring it most of the time.

There was even one day where we were eventually told the wiring got messed up from the cold, and it went off several times in a few hours.

Re: Surveillance cameras debunk the bystander effect

#158

Post by Izkata »

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…

Another thing: My understanding of the bystander effect is that it's based on the pop culture understanding of the Kitty Genovese event (see top root comment for real story), which has an additional requirement: The bystanders can't see/talk to each other, but know the others are there in their apartments. The added anonymity is supposed to decrease obligation to help, decreasing the chance anyone will help.

Re: Surveillance cameras debunk the bystander effect

#159

Post by rurp »

diydsp wrote: post #134
bkor wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interestingly the standard procedure in The Netherlands for medical emergencies (the ones where you find someone on the ground) changed to actually calling yourself over asking a random bystander. Aside from calling you should also put the phone on handsfree and lay it next to the person (on the ground). This as 112 (911) asks loads of questions. Age of the person, conscious yes/no, what does the skin look like, feel…

I find this approach of taking individual responsibility much better than handing over authority to a "person in a uniform" as the GP stated. Sure it's easier to blindly trust the "official" one, but it sets up a disempowering dynamic where the group is clueless and only looking for a charismatic leader to point them in the right direction. For something cut as clearly as a fire alarm, there is no reason why everyone…

Authoritarian structures work quite well in crisis situations, where acting quickly is imperative. It's why the military has such a rigid command structure and political leaders have emergency powers.

Democratic processes work better for longer term planning when there is time for debate, compromise, and developing a deeper understanding of the issues.

Re: Surveillance cameras debunk the bystander effect

#160

Post by CalRobert »

Tharkun wrote: post #133
CalRobert wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's laudable to stop violence, but "lainly tell them "give me a hand". That gets the ball rolling." is pretty tough. People have lots of reasons to not get involved in physical altercations and plenty of them are valid, so you're putting a pretty big burden on them.

Sure. But standing around, mouth agape, while a barkeep is getting harrassed by a drunk angrily swiging a bottle at their face is placing a pretty big burden on everyone else. "See something, say something" is the least anyone can do. Of course, don't put yourself at risk unless you have to. But if there's a chance you can do some good, you should at least try. As a victim of assault, getting physically injured sucks…

"But if there's a chance you can do some good, you should at least try."

Totally, I'm just saying that it's an important consideration before ordering a stranger to jump in.

Post reply on HN