Surveillance cameras debunk the bystander effect • Hacker News Board

Re: Surveillance cameras debunk the bystander effect

#51

Post by mcqueenjordan » Fri, Jul 12, 2019, 6:29 AM UTC

eridius wrote: post #39

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…

Surveillance cameras do not correlate with "not in danger". It's not like people are watching these things in real time and jumping to action when they see something. After all, if that were the case, then there'd be no reason for bystanders to even get involved in these incidents at all.

I'm not as confident as you that they "do not correlate with not in danger." And I'm much less confident that they don't correlate with "perception of danger."

They definitely correlate with a lot of things. They correlate with buildings and power lines. And other things. And I think some of those things correlate with perception of safety.

Re: Surveillance cameras debunk the bystander effect

#52

Post by thinkingemote » Fri, Jul 12, 2019, 6:29 AM UTC

jacobolus wrote: post #26

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…

> really violent crime is happening as now in Western European cities, London, Berlin, etc. Can you elaborate? Judging from statistics these both seem like reasonably safe large cities. I wouldn’t recommend getting personally involved if two criminal gangs are in the middle of a knife fight or something. Getting the hell away and then calling the police from a safe distance seems like a better idea.

Yep. Crime statistics actually mean it's safer to be in these cities than a small village. Safety in numbers! Oxford Street in London may have the most pickpockets operating but it also has vastly more shoppers making it safer than your local towns shopping area.

Re: Surveillance cameras debunk the bystander effect

#53

Post by inlined » Fri, Jul 12, 2019, 6:29 AM UTC

thereare5lights wrote: post #35

inlined wrote: post #27

The article only uses footage from a few cities of Western culture. Good Samaritan laws are not universal and the lack of one can have a chilling effect on whether people will help. This is especially prominent in China where there are a number of famous cases where the victim sued the Good Samaritan claiming they caused the damages. It’s so prevalent that Alibaba is trying to help promote social good by offering ins…

That's not the bystander effect though. In China, they're afraid of legal repercussions. In the bystander effect, it's diffusion of responsibility. Same effect but different causes.

Fair and interesting point. The same outcome is irrelevant to the supposed phenomenon that causes it, though the study wouldn’t be able to tell the difference.

Re: Surveillance cameras debunk the bystander effect

#54

Post by ptero » Fri, Jul 12, 2019, 6:29 AM UTC

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...

Yes, so researchers must be very careful to caveat their findings. Not only as footnotes in the middle of the article but also in general terms in abstract and introduction as those are the sections copied into newspapers and such. My 2c.

Re: Surveillance cameras debunk the bystander effect

#55

Post by ptero » Fri, Jul 12, 2019, 6:39 AM UTC

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".

Re: Surveillance cameras debunk the bystander effect

#56

Post by owens99 » Fri, Jul 12, 2019, 6:43 AM UTC

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.

This. Debunked is the wrong word (clickbait). It's a great thing if the bystander effect can be overcome or nullified.

Re: Surveillance cameras debunk the bystander effect

#57

Post by simonh » Fri, Jul 12, 2019, 6:43 AM UTC

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).

Re: Surveillance cameras debunk the bystander effect

#58

Post by owens99 » Fri, Jul 12, 2019, 6:44 AM UTC

your-nanny wrote: post #46

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.

Debunked = Clickbait.

Nullified or reversed is different than debunked.

Flat-earth theory is debunked. This is not even close to that.

Re: Surveillance cameras debunk the bystander effect

#59

Post by NegatioN » Fri, Jul 12, 2019, 6:44 AM UTC

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.

Re: Surveillance cameras debunk the bystander effect

#60

Post by miguelmota » Fri, Jul 12, 2019, 6:44 AM UTC

Are the surveillance cameras clearly visible and the bystanders are aware of them? I wonder if the bystanders would react differently if they weren't aware that they are being recorded. Another thing I wonder is if they refuse to help then maybe they think there'll be repercussions like being ostracized when the footage goes public.