Normalcy Bias and Salman Rushdie

[lklawson]

Cool. Which ones have you actually read?

None. You asked for some studies, here are some studies.

Also, can you share where you copied this list from? I'm curious to take a look and see if there is anything from the last decade available.

From this article:

The Bystander Effect — A Deep Sociological Issue

Diffusion of responsibility or absence of empathy?

medium.com

 

[Steve]

None. You asked for some studies, here are some studies.

Yeah. I wasn’t sure if you were trying to be snarky or helpful. I think it’s clear now.

So have you read any of those articles?

From this article:

The Bystander Effect — A Deep Sociological Issue

Diffusion of responsibility or absence of empathy?

medium.com

Did you read this article? I just did and didn’t see anything in the article about it being more common now than in times past. Interesting information, though, if uij care to take a few minutes to read it.

Will add that I read it pretty quickly, so if you can point to what you have in mind in the article, I’ll take a look. Happy to stand corrected.

 

[lklawson]

Yeah. I wasn’t sure if you were trying to be snarky or helpful. I think it’s clear now.

Definitely not being snarky. I used to try to be subtle when I was snarky but too often people missed it. So, no. You asked from some studies, here's a list.

So have you read any of those articles?

Did you read this article? I just did and didn’t see anything in the article about it being more common now than in times past. Interesting information, though, if uij care to take a few minutes to read it.

Will add that I read it pretty quickly, so if you can point to what you have in mind in the article, I’ll take a look. Happy to stand corrected.

I did read the article, yes. I wasn't pointing out anything in particular about that article. I read it, and it had a list of references at the end. There was nothing special about the article to me past what has already been generally discussed in this thread but it did have the references. I posted the references to the studies, etc. because you asked for some. I didn't post the article until you asked me where I found the references.

 

[Steve]

Definitely not being snarky. I used to try to be subtle when I was snarky but too often people missed it. So, no. You asked from some studies, here's a list.


I did read the article, yes. I wasn't pointing out anything in particular about that article. I read it, and it had a list of references at the end. There was nothing special about the article to me past what has already been generally discussed in this thread but it did have the references. I posted the references to the studies, etc. because you asked for some. I didn't post the article until you asked me where I found the references.

Alright. Thanks for that. So, to be clearer, you said that spectator culture has overridden the good Samaritan behaviors. You and a few others in this thread have suggested this is a recent phenomenon and have proposed a few theories about why.

So, I'll just say again, I'd love to see some actual data that supports your assertion that this happens more frequently now than in the past. I think it's an open question whether this spectator culture is more prevalent now than at any time in history. I'm interested in whether there is anything out there to support your claim.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

I dug up a list of references.

• Darley, J. M., & Latané´, B. (1968). Bystander intervention in emergencies: Diffusion of responsibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8, 377–383.
• Garcia, Stephen M, Weaver, Kim, Moskowitz, Gordon B, & Darley, John M. (2002). Crowded Minds. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(4), 843–853.
• Hortensius, Ruud, & De Gelder, Beatrice. (2018). From Empathy to Apathy: The Bystander Effect Revisited. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 27(4), 249–256.
• Latané´, B., & Darley, J. M. (1968). Group inhibition of bystander intervention in emergencies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 10, 215–221.
• Latané´, B., & Darley, J. M. (1970). The unresponsive bystander: Why doesn’t he help? New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Croft.
• Latané´, B., & Darley, J. M. (1976). <em>Help in a crisis: Bystander response to an emergency. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.
• Latané´, B., & Nida, S. (1981). Ten years of research on group size and helping. Psychological Bulletin, 89, 308 –324.
• Manning, R., Levine, M., & Collins, A. (2007). The Kitty Genovese murder and the social psychology of helping: The parable of the 38 witnesses. American Psychologist, 62, 555–562.
• Prentice, D. (2007). Pluralistic ignorance. In R. F. Baumeister & K. D. Vohs (Eds.), Encyclopedia of social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 674–674). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
• Rendsvig, R. K. (2014). Pluralistic ignorance in the bystander effect: Informational dynamics of unresponsive witnesses in situations calling for intervention. Synthese (Dordrecht), 191(11), 2471–2498.
• Shotland, R. L., & Heinold, W. D. (1985). Bystander response to arterial bleeding: Helping skills, the decision-making process, and differentiating the helping response. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
• Shotland, R. L., & Straw, M. K. (1976). Bystander response to an assault: When a man attacks a woman. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34(5), 990.
• Siegal, H. A. (1972). The Unresponsive Bystander: Why Doesn’t He Help? 1(3), 226–227.
• Van Bommel, Marco, Van Prooijen, Jan-Willem, Elffers, Henk, & Van Lange, Paul A.M. (2012). Be aware to care: Public self-awareness leads to a reversal of the bystander effect. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(4), 926–930.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

I've read a few of those, though not all. From what I recall, they describe the bystander effect well, but don't really address whether or not it's increasing or decreasing, just that it exists, why it exists, what it is, and how we know it exists.

 

[Alan0354]

You don't have to dwell on it, but to think about it does no harm. The best time to think about what if scenarios is when you are in a comfy chair and typing on the computer. The worst time to think about what to do in an emergency is when you are in one. Your brain isn't going to process the situation very well if the situation is completely new. This is why children go through active shooter drills. It's why I went through Tornado drills in school. I was never in a Tornado at school. Many kids will never be in an active shooter situation.

If you haven't thought about it such things before hand then you will most likely have a difficult time to process the situation when it happens. You don't have to dwell on it. But a little thought about different scenarios can be more helpful than what people realize.

I really don't think about this. I already moved on from this thread, just seeing this thread keep going and going talking about what people should do this and that and this situation. That's why I put in my two cents.

 

[Steve]

I've read a few of those, though not all. From what I recall, they describe the bystander effect well, but don't really address whether or not it's increasing or decreasing, just that it exists, why it exists, what it is, and how we know it exists.

For sure, and I think we can all agree that it happens. As I mentioned earlier, I think the parable of the good Samaritan is itself an object lesson in the bystander effect.

 

[JowGaWolf]

None. You asked for some studies, here are some studies

ha ha ha.. curve ball

 

[Tony Dismukes]

I tend to frame the issue in a lightly different way. I think of it in terms of "scripts".

In most human interaction, the people involved are not looking at all the available information, applying their relevant personal values, then formulating an appropriate course of action from scratch on the basis of that info and those values. Rather, we have a large selection of plug-and-play "scripts" which cover the general outline of how to handle the current situation and we intuitively select one of those scripts based on a handful of cues that we perceive in whatever we are dealing with.

These scripts aren't as rigid as the ones a telemarketer might have written down for them to follow and most people aren't even consciously aware that they are following a script. They just get the cues which tell them what general direction to go, what sort of things to expect, and some appropriate "if this, then that" actions to take if the expected events occur.

This isn't a criticism. Our brains use these sorts of heuristics all the time to enable us to move through daily life at speed without having to stop and ponder every word and action. (It goes beyond social interaction as well. Shortcuts like this also underly things like basic visual perception.)

As useful as these scripts can be, they also can cause problems.

Swindlers, salesmen and manipulative abusers make use of other people's scripts by doing and saying things to trigger a standard social script for their marks, then switching things up in the middle, going outside the parameters of the expected interaction, then pressuring the other person into the direction they want while the victim is confused by not having an appropriate response ready at hand.

It also contributes to a lot of online (and in-person) nastiness in political (and other) discussion. People get overly simplified scripts which allow them to drop the person they are disagreeing with into a stereotyped pigeonhole and then spout pre-determined counters to what they imagine the other person is saying based on the role they have assigned to them in their internal script.

Getting back to the original topic at hand - most people, when they go to hear an author deliver a public speech, have a set number of standard scripts easily available in their heads. Maybe it's "sit back and enjoy an entertaining story." Maybe it's "wait for Q&A so I can ask something about his next book." Maybe it's "scroll through my phone until the talk is over, then go up to ask if he can sign a copy of his book for my nephew who is a really big fan." One script which is not going to be prepared for the vast majority of people is "hey, someone just jumped up there and is trying to murder the author, what do I do now?" It's just not something that matches the experiences or expectations of the vast majority of people in that context. In the absence of an appropriate prepared mental script, it's pretty common for a person to freeze or to look around to the people around them for cues as to what to do next. If those people are also going through the same process, it can take a little while for somebody to do something. I haven't read any descriptions of exactly how long it took for someone to move to intervene and stop the attacker, but it wouldn't have to be more than a few seconds for the would-be assassin to inflict serious damage. (It's also worth noting that the moderator of the event, a 73 year old man, was injured in the process of helping defend Rushdie and subdue his assailant. I don't think it's fair to accuse him of having a "bystander mentality.")

 

[Steve]

ha ha ha.. curve ball

Man, you are petty. I understand now why you accuse folks of playing games. It's projection.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

I should add that our internal scripts don't just affect our actions, they also affect our perceptions of the situation.

Based on my personal life experiences, I know that if I had been in the audience when Rushdie was attacked that I would have attempted to help as soon as I realized what was going on. What I don't know is how quickly I would have realized what was going on. Expectation is a huge component of perception. When I'm sitting and listening to an author speak, I am not expecting an assassination attempt. It's very likely that it would have taken me longer to figure out what was happening than it would if I was in an environment where I thought a violent attack was more probable.

 

[Steve]

I tend to frame the issue in a lightly different way. I think of it in terms of "scripts".

In most human interaction, the people involved are not looking at all the available information, applying their relevant personal values, then formulating an appropriate course of action from scratch on the basis of that info and those values. Rather, we have a large selection of plug-and-play "scripts" which cover the general outline of how to handle the current situation and we intuitively select one of those scripts based on a handful of cues that we perceive in whatever we are dealing with.

These scripts aren't as rigid as the ones a telemarketer might have written down for them to follow and most people aren't even consciously aware that they are following a script. They just get the cues which tell them what general direction to go, what sort of things to expect, and some appropriate "if this, then that" actions to take if the expected events occur.

This isn't a criticism. Our brains use these sorts of heuristics all the time to enable us to move through daily life at speed without having to stop and ponder every word and action. (It goes beyond social interaction as well. Shortcuts like this also underly things like basic visual perception.)

As useful as these scripts can be, they also can cause problems.

Swindlers, salesmen and manipulative abusers make use of other people's scripts by doing and saying things to trigger a standard social script for their marks, then switching things up in the middle, going outside the parameters of the expected interaction, then pressuring the other person into the direction they want while the victim is confused by not having an appropriate response ready at hand.

It also contributes to a lot of online (and in-person) nastiness in political (and other) discussion. People get overly simplified scripts which allow them to drop the person they are disagreeing with into a stereotyped pigeonhole and then spout pre-determined counters to what they imagine the other person is saying based on the role they have assigned to them in their internal script.

Getting back to the original topic at hand - most people, when they go to hear an author deliver a public speech, have a set number of standard scripts easily available in their heads. Maybe it's "sit back and enjoy an entertaining story." Maybe it's "wait for Q&A so I can ask something about his next book." Maybe it's "scroll through my phone until the talk is over, then go up to ask if he can sign a copy of his book for my nephew who is a really big fan." One script which is not going to be prepared for the vast majority of people is "hey, someone just jumped up there and is trying to murder the author, what do I do now?" It's just not something that matches the experiences or expectations of the vast majority of people in that context. In the absence of an appropriate prepared mental script, it's pretty common for a person to freeze or to look around to the people around them for cues as to what to do next. If those people are also going through the same process, it can take a little while for somebody to do something. I haven't read any descriptions of exactly how long it took for someone to move to intervene and stop the attacker, but it wouldn't have to be more than a few seconds for the would-be assassin to inflict serious damage. (It's also worth noting that the moderator of the event, a 73 year old man, was injured in the process of helping defend Rushdie and subdue his assailant. I don't think it's fair to accuse him of having a "bystander mentality.")

This is super interesting. I encourage new managers and supervisors to think about "what if" scenarios. Violence doesn't happen every day, but it's a realistic concern for them. We had an office just a few weeks ago where a person walked into the doorway to the office and committed suicide, for example. So, in the absence of experience, some visualization and consideration of what they would do if X happens seems to be helpful. Particularly when there may be no clear direction or if there is conflict between two core principles. For example, if something happens and the manager may have to go outside of their delegated authority to keep folks safe.

 

[Steve]

I should add that our internal scripts don't just affect our actions, they also affect our perceptions of the situation.

Based on my personal life experiences, I know that if I had been in the audience when Rushdie was attacked that I would have attempted to help as soon as I realized what was going on. What I don't know is how quickly I would have realized what was going on. Expectation is a huge component of perception. When I'm sitting and listening to an author speak, I am not expecting an assassination attempt. It's very likely that it would have taken me longer to figure out what was happening than it would if I was in an environment where I thought a violent attack was more probable.

And you know, how you (or I) react in one situation will probably affect how we would react if it ever happens again. In one of those articles that were shared earlier, someone talked about all of the folks who failed to act in the Kitty Genovese crimes did act in future events.

Another article (or may be the same one... it was a lot to consume pretty quickly) mentioned there were an average of 6 events in a person's life where they may be required to act. So, whether it's your first time in a situation like that or your 3rd or 6th would reasonably impact your performance in that crisis quite a bit.

 

[lklawson]

I tend to frame the issue in a lightly different way. I think of it in terms of "scripts".

In most human interaction, the people involved are not looking at all the available information, applying their relevant personal values, then formulating an appropriate course of action from scratch on the basis of that info and those values. Rather, we have a large selection of plug-and-play "scripts" which cover the general outline of how to handle the current situation and we intuitively select one of those scripts based on a handful of cues that we perceive in whatever we are dealing with.

These scripts aren't as rigid as the ones a telemarketer might have written down for them to follow and most people aren't even consciously aware that they are following a script. They just get the cues which tell them what general direction to go, what sort of things to expect, and some appropriate "if this, then that" actions to take if the expected events occur.

Pretty close to my description of "Robodroid" and how we have to "program" ourselves for scenarios and actions.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

there were an average of 6 events in a person's life where they may be required to act.

I always wonder what an average person will do in the situation as showing in this film - no guns involved, no police around.

 

[JowGaWolf]

I haven't read any descriptions of exactly how long it took for someone to move to intervene and stop the attacker, but it wouldn't have to be more than a few seconds for the would-be assassin to inflict serious damage.

There was no time limit, so how ever long it took for a person to run up on stage either from the front seats or from the back seats would be the time range. I don't know if the victim saw the attack coming or if he was blindsided. Quite a few people reacted and ran to the stage but that was after the physical attack began. Others followed, more likely a result of "safety in numbers." More people are willing to assist if they see someone else assist.

It's also worth noting that the moderator of the event, a 73 year old man, was injured in the process of helping defend Rushdie and subdue his assailant. I don't think it's fair to accuse him of having a "bystander mentality."

I think the "bystander mentality" only exists at a distance. I don't think it's viable at close distance even though it happens sometimes, but not often. I think we naturally perceive nearby danger for someone as danger for us. If a dog attacks you and you are standing next to me, then my brain may automatically register that I'm in danger too. But if the same thing happens to you and I'm 20 feet away then my brain may automatically register that the danger is "over there, don't go over there." Both are natural responses and would be beneficial to self preservation.

I should add that our internal scripts don't just affect our actions, they also affect our perceptions of the situation.

Based on my personal life experiences, I know that if I had been in the audience when Rushdie was attacked that I would have attempted to help as soon as I realized what was going on. What I don't know is how quickly I would have realized what was going on. Expectation is a huge component of perception. When I'm sitting and listening to an author speak, I am not expecting an assassination attempt. It's very likely that it would have taken me longer to figure out what was happening than it would if I was in an environment where I thought a violent attack was more probable.

Placement also matters. Had you been on the stage, a guy running towards you would trigger the red flags, because off the back you know that it's not normal to have people run towards you. I think your brain would have been able to detect anger in the movement. People who running angry doesn't look the same as running scared. That process would have happened much faster and your eyes would have been able to pick up more visual cues provided that you weren't blindsided.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Pretty close to my description of "Robodroid" and how we have to "program" ourselves for scenarios and actions.

I think it's a MUST for self-defense. It's not practical to experience them first hand. It's better to run scenarios and use the information and experience provided by people who unfortunately have been in that situation before. If someone was attacked while trying to break up a fight then I can use that information to help calibrate my own actions. The best thing about sharing experiences like that is that you are no longer using a what if outcome. You are using a real possible outcome to calibrate actions to avoid going down the same path or actions to use if you are on the same path.

For me personally I run scenarios all the time just out of curiosities and a lot of the times, my responses aren't to jump in as a hero. I tend to move towards the preventive actions than the responsive actions. In my 30's someone asked me how do I stay calm in emergencies and dangerous situations. This person saw me handle various situations and was curious. My answer to that person was simple "I don't freak out because I've thought about scenarios like this."

So while the reality of a situation may be new to me, the elements of that situation aren't. The only thing I would caution in terms of "programming ourselves" is that we don't become consumed by it.

 

[JowGaWolf]

I always wonder what an average person will do in the situation as showing in this film - no guns involved, no police around.

Depends on who was on the bus that day.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Depends on who was on the bus that day.

Of course if you and 20 of your MA studnts are on that bus, the outcome will be different.

Also if you have a walking cane like this (since firearm is not available), the outcome will also be different.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Man, you are petty. I understand now why you accuse folks of playing games. It's projection.

Man, you are petty. I understand now why you accuse folks of playing games. It's projection.

and?