In the presence of the phone camera .. Why do we film those in trouble instead of helping them? 

In 2019, a video emerged of an elderly man on a subway platform in New York City, struggling to keep standing in the face of a stream of unclean water that forced him to fall to the ground.

Finally, the man got on his knees and looked directly at the camera holder he was filming, and asked him: Why didn't you help me?

After the clip went viral, people wondered about the same thing... why didn't someone drop the phone and help this guy?

Perhaps this accusation is more familiar now that this type of incident is repeated in the age of social media, where we are all recording a clip to get the admiration of friends and acquaintances instead of doing some good in the world.

Ok this one is scary.

Wall gave out last night during a rush of water while a train was coming and took someone out #subwaycreatures pic.twitter.com/WtzgY1FuWv

— Rick (@SubwayCreatures) July 18, 2019

onlookers effect

In March 1964, a New York City woman named Catherine Susan Genovese "Kitty" was stabbed to death outside her apartment in Kew Gardens. 38 people saw the incident or heard the attack and did not call the police.

This incident sparked research that became known as the "bystander effect" or the "Genovese syndrome".

The effect of the spectator or the indifference of the spectator is a psychological and social phenomenon that refers to the person's refraining from providing any assistance to the victim if there are others present, as the probability of assistance is inversely related to the number of spectators, the greater the number of spectators, the lower the percentage of someone to provide assistance.

Between reality and myth

Medium's writer Angela Lashbrook disagrees with quick conclusions about onlooker negativity, saying that quick reactions to a man's video on the subway, and a lot of similar things, may actually contain things wrong, as research shows that the presence of cameras It makes people more likely to intervene when they see someone in danger.

As for the myth about the Genovese case that all these witnesses were unhelpful, that is not what actually happened.

There were no 38 witnesses who stood idly by.

In fact, more than a dozen people may have heard suspicious noises, according to the New York Times.

Nor did they all stand idly by and do nothing. Two people called the police and an elderly woman detained the dying victim.

It is true that there were probably people who, for whatever reason, chose not to interfere.

But there were also people who did something to help.

Do men actually help more than women?

The author goes on to explain that this does not mean that the bystander effect does not exist, it is just that it is more complex than some of the original ideas imagined.

A 2011 review of the "bystander effect" found that people are more likely to intervene when a situation is clearly emergency.

For example, when someone falls to the ground and screams after being robbed, it is clear with no doubt that someone really needs help.

Studies have also shown that in most cases, men are more likely to help than women, mainly because men feel they are more physically able to make a difference.

Acquaintances are also more likely to interfere than outsiders.

But when you consider cameras and phones, things get a lot more interesting.

Documenting events with a camera has become a way for some to help morale (pixels)

In the presence of the camera and phone

“Photography seems to be a very immediate way of dealing with an event. It gives you a sense of doing something, rather than helping them,” says Linus Andersen, a lecturer in media and communication studies at Halmstad University in Sweden, who is working with colleagues to find why people are photographed in distress rather than helping them. From being passive, you kind of become an active witness."

Imaging gives people an alternative when they feel unable or unwilling to step in and offer a helping hand.

And while there isn't a lot of current research on why people feel the need to film a crisis on their phones, there is some literature to suggest that it is more likely to help people when there are actually cameras.

Marco van Bommel, assistant professor of organizational psychology at the Open University in the Netherlands, conducted research in 2013 on how the presence of cameras affects onlookers.

He and his fellow researchers devised two situations, one in which a person stole money from another person in the presence of passers-by, and another in which a person stole money from another person in the presence of passers-by and a security camera.

The study found that people were more likely to be helped when there was a camera present.

Baumel conducted other research looking at online interactions, and found that when users had a webcam or felt they were being watched, they were more likely to provide needed support than if they knew they were not being noticed.

You only help if you are being watched

A recent study supports Baumel's findings. Researchers reviewed security camera footage of 219 cases of violence in the UK, the Netherlands and South Africa, and found that in 90% of cases, at least one person attempted to intervene.

The most surprising finding in the study was that the more people attended the event, the more likely someone was to intervene.

This is in direct contrast to the traditional theory of the "bystander effect", where people are less likely to help in the presence of a crowd.

Baumel says that he and his researchers expect that, in general, people will be more likely to help in situations where they feel they are being watched.

"Sometimes there is something in the immediate environment that helps them feel responsible again," he adds.

"We believe that when people feel accountable, they suddenly think more about their reputation and what it will look like when they perform a certain action or fail to act at all... To me, it seems likely that the camera on a smartphone can act as a signal of accountability."

People will be more willing to help in situations where they feel they are being watched.

In other words, if a security camera or webcam will make bystanders more willing to jump into a situation and lend a hand, the same theory will likely apply to smartphone cameras as well.

Why don't we offer help?

Perhaps we should now return to the question about the man who nearly died in the subway station, why did passers-by pick up their phones to record a video instead of going into the water to help the victim?

Baumel says that no direct research has been done on why people make the decision to document incidents and crimes rather than intervene, but there are two good theories. One is that people feel that photography is essential for eyewitness purposes, namely helping the police track down the criminal.

Another important component is that people who are experiencing stress, trauma, etc., may need to mitigate this by sharing their feelings and experiences with their friends through the video they have taken.

Baumel points out that unless you are already in the situation, it is difficult to accurately judge how you will respond and participate in the situation.

If for any reason you are not sure that the man in the water needs your help, it is very unlikely that you will actually help, according to studies.

Also, if you don't feel physically able to help, if you're young, or a woman, or doubt your physical abilities, you won't feel comfortable enough to wade through fast-moving water on a subway platform to help someone.

You may feel safer away from the action, and document so that people have proof that the subway station is in a dangerous state of neglect.

Baumel says it makes sense to do more research into how the presence of the phone affects onlookers' behaviour, but we're probably not as "heartless" as the pessimists think.