4 ms·

Er, the Bystander effect should be considered a victim of the replication crisis, because it hasn't been. Replicated, I mean -- quite the opposite [0]. Namely,

Er, the Bystander effect should be considered a victim of the replication crisis, because it hasn't been. Replicated, I mean -- quite the opposite [0]. Namely, it's been found that the more witnesses there are, the greater the chances of someone intervening. The Kitty Genovese story should be further examined, too -- many apartment-bound witnesses called the cops, who (much like modern cops) took their sweet time, only arriving after it was already too late. 21st-century re-examination of the story, in fact, shows that newsies in '64 understood that they weren't telling the whole truth, but doing so would have "ruined the story". [1] There's a huge cultural undercurrent in the West, trying to paint humanity as monstrous; this is a great example. It strikes me that the Bystander effect, as it's currently taught, is justification for neoliberal greed. If people are "actually" arseholes in large groups, then authoritarians, the superrich, and the like have moral license to be arseholes. It's science! [0] https://web.archive.org/web/20190510231740/https://nscr.nl/en/bystander-blijkt-wel-degelijk-in-actie-te-komen-bij-ruzie-op-straat/ https://web.archive.org/web/20190510231740/https://nscr.nl/e... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Kitty_Genovese#Accuracy_of_original_reports https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Kitty_Genovese#Accur...

eesmith 5y ago
Most interesting! The Wikipedia entry for "Bystander effect" claims "These researchers launched a series of experiments that resulted in one of the strongest and most replicable effects in social psychology." citing Fischer et al https://doi.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Fa0023304 https://doi.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Fa0023304 - 'The bystander-effect: A meta-analytic review on bystander intervention in dangerous and non-dangerous emergencies.' The abstract says "In a fixed effects model, data from over 7,700 participants and 105 independent effect sizes revealed an overall effect size of g = –0.35. The bystander effect was attenuated when situations were perceived as dangerous (compared with non-dangerous), perpetrators were present (compared with non-present), and the costs of intervention were physical (compared with non-physical)." but I am unwilling to pay for access to read that paper. Marie R. Lindegaard's publication "Bystander Intervention in Street Violence: Current Evidence and Implications for Practice" from https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/7m9uv/download https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/7m9uv/download comments "Decades of subsequent research established the bystander effect as one of the best-replicated findings within social psychology (Manning, Levine, & Collins, 2007). Recently, however, this apathetic view of bystanders has been challenged. In a meta-analytical synthesis of the experimentally-based bystander effect research field, Fischer et al. (2011) showed that the bystander effect does not generalize to dangerous emergencies." Wikipedia and Lindegaard both quote Fischer, with rather different interpretations, and the Wikipedia example is clearly more suspect, quoting a 1969 experiment for its example. Thank you for pointing this out! I commented "the story was more parable than fact" to summarize the Genovese case, leaving full discussion up to the Wikipedia article.
- revolvingocelot 5y ago
  It's worth pointing out that the majority of bystander effect studies are lab-based, and involve asking WEIRD [0] undergraduate students what they'd do in a hypothetical situation. The cited study in the grandparent comment is an analysis of security camera footage in Amsterdam, Cape Town (!), and Lancaster, UK, and so is not synthetically asking people about what they reckon would happen, but is instead an examination of what does actually happen. Not that street fights in two very (and one relatively) typically Western cities don't represent a biasing limitation of sample, but it's still more applicable, IMO. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology#WEIRD_bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology#WEIRD_bias

eesmith 5y ago

Most interesting! The Wikipedia entry for "Bystander effect" claims "These researchers launched a series of experiments that resulted in one of the strongest and most replicable effects in social psychology." citing Fischer et al https://doi.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Fa0023304 https://doi.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Fa0023304 - 'The bystander-effect: A meta-analytic review on bystander intervention in dangerous and non-dangerous emergencies.' The abstract says "In a fixed effects model, data from over 7,700 participants and 105 independent effect sizes revealed an overall effect size of g = –0.35. The bystander effect was attenuated when situations were perceived as dangerous (compared with non-dangerous), perpetrators were present (compared with non-present), and the costs of intervention were physical (compared with non-physical)." but I am unwilling to pay for access to read that paper. Marie R. Lindegaard's publication "Bystander Intervention in Street Violence: Current Evidence and Implications for Practice" from https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/7m9uv/download https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/7m9uv/download comments "Decades of subsequent research established the bystander effect as one of the best-replicated findings within social psychology (Manning, Levine, & Collins, 2007). Recently, however, this apathetic view of bystanders has been challenged. In a meta-analytical synthesis of the experimentally-based bystander effect research field, Fischer et al. (2011) showed that the bystander effect does not generalize to dangerous emergencies." Wikipedia and Lindegaard both quote Fischer, with rather different interpretations, and the Wikipedia example is clearly more suspect, quoting a 1969 experiment for its example. Thank you for pointing this out! I commented "the story was more parable than fact" to summarize the Genovese case, leaving full discussion up to the Wikipedia article.

revolvingocelot 5y ago
It's worth pointing out that the majority of bystander effect studies are lab-based, and involve asking WEIRD [0] undergraduate students what they'd do in a hypothetical situation. The cited study in the grandparent comment is an analysis of security camera footage in Amsterdam, Cape Town (!), and Lancaster, UK, and so is not synthetically asking people about what they reckon would happen, but is instead an examination of what does actually happen. Not that street fights in two very (and one relatively) typically Western cities don't represent a biasing limitation of sample, but it's still more applicable, IMO. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology#WEIRD_bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology#WEIRD_bias