Almost every single day you hear and read terrifying news about violence. A football team kicks the arbiter to death (Mohamed, 2013), two teenagers beat up a 14-year-old boy (Lai, 2012), and a 17-year-old boy is stabbed to death (Mercer, 2013), to name just a few. With all this media attention on violence, it’s not strange that most people believe our world today is more dangerous than ever. Indeed, most people believe violence has increased the past decades. However, believe it or not, research shows there is actually a decline in violence. In his book, Pinker (2011) shows that European countries saw a ten-to-fiftyfold decline in their rates of homicide between the Middle Ages and the 20th century. So, although we seem to hear more about violence today than in the past, research shows that our world today is actually much safer than it ever was before.
How could this possibly be? We reason that a possible explanation for this decline in violence, perhaps, could be related to the reality that our world today is full of cameras. We can find surveillance cameras almost everywhere. Not only can you find them at our malls and train stations, but also at our universities, stadiums and playgrounds. In the United Kingdome alone there are an estimated 1.9 to 4.3 million security cameras, and on an average day, people are caught on tape over seventy times (Gerrard & Thompson, 2011; McCahill & Norris, 2002). Moreover, we are not only caught on tape by security cameras. Mobile phones possessing a camera are becoming more and more popular, and research by Strategy Analytics expected that the worldwide camera phone sales would exceed 1 billion units in 2011 (http://www.cellular-news.com, 2011). We reason that cameras could lead to a decrease in crime, not simply because they can deter would-be criminals, but because they may influence the behavior of non-criminals. Despite the tremendous increase in the availability of cameras, little is known about how this may impact everyday human behavior. One way all these cameras can influence our everyday lives is that their presence can heighten our public self-awareness. Psychologist are now showing that the heightened self-awareness these cameras are causing may affect our helping behavior (Van Bommel, Van Prooijen, Elffers & Van Lange, 2012). Maybe, the link between public self-awareness and helping behavior also has an effect on the number of violent acts committed. This paper will explore the effect of the presence of cameras on helping behavior, and how this effect may be linked to the decline in violence.
Steven Pinker (2011) shows in his book an astonishing decline in homicide rates across Western Europe. This decline in homicide rates seems to coincide with a decline in male-to-male conflicts (Eisner, 2003; Spierenburg, 2008). Furthermore, the decline in violence is not only observed in Europe. LaFree (1999) discovered that also The United States experienced a sustained decline in violent crime rates during the 1990s. Although it is speculative, one possible explanation for this decline may be bystander intervention. Indeed, it seems that not the police but “informal guardians” or regular people, such as passersby’s, commuters and neighbors are the foremost important force to prevent crime from happening (Cohen & Felson, 1979). Their mere presence may prevent a criminal from engaging in their criminal activities, but they are also the first to respond if a crime or accident does happen. If bystander intervention can prevent violent acts from happening, than bystander intervention could explain why there is a decline in violence. So, maybe violent behavior can be prevented when bystanders offer help during an emergency.
But how does bystander intervention typically work? The classical bystander effect actually shows the reverse pattern of what we speculate on here: Typically, people’s willingness to offer help in fact decreases when many others are present (Darley & Latané, 1968). Additionally, when they decide to help, people usually reach this decision much slower. Many people find it hard to believe that one is not willing to offer help to somebody in need. Therefore, it is commonly assumed that those who do not help must be generally apathetic and indifferent. Despite these beliefs, the lack of help can be explained differently. The social and psychological forces at play during a bystander effect situation can be very strong, and yet subtle and concealed for those involved. Chances are that without knowing, today, you have been in a situation and acted like an apathic bystander. For instance, an email with a request for help, addressed to an entire group, is often shrugged off under the pretence that someone will likely respond to it; that tourist who looked completely lost is better of getting help from someone who is more knowledgeable about the city, and those boys fighting on the playground must simply be brothers frolicking around (see also Levine, 1999). People who do not offer help in studies about the classical bystander effect are therefore just “regular people”, i.e. not dispositionally apathic or excessively selfish. And actually, most of the time are non-helpers more upset about the situation and the person in need than people who do offer help (Darley & Latané, 1968).
Although everybody can be susceptible to this bystander effect, and the effect can be very strong, there are fortunately some strategies to attenuate this effect. Schilder (2013) mentions in her recently published article three of these strategies. First, as a victim, you have to make the situation clear to the bystanders. If bystanders do not understand what is going on, they can rationalize that there is no emergency, and believe that they therefore do not have to offer help. Second, you have a bigger change to receive help when you make bystanders feel responsible. One way to do this is by addressing bystanders individually. Finally, it is best to address those people who have ‘helper’ characteristics (e.g. tall and heavy people).
Despite the efficacy of these strategies, they all require you to have knowledge about the typical bystander effect. Moreover, the victim must also be able to perform these strategies. Perhaps there is a more structural solution, which does not require prior knowledge. Related to Schilder’s (2013) second strategy, the feeling of responsibility, recent research by Van Bommel and colleagues (2012) suggests another solution for the reluctance to offer help. They argue that having increased public self-awareness reverses the typical bystander effect. People who are aware of their public image focus more on the impressions they make on others (Prenctice-Dunn & Rogers, 1982). Moreover, they believe they will be held accountable for their behavior, and the presence of many bystanders will increase this feeling. Being aware of the reputational costs and rewards of your behavior makes you motivated by concerns of what others may think of you (Van Bommel et al., 2012), and you want to make sure that others don’t think badly of you. Moreover, helping those in need is likely to increase one’s status (Hardy & Van Vugt, 2006). Therefore, if you behave well, the presence of others can provide you with an opportunity to promote your status. It stands to reason that helping somebody to increase your reputation is more effective when many bystanders are present than just a few. Therefore, people will be more inclined to offer help in the presence of others. Evidence in support of the position of Van Bommel and colleagues (2012) can be found in research showing that your willingness to offer help can increase when your group identity becomes salient (Levine & Crowther, 2008) and by the fact that you are reluctant to offer help when other bystanders are not able to see you (Darley, Teger & Lewis, 1973). Hence, when others cannot see you, they cannot hold you responsible.
Let’s run you through the study by Van Bommel and colleagues (2012). During the experiment, participants were divided into one of 4 conditions, and they read messages on an online support-website which offers visitors the chance to help people with their problems. In the four different conditions, bystanders were either present or not, and the participant’s own presence on the forum was salient (by having a webcam positioned at the participant) or not-salient (no webcam present). So, let’s imagine you are seated in a separate cubicle with a computer. In front of you is a webcam, and you are asked to read messages on the online forum. You read that the forum is visited by many people. The computer automatically selects messages that have not received any response yet. These are personal stories from people in distress. For example, one message is about someone who just had a very bad breakup. You are free to give a response and help the writer of the message if you want to, or continue to the next message. Now the question is: Would you help the members of the forum? Chances are high that you would indeed offer help. Having a heightened public self-awareness (by having the webcam positioned at you), will promote your helping behavior in the presence of others. This shows that the presence of other bystanders can promote, rather than undermine, helping behavior. So, being in a situation with many bystanders doesn’t necessarily have to be detrimental to the person in need, it can also be beneficial. As expected, the classic bystander effect was found when people’s public self-awareness was not increased. Indeed, if you do not believe your presence is more noticeable, you are less willing to offer help in the presence of many bystanders. Van Bommel and colleagues (2012) explain these findings by mentioning that people will only change their behavior when they believe other bystanders will hold them accountable for their actions.
To conclude, we cannot simply say that the presence of more bystanders makes us reluctant to help. There are more factors involved than merely the number of bystanders, and public self-awareness is one of these. However, just the fact that other people are present does not automatically create a state of self-awareness in us (Froming, Walker & Lopyan, 1982), but discriminating cues signaling that our behavior can be detected and evaluated does (Prentice-Dunn & Rogers, 1982). One of these cues is the presence of a camera. Furthermore, a heightened public self-awareness will make you seek social approval. You believe you will be held accountable for your actions. Moreover, you are aware of the fact that others can judge your behavior. Therefore, you worry about what others will think of you. You want to make sure you are evaluated positively. Helping someone indicates that you are a nice and decent person, and thus you will be evaluated positively when you help someone in need. Put differently, offering help is a perfect way to increase your reputation as a decent person. As we suggested, this increased helping behavior may ensure the decrease in violence. This would imply that we are living in a safer world today because we don’t want to shatter our reputations. Therefore, people’s underlying reasons for behaving prosocially may not be perfect, but at least this reasoning can lead to a safer world.
References
Darley, J. M., & Latané, B. (1968). Bystander intervention in emergencies: Diffusion of responsibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8, 377–383.
Darley, J. M., Teger, A. I., & Lewis, L. D. (1973). Do groups always inhibit individuals' responses to potential emergencies? Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology, 26, 395–399.
Eisner, M. (2003). Long-term historical trends in violent crime. Crime and Justice, 83-142.
Felson, M., & Cohen, L.(1979) Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach. American Sociological Review, Vol. 44, 4, pp. 588-608.
Froming, W. J., Walker, G., & Lopyan, K. J. (1982). Public and private self-awareness: When personal attitudes conflict with societal expectations. Journal Of Experimental Social Psychology, 18, 476–487.
Gerrard, R., & Thompson, G. (2011). Two million cameras in the UK. CCTV Image, 42. Retrieved December 10, 2012 from http://www.securitynewsdesk.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/CCTV-Image-42-How-many-cameras-are-there-in-the-UK.pdf
Hardy, C. L., & Van Vugt, M. (2006). Nice guys finish first: The competitive altruism hypothesis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 1402–1413.
LaFree, G. (1999). Declining violent crime rates in the 1990s: Predicting crime booms and busts. Annual Review of Sociology, 145–168.
Lai, A. (2012, October 26). Passers-by stood by and did nothing as teen gets beaten up. The Star. Retrieved September 24, 2013 from http://www.thestar.com.my/News/Nation/2012/10/26/Passersby-stood-by-and-did-nothing-as-teen-gets-beaten-up.aspx
Levine, M. (1999) Rethinking bystander non-intervention: social categorization and the evidence of witnesses at the James Bugler trial. Human Relations, 52(9), pp 1133-1155.
Levine, M., & Crowther, S. (2008). The responsive bystander: How social group membership and group size can encourage as well as inhibit bystander intervention. Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology, 95, 1429–1439.
McCahill, M. and Norris, C. (2002). CCTV in London (Fifth Framework Programma of the European Commision, UrbanEye: on the threshold of the urban panopticon, Working Paper no. 6). Retrieved December 2, 2012, from http://www.urbaneye.net/results/ue_wp6.pdf
Mercer, D. (2013, September 26). Boy, 16, held after stabbing murder in Croydon. The independent. Retrieved September 28, 2013 from http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/boy-16-held-after-stabbing-murder-in-croydon-8841521.html
Mohamed, M. (2013, June 17). Richard Nieuwenhuizen death: Six teenagers and 50-year-old father convicted of manslaughter in shocking case of referee killed over a game of football. The independent. Retrieved September 28, 2013 from http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/richard-nieuwenhuizen-death-six-teenagers-and-50yearold-father-convicted-of-manslaughter-in-shocking-case-of-referee-killed-over-a-game-of-football-8662177.html
One billion camera phones to be sold worldwide in 2011 (2011, April 7). Cellular-news. Retrieved November 14, 2013, from http://www.cellular-news.com/story/48647.php
Pinker, S. (2011). The better angels of our nature: Why violence has declined. New York, NY US: Viking.
Prentice-Dunn, S., & Rogers, R. W. (1982). Effects of public and private self-awareness on deindividuation and aggression. Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology, 43, 503–513.
Schilder, J. (2013). Are we all jerks? Why nobody helps when surrounded by others. In-Mind Magazine, 17.
Spierenburg, P. (2012). Long-term historical trends of homicide in Europe. In Handbook of European Homicide Research (pp. 25–38). Springer New York.
Van Bommel, M., Van Prooijen, J., Elffers, H., & Van Lange, P. M. (2012). Be aware to care: Public self-awareness leads to a reversal of the bystander effect. Journal Of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 926–930.