Would YOU Help an Obviously Hurt Person?

In My Humble Opinion
61

Judging? Me? Nah… Maybe… a little.

Not consciously though, until you brought it to my attention here. :stuck_out_tongue:

The thing is, I don’t get it. I just fundamentally don’t get 75% of the people not helping out, and it bugs me, it STUNS me. And it kills me that it doesn’t bug other people. That’s all that’s about. I am generally quite good at looking at things from others’ POV, but this has always been one of those things I can’t understand, no matter how many explanations I hear. And compassion is huge for me… HUGE on my morality-o-meter, so yes, I get snarky about it. I tend not to be a moral absolutist… but I have an ingrained sense of “you help other people who need help.” Period. That’s just where I’m at on an emotional level. We all have issues that cloud our rational judgment, in which we have to work extra hard to respond rationally. The idea of someone sitting on their ass while someone cries for help (for whatever reason) in the hallway is morally repugnant to me, on a visceral level. People are supposed to take care of people.

I don’t even know what else to say. I don’t want anyone to take offense or have hurt feelings or think I am a snoot or whatever… but I can’t apologize for my most deeply held beliefs. I can apologize for being judgmental and any bad feelings that may have caused, but I can’t apologize for feeling as strongly as I do about this issue.

The only thing close to an answer I have for this is that the experiment had a huge budget to work with and took full advantage of said budget.

You know, so would I. :mad: My husband appears to be desperately seeking out the answers at 6% intensity. He’s not even sure he can find out more. I’m not happy. When I started the thread I expected to have a future store of information, including maybe a link or something. So I’m sorry for everyone who has invested time in this expecting more information. Maybe I’ll get it, but it’s not looking cool. Last time I ever discuss an unpublished study. Once it gets published maybe we can all revisit it with a more critical eye. In the meantime, keep an eye out for Dateline.

I do want to stress my concern, in this case, is not over the issue of violence in video games, but in the overall lack of concern for a hurt person even in the control group. The notion that violent media acts as a factor in aggressive behavior is something I am already familiar with, as owing to Mr. Olives’ job I hear about these studies all the time. When my husband told me about this study, we were both shocked not by the statistical significance within the experimental group, but rather the overall (regardless of the violent media factor) lack of concern in the majority of subjects who participated.

See, and that’s what I’m talking about. I’m new to the research process and designing and understanding scientific studies in general. If there is faulty methodology in the experiment, I want to know how we know it is faulty, and how it can be made better. I’m hear to learn which is why I asked all those damn questions–not to be contentious.

62

Fair enough. One option would be to replace the melodrama with a carefully written questionnaire. Something akin to a personality index, but designed to measure empathy for a variety of situations. You would avoid some of the problems I noted earlier, and get feedback on more situations than your one-shot and out twisted ankle. A well designed questionnaire isn’t foolproof, but can include some red-flags for people not filling it out honestly.

Also, you can be a little more forthright with your subjects. Rather than inviting them in for one purpose and hoping to fool them with some amateur acting, you can simply tell them pretty much what you want: take a test after playing a video game. Further, a lengthy and detailed questionnaire could be filled out more than one time by the same person after some time had elapsed, allowing you to get a glimpse of their state of mind under two different conditions.

63

I was under the impression that self-reporting is, on the whole, unreliable. Am I mistaken?

64

I have responded immediately in more occasions than I can count. Fights, car accidents, injuries, etc. I do not work in this field but have some First-Aid and First Responder training for simple injuries. I have stopped many fights and limited the injuries. My wife and I recently were first on the scene of a car wreak with multiple injuries. After pulling him from a small truck about to plunge down a steep embankment I directed traffic while she did CPR on the elderly man that started the whole thing. Unfortunately we were unable to save him but many others were stabilized and EMT’s soon arrived.
I only hesitate in cases appearing to be “Domestic Disputes” due to witnessing many cases of the “rescuer” being attacked by the victim while trying to restrain the attacker. Even still, I’ve been a couple of these.
My wife, however, must be made to wait until our vehicle has stopped before jumping out into traffic. We are working on this one.

As to the OP, I think I’d remain in a “ready” state while it was in the verbal stage and move immediately once I heard an injury and call for help.

65

Compared to reacting to two psych students pretending to fight?

The “I feel ____” variety are highly unreliable. The ones loaded with less direct and circumspect questions do a better job.

66

That makes sense.

And I guess, I just thought… that was typical, the way anyone would respond.

67

Despite being a giant wuss, I’ve called for help for injured people on numerous occasions, and I’ve frequently stuck my nose in just to make sure things are okay. I can’t imagine that if I heard someone who was unambiguously injured, and they weren’t already receiving immediate help, that I wouldn’t rush out and assist them. It’s very weird to me.

The fact that it was presented as a fight makes me come back on that a bit, but if it seemed as though the assailant were gone, I would have no hesitation, and if the assailant was still there, I think I’d at least try to think of some way I could call for help without getting my sissy ass kicked as well.

68

A few thoughts on the matter:

  1. There is an impulse–a relatively strong one, I suspect, in college-age males–to think, “Ah, he/she can take care of him/herself.” Not in a dismissive way, necessarily, but rather in a sort of arrogance-by-proxy. A sense that “I wouldn’t need help.” It’s further possible that this feeling would be amplified by playing a game in which you had been fighting (again by proxy). This might partially account for the delay in responses, and possibly even reduced response to something that sounds like a relatively minor injury. (If they’re complaining of a twisted ankle, it seems unlikely that they have a life-threatening injury as well.)

  2. The press violent video games have gotten could have tainted the experiment to some degree. Most college-age gamers are probably at least peripherally aware of studies on the matter. It’s possible that some of them were waiting for the shoe to drop–for a “gotcha”–without even realizing it. If they have any understanding of psych experiments in general, they’ll know that something is supposed to happen to gauge their reactions after playing the game. Even if they weren’t sure the fight was a put-on, they may have been reluctant to respond because they might feel foolish afterward for being “suckered”.

I would submit that the experiment might be improved by having the participants take a brief, vague survey (which doesn’t directly question their response to violent scenarios). After they’ve filled out the survey, the RA should tell them that he or she had forgotten the release forms and had to go get them, and ask the participants to wait.

Honestly, though, I would strongly suspect the fight was staged even with that change. That wouldn’t stop me from meddling, probably as soon as the argument started getting loud–my preferred course (if I looked out the door and saw a real argument) would be to issue a mild, “Is this really necessary? We’re trying to conduct an experiment in here.” I find that a simple interruption is often enough to divert an escalating argument.

  1. Yes, the severity of the injury is relevant. A stubbed toe is not going to be regarded with the same urgency as a sucking chest wound. Yes, I’d go help someone with a twisted ankle, but there would likely be some eye-rolling involved. Candidly, <THUMP-CRASH-running footsteps> would probably stir me out faster than <THUMP-CRASH-running footsteps>-“Ow, I twisted my ankle!”, because silence on the victim’s part opens the possibility that he is unable to complain.

For the record, yes, I would have intervened. Repeatedly, if necessary. I have an established history of doing such things, up to and including stepping between someone and a guy with a knife. I’ve got a really strong protective streak and (in stress situations) an unhealthy detachment regarding personal safety.

By the way…I play violent video games. :slight_smile:

69

You are about the fiftieth person to point that out. I have to guess the underlying assumption is, “I’m a respectable non-violent violent video game player, therefore violent video games do not cause aggressive behavior.”

Which… you’re kind of right. There is no evidence to indicate that violent media alone leads to aggressive behavior, but it has been clearly identified as a factor. What other factors may be involved are as yet unclear, but there is some evidence to suggest that narcissism is one of them. Obviously being surrounded by violence in the home life is a huge factor. Generally, there is a far greater danger when the player is 7 than when the player is 12… and the type of game appears to be crucial as well. In addition to this, a general rule of thumb is more the player identifies with the character in the game and the more s/he perceives the game to be like real life, the greater the odds of violent media becoming a factor in aggressive behavior. In this sense a fantasy RPG would not be as likely to contribute to aggressive behavior as a first-person shooter. It makes sense, then, that kids would be at a greater vulnerability-- adults can play games without perceiving them (even first-person shooters) to be realistic. Children have a harder time making that distinction. And, as mentioned before, retaliatory aggression is the greatest risk when violent media does become a factor.

So you see how “I play violent video games” does not necessarily equal, from the scientific point of view, “I’m a rabid cesspool of violent outbursts waiting to happen”? You don’t even have to believe I’m right to understand that I’m drawing a clear distinction. I just don’t want anybody to get confused regarding my own perspective on this matter. :slight_smile:

ETA: By the way, I really appreciated your whole response. You make a good point about this controversy being firmly fixed in the consciousness of just about everyone.

70

I never thought that a twisted ankle could be immobilizing until it happened to my mother. When she told me about falling in the bathroom and taking almost one hour to reach the phone (a distance of a few meters) I took quite some time to digest the information. Felt like eternity to her. The actual diagnosis was “broken” ankle, but of course at the time of injury she didn’t know, she doesn’t carry an X-Ray machine in her make-up purse.
Does it bug me that people are so helpless and unhelpful? Well, yeah. But I’m almost twice your age, olives, I learned to tune it down from “OHMYGODARRRGH!” to :rolleyes: - just for my own sanity and physical well-being.

71

No one ever seems to bring up one very obvious thing about the statistical basis for these experiments. The first step is to sort the general population into two groups, ono group who are willing to become subjects and participants in academically oriented psychological studies, and the residual population which will not. It seems to me that predisposes the subject population to fall well outside of the general population in such areas as deference to authority, compliance to prior agreements on behavior, and the general willingness to assume a role of scientific experimenter with regards to human experimental subjects.

The entire segment of the population that finds human experimentation abhorrent is eliminated before the process begins. Those unwilling to surrender authority over their ethical behavior are excluded immediately upon the recruitment of volunteers, or when the experiment design is first revealed. By the time the experiment has begun four or more sorts have occurred, each one winnowing out precisely those subjects most likely to tell a psychologist to piss in his hat. Then the scientists decide that the tendency of persons selected for their willingness to participate in human experimentation under authoritarian direction are in fact highly likely to commit pretended atrocities on pretended victims.

Sociologists find this highly revealing in relation to the entire human race. I find it more revealing about social sciences in particular.

Tris

72

Tris has a really valid point about this sort of study, actually, and one I hadn’t really considered.

And really, quite a lot of my willingness to intervene in situations like the experimental hypothesis here would be based on the specifics of the situation - which the OP’s SO isn’t being forthcoming with :smiley:

For example, what’s the tone of the twisted-ankle complaints? In my little mind I’m envisioning an ugly college-drama-public-scene about who’s banging whose guy, complete with namecalling and extra melodrama, followed up by sounds of minor pushy-shovy and then someone whining about “ow I hurt my ankle you skanky bitch”. In other words, essentially a minor scuffle replete with Jerry Springer plotline features and some subsequent kvetching. (This would be the typical fight-over-a-dude scene I recall from college, basically)

In that situation, I would have no real urge to intervene. Not my business, and I do not want to get sucked into someone else’s “my-boyfriend’s-a-cheating-bastard-and-that-whore-deserves-to-die-of-the-clap” drama, which is the usual fate of people who get involved in that sort of situation. If the altercation sounded more serious than what I’m picturing, I’d reconsider. Like I said, I’ve intervened in the past (occasionally at the risk of my own safety).

There are a goodly many situations that involve injuries to other persons for which my assistance is not required. In those cases, I’ll mind my own business. In cases where it’s clear someone’s assistance is required and I happen to be handy (or cases where it seems questionable whether or not my assistance is required), I’ll intervene (at least long enough to find out if my assistance is needed).

73

I have never rolled my eyes at an injured friend. And, like olives, I don’t get why anybody would. You need both ankles functional to be able to walk; if one’s twisted, you’re going to be in some distress. What’s to roll eyes about?

It seems that lack of empathy is an important factor here. And I think it would be interesting to test all respondents for their levels of empathy. In fact, it would be an interesting study to see whether people self-select for playing these games based on empathy levels or whether the games affect empathy. I would never play them because I don’t find suffering ‘entertainment’ even if it’s ‘fake’. I wonder whether people who do are already lacking in empathy to a certain degree.

I’m totally with you on this. That people would roll their eyes at someone being injured is distressing.

74

drat - my computer said the last one didn’t post. It lied.

75

I’m not convinced with this one. People participate in these experiments because they get paid to do so. A lot of observational studies on social psychology are pretty random – i.e. calling people up on the telephone… while some people say “no”, it’s usually because they don’t have enough time. All kinds of people participate in these studies. Few are doing it out of the goodness of their hearts. Most are doing it for the money.

There are people who consider it abhorrent to observe human behavior?

I take it you’re one of them?

“Surrender authority over their ethical behavior?” Seriously? That’s what it means to participate in a social psychology experiment? I’m sorry, at what point do scientists force humans subjects to behave according to certain ethical guidelines?

Guh? :confused:

76

I would be extremely suspicious that the fight was staged (I wouldn’t be a good subject for this kind of thing–anything that happened during the course of the experiment I would consider planned until proven otherwise) but I would have certainly offered help anyway.

Those of you who say that suspicions about the injury being staged would have made you not want to respond: Why? I would rather confirm the basic decency of the human race than make us look even worse than we are.

I agree that this scenario would annoy me more than inspire a leap to action, but I would still have at least poked my head out of the room to check on the person, if only to see what kind of idiot girl we were dealing with here.

77

And it is your contention that that does not represent a bias in selection?

Observation is now the exact equivalent of experimentation. Interesting bit of scientific detachment. And a snark, too. Oooooo.

Yes, that description of the scientists beating potential applications with chains . . . oh, wait, I never discussed force. The point I was making is that the selection method for this particular study, and other studies of its general form rely on willingness to please the Psychology Department, mostly by students, and the willingness to accept the original experimental design, when it is revealed. This is a bias producing sort criteria that the study does not acknowledge. That is a flaw in the experiment in my opinion.

Yes, on this point, we agree.

Tris

78

No, that bias would be “percentage of the population who are willing to spend a few hours of time doing mostly boring things in return for monetary compensation.” While it’s a bias, it’s still casting a much bigger net than what you suggest.

You said “surrender authority over their ethical behavior.” As if once a person has committed to participating in an experiment they no longer have any autonomy or control over what is happening to them–they cannot refuse to participate and walk out the door at any moment. That is not an unreasonable interpretation of what you said.

Perhaps I’m interpreting your statements incorrectly but using the word “abhorrent” to describe something as benign as this experiment is more than a little inflammatory. Using condescending words and phrases like “surrendering one’s ethical behavior to authority” indicates you have an irrationally strong bias going here.

The point is, you could have said this right off the bat:

But you didn’t. There is a huge disparity between the attitude of your original response and the above one I just cited. So yeah, I got snarky. Probably from all those violent video games. :smiley:

79

I am happy to say that I have, in fact, helped people who were injured or seemed in trouble – stuff like people who have fallen and gotten a scrape or bruise, nothing serious. Although… I did join a couple of other people to assist an older gentleman who might have been having a heart attack (calling 911 and helping to make him comfortable). Each time, though, I have experienced a brief moment of frozen hesitation, but something (compassion? the specter of my mother?) has driven me forward to help.

80

If I witnessed the beating, I’d retire a -very- safe distance and call for help from the cell phone.

If I came upon the aftermath and the victim was ambulatory, I might not unless asked and if the victim was unable to help themselves, I would.