“We want to explode one particular view that people have: ‘Were I in that situation, I would behave in an altruistic, wonderful way,’ he said. ‘What I say is, ‘No, you’re misreading what’s happening. I want to teach you about the pressures [that can cause bystander behavior]. Then when you feel those pressures, I want that to be a cue that you might be getting things wrong.’’”
John Darley, Professor of Psychology
Part 3 of this series contended that voters need to take responsibility for the actions of their government, but voters can’t take real responsibility if they are under the illusion that they are already doing so. Many people probably believe that they take responsibility when voting. They believe the elitist/power-narrative that voting in and of itself is meaningful and important regardless of the candidates or the systems in place that produce them, or the impact of the vote. That view of voting is obviously not true – a vote for “Mickey Mouse” this November would essentially express an abdication of responsibility. As discussed previously in this series and elsewhere on this site, even voting for the Democrat or the Republican can equate to surrendering one’s power as a voting citizen. That is one reason why norms matter – people adopt them as a matter of course (even if they are illogical) as part of our tendency to fit in and among larger groups.
For most Americans to “take responsibility” for their government, they have to overcome certain politically repressive norms, memes, and myths – such as the paternalistic idea that voting equals functioning democracy (expressed in a number of ways). Others include the myth of the “spoiler effect,” and the generally misleading claims and antagonistic tone regarding third party candidates. Together, they help create the “two party mentality” that obfuscates issues and freezes the critical faculties of the mind when it considers politics.
The collaborative, collective nature of politics may make overcoming political norms–and the two party mentality–especially difficult. Psychologists have repeatedly shown that most people won’t “do the right thing” in response to an emergency if others do not respond, even in situations where most would respond when alone, becoming “moral bystanders.” The drawn-out murder of Kitty Genovese is probably the most famous example of this. Although the facts are somewhat disputed, the conventional version of events says that a fair number of people heard someone repeatedly attack Ms. Genovese outside of her apartment without making any serious effort to intervene. Ms. Genovese cried for help numerous times during the attack(s) (which lasted around 30 minutes) before eventually dying from multiple stab wounds.
If you think you would have done something, don’t be so sure – as Jason Marsh and Professor of Psychology Dacher Keltner explain, experiments recreating similar situations consistently reproduce the bystander effect. This may happen because when an individual is aware that there are other witnesses, she feels that the responsibility for action is “diffused,” reducing one’s share. It may also lead witnesses to assume that someone else will act.
Researchers have also identified “pluralistic ignorance—the tendency to mistake one another’s calm demeanor as a sign that no emergency is actually taking place”—as a cause of bystander behavior (quote contained in prior linked article). One experiment involved putting a participant in a room to fill out a questionnaire. The researchers then pumped smoke into the room through a vent. If alone, 75% of the participants reported the smoke – after all, in reality it would likely have signaled a fire. However, only 10% of participants responded when placed in a room with two other people (assistants to the experiment playing along) who were instructed to act like nothing was happening.
These experiments tend to show that most people make different moral conclusions alone than when amongst others: If you are alone, you would probably report the smoke because it endangers you and others in the building; if you are with others who don’t seem to care, you would on some level decide that the potential embarrassment of over-reacting to the smoke costs more than the damage that could be prevented by responding quickly to a fire. This tendency makes political reform difficult. Politics is necessarily about collective action, so political norms may very well be based on a series of actions and decisions made with “pluralistic ignorance” and diffused responsibility. And the vehemently partisan political narrative in the media and behavior by politicians may diminish the likelihood of voters from completely rejecting the two established groups/parties. Consequently, like neighbors ignoring the cries for help of Kitty Genovese, we ignore the plights of millions of impoverished Americans, hundreds of thousands of civilians people killed in military actions abroad, and continuously increasing levels of inequality.
All of the above should make clear two things: people tend to act like everyone else around them, and for that reason individuals in groups often make the wrong “moral” decision. That’s how most Americans vote. Under the two party mentality, the Democrat-Republican monopoly over government is good even if the policies of the parties are not, and third parties are bad even if specific policies they advocate are desirable. That makes as much sense as sitting in a room filling with smoke because no one else seems to mind, and the consequences are just as predictable. The building may be on fire. The question is, will people act out before it is too late.
Comments are closed.