Pluralistic Ignorance (AKA Herd Mentality)Posted by Roger Keays, 22 June 2011, 6:07 PM |
Freaky extract from Influence: The Psychology Of Persuasion (Robert Cialdini).
Catherine Genovese had not experienced a quick, muffled death. It had been a long, loud, tortured, public event. Her assailant had chased and attacked her in the street three times over a period of thirty-five minutes before his knife finally silenced her cries for help. Incredibly, thirty-eight of her neighbors watched the events of her death unfold from the safety of their apartment windows without so much as lifting a finger to call the police.
Latané and Darley suggested that no one had helped precisely because there were so many observers. The psychologists speculated that, for at least two reasons, a bystander to an emergency would be unlikely to help when there were a number of other bystanders present. The first reason is fairly straightforward. With several potential helpers around, the personal responsibility of each individual is reduced: “Perhaps someone else will give or call for aid, perhaps someone else already has.” So with everyone thinking that someone else will help or has helped, no one does.
The second reason is the more psychologically intriguing one; it is founded on the principle of social proof and involves the pluralistic ignorance effect. Very often an emergency is not obviously an emergency. In times of such uncertainty, the natural tendency is to look around at the actions of others for clues. We can learn, from the way the other witnesses are reacting, whether
the event is or is not an emergency.
What is easy to forget, though, is that everybody else observing the event is likely to be looking for social evidence, too. And because we all prefer to appear poised and unflustered among others, we are likely to search for that evidence placidly, with brief, camouflaged glances at those around us. Therefore everyone is likely to see everyone else looking unruffled and failing to act. As a result, and by the principle of social proof, the event will be roundly interpreted as a nonemergency.
| Back to Blog | Richard Dawkins - What If You're Wrong? >> |
Comment posted by: steven on 20/07/2011 6:12:26 AM
I'm going to go a bit off topic since I am arguing against the example and not the actualy thrust of the post, but I think the example it is based on is wrong.
I'm basing my counter off a malcom gladwell interview.
The original article the story was based on, started when a journalist was interviewing the chief of police on two murders that appeared easy to solve but still had not been solved by the police. The police cheif wanted to draw away attention from the emarassing situation for the police, and so said "well did you hear about the woman who was murder while 37 people watch?" and then we proceeded to tell the story we all know today.
However, a lot of it is fabricated. First of all, there was only like 37 people in the apartment in front of which she was murdered at night. Most of the people were alseep, and not aware of the events going on. Also, those who did see, were not watching in a group, and were not even aware of the other witnesses outside of their household.
Their actually were two calls to the police from different households. However they didn't report a murder. They reported that their was a couple fighting, the man struck the woman, then woman fell down, but then later walked off.
When she was attacked the third and fatal time, it was in an alley were no one could see. The first two times, people saw her walk away and didn't even know there was a weapon invloved...
I would like to quote the article, I read on this, but I can't remember the exact source. It was talked about in an interview withMalcom Gladwell, and he commented on it saying that he regretted using that example in tipping point, because he no longer believed that version of events. : P
I am at work so I am being lazy about my sourcing. If you like though I will follow up with a link to the article after. : )
Comment posted by: Roger Keays on 22/07/2011 5:41:08 AM
I generally presume all stories are exaggerated. The principle still stands though, and I experienced myself when I witnessed a mugging in broad daylight on a crowded street in Buenos Aires. At the time I attributed my unresponsiveness to being with my girlfriend, but in hindsight I would say I didn't react because I noticed that no-one else seemed to be reacting either. It was weird.