The Science of Compliance(zacharyburt.com)
zacharyburt.com
The Science of Compliance
http://www.zacharyburt.com/2010/06/the-science-of-compliance/
9 comments
"... This is pretty interesting but I'm not sure about your example of Kitty Genovese. ... but I think it's one of "boy who cried wolf" more than "herd mentality"
From experience I say this is good example of compliance. The message in group situations like this is "don't get involved!", "I'm panicking", "I'm scared", "what can I do?" - resulting in inaction instead of action. By the time they react it's too late.
Humans can be unreliable in terrible situations requiring some kind of measured response when confronted with emergency situations. They do one of three things - fight, flight or freeze. Most reacting to their base level of training - that is, freeze. I've seen it first hand - they either freeze or move away, eyes averted. It still haunts me today. You can see the people who are trained. They are the ones reacting and running forward towards the trouble.
Reaction, doing something requires you to cast aside compliance and do what needs to be done regardless of the consequences, social or otherwise cf: "Stockdale Paradox" ~ http://www.jimcollins.com/media_topics/brutal-facts.html#aud...
From experience I say this is good example of compliance. The message in group situations like this is "don't get involved!", "I'm panicking", "I'm scared", "what can I do?" - resulting in inaction instead of action. By the time they react it's too late.
Humans can be unreliable in terrible situations requiring some kind of measured response when confronted with emergency situations. They do one of three things - fight, flight or freeze. Most reacting to their base level of training - that is, freeze. I've seen it first hand - they either freeze or move away, eyes averted. It still haunts me today. You can see the people who are trained. They are the ones reacting and running forward towards the trouble.
Reaction, doing something requires you to cast aside compliance and do what needs to be done regardless of the consequences, social or otherwise cf: "Stockdale Paradox" ~ http://www.jimcollins.com/media_topics/brutal-facts.html#aud...
If you follow the link in the article to the story of Kitty Genovese, Wikipedia offers a lot of information pointing to exactly how wrong the standard view of the episode is.
There is something ironic about offering a bad example, and then linking to an explanation of how bad your example is which you clearly have not read.
There is something ironic about offering a bad example, and then linking to an explanation of how bad your example is which you clearly have not read.
Where does it say "exactly how wrong the standard view" is? The example is only arguably "bad" because the number of reported witnesses to the murder may have been exaggerated.
The number of witnesses may be exaggerated, how much of the attack any given witness saw is probably exaggerated, and the extent to which any of those witnesses could have plausibly realized the severity of the attack is likely exaggerated.
(...) no witness saw the entire sequence of events. Most only heard portions of the incident without realizing its seriousness, a few saw only small portions of the initial assault, and no witnesses directly saw the final attack and rape in an exterior hallway (...) Additionally, after the initial attack punctured her lungs (...) it is unlikely that she was able to scream at any volume."
Not exactly a happy story either way, but nowhere near as bad as "a group of people watching a woman be raped and killed and choosing not to do anything", just your ordinary, garden-variety, this-is-clearly-someone-else's-problem bystander effect.
Does this negatively impact the incident's use as an example? Not really.
More importantly, it doesn't change the fact that the correct reaction to the incident is clearly to don a mysterious mask and become a costumed, crime-fighting vigilante.
(...) no witness saw the entire sequence of events. Most only heard portions of the incident without realizing its seriousness, a few saw only small portions of the initial assault, and no witnesses directly saw the final attack and rape in an exterior hallway (...) Additionally, after the initial attack punctured her lungs (...) it is unlikely that she was able to scream at any volume."
Not exactly a happy story either way, but nowhere near as bad as "a group of people watching a woman be raped and killed and choosing not to do anything", just your ordinary, garden-variety, this-is-clearly-someone-else's-problem bystander effect.
Does this negatively impact the incident's use as an example? Not really.
More importantly, it doesn't change the fact that the correct reaction to the incident is clearly to don a mysterious mask and become a costumed, crime-fighting vigilante.
More importantly, it doesn't change the fact that the correct reaction to the incident is clearly to don a mysterious mask and become a costumed, crime-fighting vigilante.
Which will inevitably result in your winding up in the hospital, with a bunch of metal in you, and a complete inability to feel pain. Which no doubt will help you the next time you feel inclined to be so stupid. Which will get you into trouble that you need real superheros to get you out of.
(If you don't understand this comment, you probably didn't watch Kick Ass.)
Which will inevitably result in your winding up in the hospital, with a bunch of metal in you, and a complete inability to feel pain. Which no doubt will help you the next time you feel inclined to be so stupid. Which will get you into trouble that you need real superheros to get you out of.
(If you don't understand this comment, you probably didn't watch Kick Ass.)
As discussed in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitty_Genovese#Psychological_re... the standard narrative is that the 38 neighbors were aware, and didn't do anything because everyone expected someone else to. This narrative is standard in introductory psychology books, and I've encountered it in multiple places. As soon as I began the article I knew that that was what was being referred to, and I only read on because I was curious to know more about the story.
In fact none of the neighbors were aware of the full sequence, only two were aware that stabbings happened, multiple neighbors reacted (calling police, driving the attacker away), and none were witness to the final rape and murder. This is a very different story, and completely undermines the intended point that people become less likely to act when they see others not acting.
In fact none of the neighbors were aware of the full sequence, only two were aware that stabbings happened, multiple neighbors reacted (calling police, driving the attacker away), and none were witness to the final rape and murder. This is a very different story, and completely undermines the intended point that people become less likely to act when they see others not acting.
I do not think the criticisms undermine the validity of "Genovese" as a good illustration of social proof; however, I agree that it was a bad example to use simply because it introduced all of this skepticism. You're right. I edited the article to remove the reference.
I would say that Genovese was an important incident that helped develop theories about social proof. Certainly the popular presentation of the story makes a great parable about social proof.
But I don't see how the actual events are evidence for social proof. Generally the neighbors either did act, or else had no reason to believe that anything more was going on than a minor drunken argument. Neither suggests that people think it is OK to not act when they see others not acting.
A much better example would be something to do with crowd psychology. Like the bandwagon effect, or groupthink. (The Bay of Pigs fiasco may be a good example.)
But I don't see how the actual events are evidence for social proof. Generally the neighbors either did act, or else had no reason to believe that anything more was going on than a minor drunken argument. Neither suggests that people think it is OK to not act when they see others not acting.
A much better example would be something to do with crowd psychology. Like the bandwagon effect, or groupthink. (The Bay of Pigs fiasco may be a good example.)
I live in NYC and have since I was born. The number of times I've heard screams going to bed is definitely in the 100s. So, I do think the Kitty Genovese story is a story of bias, but I think it's one of "boy who cried wolf" more than "herd mentality."