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

91–100 of 169 posts

Re: Surveillance cameras debunk the bystander effect

#91

Post by treerock »

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…

> decrease of probability that a particular individual will act, with decrease in group size

I believe the study did show that. I heard an interview with one of the authors on the radio (so my memory may be faulty).

So I don't think it really debunked the bystander effect, rather he made a point along the lines of, 'it doesn't really matter, the more people present means it's the more likely that one of them intervenes'.

Re: Surveillance cameras debunk the bystander effect

#92

Post by de_watcher »

harg wrote: post #84
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.

Everyone nowadays knows that "we're being watched".

Re: Surveillance cameras debunk the bystander effect

#93

Post by blauditore »

Besides the dangers of getting involved, it's sometimes hard to tell whether something is a serious incident or just people fooling around. I've seen both sides of this: Guys I assumed to be friends jokingly greeting each other while in fact one was starting a serious fight and the other one was too drunk to react appropriately. At some other time, I saw a woman yelling at a man, while he was somehow holding her. Seconds later, they were laughing and walking off side by side.

Re: Surveillance cameras debunk the bystander effect

#94

Post by yrro »

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:/…

A lie can truly travel around the world three times before the truth has got its boots on.

Re: Surveillance cameras debunk the bystander effect

#95

Post by phaemon »

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 counting who is there so the fire service can get an idea of who might still be in the building.

Of course 99.9% of the time it doesn't matter, but that 0.1% can be very important.

Re: Surveillance cameras debunk the bystander effect

#96

Post by cf498 »

cm2187 wrote: post #72
Iv wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I was shocked to learn about the difference a while back, especially concerning first aid. In Germany you are facing criminal charges if you dont aid injured people, by either first aid or calling an ambulance. Then you have countries where not even dragging a person out of a burning car is protected under good Samaritan laws.

Re: Surveillance cameras debunk the bystander effect

#97

Post by Cthulhu_ »

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…

Yup, this is why you need to appoint fire marshals (and first aid) people at a workspace - you have to tell them that if the alarm goes off, this is their job and responsibility.

I mean in theory any alarm should make people panic a bit and start making their way to the exit, but in practice most alarms are false alarms so people don't know if they need to act.

Re: Surveillance cameras debunk the bystander effect

#98

Post by abhink »

de_watcher wrote: post #92
harg wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Everyone nowadays knows that "we're being watched".

In a situation where bystander intervention might happen, I think people, especially those who are willing to intervene, may not be very conscious about cameras around them. Even more so with surveillance cameras.

Re: Surveillance cameras debunk the bystander effect

#99

Post by CalRobert »

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…

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.

Post reply on HN