Why didn’t the viewers stop Derek Shovin? This is what the study actually shows about the involvement of passers-by
Police camera footage shows passers-by, including a third from the right, Darnella Fraser, taking a picture of a Minneapolis police officer as he presses his knee to Floyd’s neck. The Minneapolis Police Department through the AP File 17-year-old Darnella Fraser, a teenager who caught the incident with his smartphone in the File Witnesses pavilion, regretted not doing more on the day of the crime. As a professor whose main field of research is the application of psychology and game theory to ethics, I believe that Fraser’s regret for not physically intervening sheds light on two important points. a sense of personal responsibility rather than an individual. Second, one in a group of people who can see each other can still feel responsible for acting. The Observer Effect A sense of humiliated personal responsibility has become known to a group of people as the “observer effect” – a phenomenon first described in the context of a well-known, infamous incident. In a story on the first page of 1964, it was titled: “37 Who saw the murder and did not call the police? “Apathy shocks the inspector after the queen’s stabbing.” The New York Times told the horrific story of the sexual assault in the middle of the night և the murder of 28-year-old bartender Kitty Gen Enovez near his apartment building. In recent years, academics և The New York Times have concluded that the report has made significant mistakes. The number of witnesses was less than 37, and many people called the police. Referring to the infamous case long before these errors became known, social psychologists Bib Latan and John on Darley wondered if it was possible for passers-by to study the possibility of laboratory experiments. In a 1970 book, Darlene ան Latane concluded that the chances of any individual acting in a social or useful way are lower when the responsibility extends to a number of people. Further studies have shown that individuals are more likely to act when they feel they have sole responsibility for doing so. Game theorists have redefined the observer effect as a “voluntary dilemma.” In a volunteer dilemma, an individual or group of people will avoid embarrassment if any of them take pro-public action at low cost, such as providing first aid or repairing a clogged drain. An active individual who acts alone has reason to act, but if there is a crowd of, say, 20 people, the chance that they will do nothing և leave another volunteer to rise. Flo oj In the case of Floyd, the observer effect was complicated by the dynamics of the playing current. Shovin was an armed white policeman, and Fraser և the other passers-by were unarmed civilians, mostly black, like George’s Floyd. With that in mind, it is reasonable to ask whether Fraser, if he were the only civilian witness, would have gone beyond the recording of the video to physically intervene, such as the attempt to pull Shavin from Floyd. And it makes sense to ask if he or any observer should physically intervene in a situation where doing so could be extremely risky. What Makes People Take Action After Derek Shavin was found guilty of murder, people gathered on the street where he killed George Cave Floyd. Brandon Bell / Getty Images What ought to be explained in Fraser’s behavior, և a number of other witnesses who also made videos or called Shavin to stop, not that they did not take drastic, risky physical action, but why they did take steps to record videos They shouted for Shavin to stop. It is useful to explain their pro-social action by witnessing the behavior of witnesses in disturbing scenes. The study suggests that having more witnesses increases the likelihood of interference, that pro-public interference is the norm, at least for some groups. Previous study by social psychologist Daniel Stalder 2008 The analysis showed that although the effect of the observer is real, the larger the group, the greater the likelihood that at least one person in the group will make a pro-social intervention. Most recently, psychologist Richard Philpott և four co-authors 2019. The article showed that there is a greater likelihood that someone will act when there are more witnesses to public clashes. They found that intervention is the norm. 90.7% of the public clashes involved one or more witnesses who intervened in public, with an average of 3.8 witnesses intervening in each conflict. Compared to an earlier study, their study is particularly convincing, as it was based not on laboratory studies but on camera footage of real public clashes between civilians (not police or civilians) in crowded city streets. The study was conducted in three countries: South Africa, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. [Get the best of The Conversation, every weekend. Sign up for our weekly newsletter.] As Philpott and his co-authors put it, in the line that outlines what Fraser did, several other people around him said: “We found that in nine out of 10 collisions, at least one person, but usually a few, took some action.” This article is republished by The Conversation, a non-profit news site dedicated to the exchange of ideas from academics. Experts: Written by Wayne Eastman, Rutgers University Read more: Police officers accused of brutal violence often have a history of citizen complaints Derek Shavin Trial: 3 Questions America Should Ask to Seek Racial Justice in Court Wayne Eastman does not work, consult, share or finance does not receive from any company or organization պ did not disclose any relevant affiliation beyond their academic assignment.