Swedish 'social experiment' shows people ignoring domestic abuse in a lift

[The Feral Underclass]

I don't understand the mentality involved in just ignoring what is happening in such close proximity to you. Is it tacit support? Indifference? Fear? I just don't get it.

Those affected by any of the issues should be advised when watching it.

R1-A7R15uYU

Swedish 'social experiment' shows people ignoring domestic abuse in a lift (http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/nov/14/swedish-social-experiment-shows-people-ignoring-domestic-abuse-in-a-lift)

[consuming negativity]

The bystander effect, or bystander apathy, is a social psychological (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_psychology_%28psychology%29) phenomenon that refers to cases in which individuals do not offer any means of help to a victim when other people are present. The probability of help is inversely related to the number of bystanders. In other words, the greater the number of bystanders, the less likely it is that any one of them will help. Several variables help to explain why the bystander effect occurs. These variables include: ambiguity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambiguity), cohesiveness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cohesiveness) and diffusion of responsibility (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion_of_responsibility).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bystander_effect

[Bala Perdida]

Goddamn. I mean when it's that obvious I would think people would react more often. I heard my neighbors screaming at eachother one night, but since there was still a wall between us I couldn't tell much what was going on. Also they where speaking a language I didn't know. The wall is pretty thin, so I just kept my ears open for skin on skin contact sounds. Like a slap or something. I didn't hear any, so I didn't call the cops because I'm pretty sure they would've just made things worse.

[Tim Cornelis]

Yeah bystander effect, but maybe something else.

Years ago I saw a video or read an article (don't remember which) in which/about a girl having her purse snatched in a busy train station during the day, while she was holding on to it and was dragged along, and no one intervened. Then I thought, 'If I had been there I would've reacted the same way' and then made a conscious decision to always intervene. But why? I don't think it's just that I would've figured someone else would intervene. I think people don't know how to react when people fall outside of conventional behavioural norms.* People may be willing to intervene verbally, but in this instance only an immediate violent intervention would have sufficed, which I suppose is a step too far for many ("excuse me, stop beating that woman" while pointing a finger). So with no way to comfortably intervene, people try to ignore it.

Similarly, when you see a baby or dog in a car in summer many people would ignore it, thinking 'oh the parent is probably just in a store for two minutes'. This non-intervention cannot be fully explained by the bystander effect I'd say. Again, the intervention required in this situation would put people out of their comfort zone, as ideally you should immediately smash the window.

*Imagine a person dropping his pants in a train station, squat, and shit. Most people would react similarly to what we see in the video above. Or a person starting shouting incoherently.

To further drive this point home, in the TV show WWYD we see actors playing out an abusive couple in public. The woman is bruised, and at some point the man walks away. Bystanders intervene almost immediately. Presumably, because they can do so in a verbal, comfortable, and non-confrontational way. People are generally not okay with domestic violence and abuse, but apparently they only intervene when it is non-confrontational.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

To be honest, I wonder what effect the proliferation of experiments like this and what would you do type shows have had on bystanders as well. To Tim's point about dogs in cars, over the summer I came across a dog in a car with the windows just barely cracked. He looked pretty convincingly hot, but I still looked around several times to see if it was some stunt or something. My desire to avoid being on tv or youtube outweighs my commitment to dogs I guess. In the end I walked into the store and got the person at the front desk to call the cops and then publicly shame the dogs owner over the intercom.

[bricolage]

Doesn't the bystander effect only apply to large crowds of people?

[Lord Testicles]

I don't understand the mentality involved in just ignoring what is happening in such close proximity to you. Is it tacit support? Indifference? Fear? I just don't get it.


I'm going to go with fear. Most people are craven fucks.

[Illegalitarian]

A lot of countries do not have Good Samaritan laws, meaning if you try and help an injured person who has been attacked and left alone, you could be held responsible for their harm. I think that explains it in some places.

Most people believe that it's an issue of responsibility, the the average person will think "well, someone else will come along and help", which I think is only a symptom of a greater problem. I think the point to be taken away from the by standard effect is that people are fundamentally alienated from not only their own "human essence", as Marx said, but also each other. I've gotta be at work by 7am, I cba to stop and deal with this person's issue, surely someone else will come by and help. I have to pick so-and-so from X destination for this-or-that reason, I don't have time to deal with this.

It's the fact that most people's lives are strictly regimented to the point where they have little room for deviation lest they pay a consequence they would rather not pay. the "rat race", as they say. So it's easier to pass off the burden to the next guy, because surely they will do something.

[Redistribute the Rep]

Doesn't the bystander effect only apply to large crowds of people?

The bystander effect is intensified in large crowds, but no, it can apply to individual bystanders.


bystander effect, or bystander apathy, is a social psychological phenomenon that refers to cases in which individuals do not offer any means of help to a victim when other people are present. The probability of help is inversely related to the number of bystanders. In other words, the greater the number of bystanders, the less likely it is that any one of them will help. Several variables help to explain why the bystander effect occurs. These variables include: ambiguity, cohesiveness and diffusion of responsibility.

[bricolage]

From the wikipedia quote you posted:
"when other people are present"

So if you're the only other person in the lift (apart from the abuser and the victim) there is noone else present so surely the theory can't apply here?

[consuming negativity]

The bystander effect is not a "theory" that posits anything; it is an observation of human behavior that we attempt to explain. Among the explanations are the diffusion of responsibility (because there are so many people, we feel less responsible for being the person to "stand up" and do something, and in fact our silence is legitimized by the silence of others in the group). Other explanations include obfuscation of the situation or confusion among the bystander(s) (such as not wanting to get involved because we aren't sure that what we're seeing is what we're seeing, and we assume that there might be something else to the story). Of course, cowardice (or fear) can and does explain it to a certain degree as well. But nothing else apart from the bystander effect can explain this precisely because the bystander effect is what happened and not an explanation of what happened. The explanation of what happened lies in our psychology, and social scientists have done a lot of research on this and come to the conclusion that the people aren't actually bad but that they're scared of the consequences, unsure if they should help (or if they'd be helping), or they just don't feel like it's their problem to solve. Really not that complicated after all. It seems sort of obvious. But there you have it.

[Firebrand]

I think there is also a certain "mind your own business" social code going on as well. Where you know something is wrong, but you don't feel you have the right to interfere because it isn't your business. I'm not saying that that makes it ok, and I doubt anyone would even try and use it as a justification, but it is a pervasive attitude, at least in english society. It's the same unwritten rule that means you can't criticize the behaviour of other people's children, or comment unfavourably on other people's clothes (at least to their face. You can do what you like behind their back). It makes people feel deeply uncomfortable and intrusive, to intervene unasked into other peoples problems. Even when they believe its the right thing to do, it "feels wrong".
People feel like they need permission to intervene. I think it might almost be a twisted kind of respect and good manners. Giving people the illusion of privacy, or maybe the right to decide if they want help, there's probably an element of a desire to avoid confrontation in there too. It all happens on a subconscious level i think.