Lajme nga Bota

Crowd indifference and the 'spectator effect' in the age of social media

Crowd indifference and the 'spectator effect' in the age of social

Have you ever heard of the "spectator effect"? If the answer is no, then you should definitely read this article. I am serious. In 1964, two social psychologists, John Darley of New York University and Bib Latan of Columbia University, were shocked by the terrible news of the black chronicle: Katherine Genovese, otherwise known as Kitty, was raped and then stabbed to death in the suburbs of the Queens area of ​​New York.

Genovese owned a bar in the area and as always returned home very late. After parking her car 30 feet from home, she was attacked by a 29-year-old man with no criminal record from Manhattan, who was arrested by police a few days later while committing a robbery.

The perpetrator would confess to police agents the murder of 2 other women, as well as other crimes. He also stated that he preferred to attack women, as this "is easier". The attack on Kiti Genovese took place in two phases, and lasted about half an hour in total: at first someone shouted at the aggressor "Leave the woman alone!".

The frightened killer ran away. But then he came back to kill his victim. Genovese tries to defend herself and asks for help, but the only call a neighbor made to the police was not taken seriously. And yet few people asked themselves that night, about what was happening in reality: are they nothing but some strange screams heard at night !?

Birth of emergency number

After that event, U.S. police would set a unique 911 number for emergency calls. Shortly after the incident, The New York Times wrote an article entitled "38 people close to the murder, but no one notified the police."

The article was inaccurate and, as will be learned later, exaggerated the number of witnesses. However, he highlighted a real problem and sparked a wide-ranging public debate on "the apathy and dehumanization of people in urban areas."

Darley and Latan decided to delve deeper into the psychosocial dynamics that underlie this phenomenon. They perform a series of laboratory experiments. The results presented one of the most consistent effects among those analyzed by social psychology.

It is the "spectator effect," or passer-by apathy, first described in an article published in the 1968 Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

The "spectator effect" consists of this fact: the greater the number of individuals present at a scene, the greater the number of individuals present who are less likely to intervene to help a person in difficulty.

In other words: a person in difficulty is likely to receive help that is inversely proportional to the number of people who can help being there. In fact, in the face of an emergency situation, people see themselves in an ambiguous state.

This was reported by two well-known psychologists, Milgram and Hollander in an article in The Nation in 1964, in response to an article in The New York Times. On the one hand, write Milgram and Holander, the situation may seem unclear to passers-by. But on the other hand, people feel compelled to intervene. But they fear the possible consequences of their intervention.

In such a situation, Darlej and Latan say that "the presence of other spectators reduces individual feelings of personal responsibility, and reduces the speed of reaction." Here are the results of the experiment: without any difference between men and women, 85 percent of people intervene if they are alone in the face of an emergency.

In the presence of more people, the percentage of those who intervene in a state of emergency drops to only 31 percent. The researchers add that the explanation of the phenomenon has more to do with the reaction of each individual to the behavior of others present, than with his personal indifference to the victim.

So it is group behavior that determines the reaction of individuals, slowing down and weakening it. This is because the responsibility for intervening in a situation seems to be prevalent among many people, and is therefore perceived as less necessary by all.

This phenomenon is more common when the behavior of others present at the scene can not be directly observed, and therefore everyone can justify their inaction by saying: "someone else will surely do something."

It is worth noting that in a later experiment, Darley and Latan emit smoke, as an indication of a fire that has just fallen, in the room where one or more volunteers are. The result: if people are alone in the room, in 75 percent of cases they leave the room immediately and go to call the fire department.

If they are in a group, someone goes to call the fire department only in 10 percent of cases.

The fact that there is a "spectator effect", proven by some experiments, does not constitute an excuse for those who do not help others who are in great danger for life.

But understanding the reasons helps us to oppose this phenomenon. As Darley and Latan put it at the end of their study: "People are not necessarily 'non-intrusive' because of their personality" (indifferent or alienated). "If people understand the pressures of the situation, which can make them reluctant and non-intrusive, they can overcome these feelings."

"Likes" on social networks do not save lives

Here I would like to emphasize that the "spectator effect" can occur in different countries and contexts, and in very different emergency situations. For example in the workplace, we may have public episodes of sexual harassment or discrimination.

Speaking of sexual harassment, Julia Shaw of University College London reports that victims of sexual harassment testify that in 93 per cent of the time harassment occurs in the presence of others.

In school, the "spectator effect" can be bullying. In the hospital, it can happen due to a large medical team in number, where no one really cares about the patient. I would like to emphasize one more fact: social media, which in fact makes us all spectators, adds two new and ugly dimensions to the "spectator effect".

The first, and most terrible, has to do with indifference, or even approval of violent acts spread on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram. The second, less frightening but more disappointing, has to do with the fact that there is a tendency to exchange a "like", which is attributed to this or that good cause, with a concrete intervention in favor of that good cause. But that is not how things work, and this is what a UNICEF campaign in Sweden reminds us: "Likes do not save lives!" / “International”

* Received from Bota.al