3 ms·
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 by
by mcqueenjordan 7y ago
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 surveilled are probably more likely to be safe areas for me to do so.
- treerock 7y agoCould possibly have the opposite effect? I believe the study showed that the probability of any individual getting involved increases if there is no-one else present. i.e. they are the only one who can help. Surveillance cameras might make people feel someone else will take responsibility.
- eridius 7y agoSurveillance 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.
- mcqueenjordan 7y agoI'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.
- pbhjpbhj 7y agoUK cities have surveillance cameras with control rooms where people sit and watch, real time, and take action. Some have audio connections to allow voice communication too. Or they did a few years ago, it's possible the police budget restrictions from "austerity" have put an end to it, but AFAIK it still happens.