
Cross-national CCTV footage shows intervention is the norm in public conflicts - rutenspitz
https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2019-30180-001
======
astazangasta
If people aren't familiar with it much of this myth making came from the story
of 38 witnesses doing nothing while Kitty Genovese was attacked three separate
times in a Queens apartment building. From the (much later) NYT correction of
their initial flawed report:

>While there was no question that the attack occurred, and that some neighbors
ignored cries for help, the portrayal of 38 witnesses as fully aware and
unresponsive was erroneous. The article grossly exaggerated the number of
witnesses and what they had perceived. None saw the attack in its entirety.
Only a few had glimpsed parts of it, or recognized the cries for help. Many
thought they had heard lovers or drunks quarreling. There were two attacks,
not three. And afterward, two people did call the police. A 70-year-old woman
ventured out and cradled the dying victim in her arms until they arrived. Ms.
Genovese died on the way to a hospital.

------
Rumperuu
One of the co-authors (Mark Levine) came to my university to deliver a talk on
his research on ‘groups and identities in security research’, which touched a
bit on the the CCTV work discussed here (amongst other things). I wrote it up
if anyone's interested: [https://bengoldsworthy.net/2018/12/security-
lancaster-semina...](https://bengoldsworthy.net/2018/12/security-lancaster-
seminar-series-vi/)

------
rutenspitz
Got this from
[https://twitter.com/DegenRolf/status/1135906266394615808](https://twitter.com/DegenRolf/status/1135906266394615808)

and
[https://twitter.com/DegenRolf/status/868015355180003330](https://twitter.com/DegenRolf/status/868015355180003330)

------
djsumdog
I think back to the Myth of Kitty Genovese (the case where the New York Times
reported a woman was raped and tens of witnesses didn't call the police; a
report that was later proven totally false).

Another example is that case in Indiana where a stage collapsed at a music
festival. Immediately after the collapse, videos shows many people going back
to try to get trapped people out:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fe5HNtfTdGE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fe5HNtfTdGE)

It's really cool that we have people doing this type of researching and
showing there's more than just anecdotal evidence that people will respond in
these situations.

~~~
maneesh
The Kitty Genovese story is a myth? I've never heard that -- I'd love to see
an article or something about this!

~~~
msla
> The Kitty Genovese story is a myth?

Worse than a myth: It's an example of something I half-jokingly call
"Philosophically True" because it's something repeated and believed in order
to bolster a philosophical position, such that it has a truth value even if
it's factually wrong because some people are just that resistant to changing
their minds. If you want to believe that people are basically shit and have no
redeeming value and will watch a woman get killed in full view without doing
anything, the usual story appeals to you, and people saying it's factually
wrong won't really sway you.

Another example is how the tabula rasa idea shapes some kinds of moral
philosophy: If you believe that external cultural indoctrination is absolutely
required for people to develop a moral sense, you have to believe that people
are blank slates at birth. This is not true, in that even toddlers have a
sense of fairness [1], but if there's an innate morality, well, your favored
mode of cultural indoctrination is less important and we can't have that, can
we?

[1] [https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/do-kids-
ha...](https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/do-kids-have-a-
fundamental-sense-of-fairness/)

~~~
Gibbon1
> "Philosophically True" because it's something repeated and believed in order
> to bolster a philosophical position, such that it has a truth value even if
> it's factually wrong because some people are just that resistant to changing
> their minds.

I like that a lot. Also explains why people get extremely testy when you try
to point out it's not factual. Because then they feel you're attacking their
moral center.

> If you believe that external cultural indoctrination is absolutely required
> for people to develop a moral sense, you have to believe that people are
> blank slates at birth. This is not true, in that even toddlers have a sense
> of fairness

Reminds me of this. Capuchin monkey fairness experiment.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KSryJXDpZo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KSryJXDpZo)

~~~
msla
> Capuchin monkey fairness experiment.

Right. Humans are social primates so we expect humans to have prosocial
instincts, and we expect those instincts to be derived from earlier examples
of social primates.

(Googles... )

Hey, Wikipeida has a whole article:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inequity_aversion_in_animals](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inequity_aversion_in_animals)

> In controlled experiments it has been observed, in varying degrees, in
> capuchin monkeys, chimpanzees, macaques, marmosets, dogs, wolves, rats,
> crows and ravens. No evidence of the effect was found in tests with
> orangutans, owl monkeys, squirrel monkeys, tamarins, kea, and cleaner fish.
> Due to inconclusive evidence it is assumed that some bonobos, baboons,
> gibbons, and gorillas may be inequity averse. Disadvantageous inequity
> aversion is most common, that is, the animal protests when it gets a lesser
> reward than another animal. But advantageous inequity aversion has been
> observed as well, in chimpanzees, baboons and capuchins: the animal protests
> when it gets a better reward. Scientists believe that sensitivity to
> inequity co-evolved with the ability to cooperate, as it helps to sustain
> benefitting from cooperation.

As I said, that's pretty much it for the strongest interpretations of tabula
rasa: We have innate morality, our ancestors had it back to the dim and
distant pre-human prehistory, and the fact it's possible to train kids out of
it doesn't prove it wasn't there to begin with. The fact some people _don 't_
have it (cf antisocial personality disorder) is proof of a disease process, an
acquired or congenital illness, not that those people are "purer" for having
no built-in moral sense, or that without society indoctrinating a specific
morality we'd all be utterly callous.

------
geggam
I would be interested in seeing the difference from small town US to big city
US.

Having been in both areas I have an opinion the results would be much
different.

~~~
jayd16
If intervention is the norm in areas covered by CCTV and we can assume that's
mostly urban, does that imply you think small towns would keep to themselves?

~~~
geggam
Actually yes. Its more of a "he/she asked for it" mentality in a small town
and taking things out back / having throwdowns is typical.

------
obituary_latte
Maybe because I’m laymen but this website makes zero sense to me. A
link/button with the title in file name format which leads to a page with
dollar amount to purchase? Purchase what? Is this a study? An essay?

~~~
Rumperuu
Those accessing the site from academic networks (where their institutions have
paid for the correct subscriptions, that is) will be able to read the paper.

For everyone else, bookmark the following:

    
    
      javascript:window.location='http://sci-hub.tw/'+window.location
    

Then you can just click it whenever you encounter an academic paywall to get a
copy the article.

~~~
dredmorbius
FWIW, Sci-Hub doesn't seem to have this. Yet.

------
jsbaby608
My theory is that because guns are banned in the UK, the only real way to
reduce crime is to have cameras everywhere.

~~~
jinglebells
And yet the crime rates in the UK are considerably lower than the US, could it
be because guns aren't widely available?

~~~
taborj
That's not the whole story. Here are some numbers:
[https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/United-
Kin...](https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/United-
Kingdom/United-States/Crime)

You'll note that, yes the US has a higher violent crime rate, but other crime
rates are higher - some far higher (drug offenses, for example, are 327 times
higher in the UK; total crime victims is 25% higher in the UK, etc).

So _certain_ types of crime rates are lower - even considerably lower - than
the US. But _other_ types of crime rates are higher - even considerably higher
- than the US.

It's like there are pros and cons to everywhere.

~~~
BeeOnRope
I think we can be reasonably certain that drug crimes are not _327 times_
higher in the UK.

------
raxxorrax
Probably true, but I think CCTV reduces civil intervention. Would be an
interesting study to conduct.

~~~
js8
I doubt it, I am actually more inclined to think it's the other way around.

My own decision to intervene is mainly driven by my own feeling of safety. So
if I am in an environment where is more people, or I perceive is better
monitored, I will be more likely to help, because I am less worried to get
into trouble.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
(I'm in the UK.)

I think there's an extra bystander effect if you know there is publicly
monitored CCTV. "Why interfere and take a risk, the police know what's
happening and will be on the way if it's serious".

If I see suspicious behaviour I might stop and watch, intending to intervene
if necessary. If there's police nearby, then I'd point it out to them and
carry on with my own business. If you think the police already know, then it
seems reasonable one might carry on and ignore uncivil, unlawful, or
antisocial behaviour.

There's a secondary effect, if you interfere and end up physically challenging
someone then they might not even recall it a later time if they were
drunk/drugged. But, if they see footage later, when sober, they might feel
annoyed/angry that they were challenged and seek your prosecution.

~~~
lkrubner
“Stop and watch“ is still intervention. Twice I’ve broken up what seemed to be
incipient fights by stopping and staring intently at the aggressor. Unless
they are drunk, they don’t want to be observed. They will walk away if someone
is staring at them.

~~~
ggreer
I've had the opposite happen. Someone tried to smash my head in with a cinder
block because he thought I might take his picture.

He was never caught.

