Social psychology built a whole theory of human callousness on a story that wasn't quite true. Dominic Packer and Jay Van Bavel sort out the myth from the science.
As I read I’m wishing that the disciplinary text books (especially Intro books, one of the few classes where I use a text book!) were all framed like this! I am teaching a class right now on science communication with advanced undergrads and we’ve been talking about a lot about framing around issues like “the replication crisis”. We don’t really have a crisis of replication in our field, rather we have a crisis of framing or centering our narratives. Too much emphasis on facts rather than process is one clear problem, as you all note. Students claim to “know” that science is a method not a series of facts, but the standard practice of testing factual knowledge means that they still think more about facts and struggle with incremental process-focused thinking. Newsletters like this make that shift in perspective look so easy though. This is a refreshing read. I’d love to see more of this across all the sub-fields in psych.
I remember the Kitty Genovese incident clearly. I was a senior in college about to receive a commission in the Army Infantry. It touched off a national debate as to moral obligations to help others in trouble. It soon expanded to the obligation of a country to help another country in trouble--being invaded, etc. Vietnam became a large part of the debate. I personally believed in the obligation to help others even if it included a personal risk. That is one reason I became a combat officer in Vietnam.
Great article that highlights the right lessons, I believe, about the Kitty Genovese case and bystander effect research. Some make such a big deal about the fact that the story wasn't accurate, and of course textbooks should update coverage. But the incident was reported that way in the New York Times, and it's a great example of a real life event spurring research into an important phenomenon. Thankfully, inaction isn't the typical response, but when it is, the results can be quite disturbing, especially, as noted, when captured with cell phones.
Refining our understanding of when the effect is most likely to occur and distinguishing between the chances of an individual helping vs. anyone stepping up to give aid shows how scientific knowledge progresses. When teaching, I always present the Levine study alongside bystander research as it's a good example of a field experiment demonstrating a large effect, while bringing in an important additional factor of similarity, or group membership. Will have to look into the newer model, seems like it would connect to the empathy-altruism hypothesis.
As I read I’m wishing that the disciplinary text books (especially Intro books, one of the few classes where I use a text book!) were all framed like this! I am teaching a class right now on science communication with advanced undergrads and we’ve been talking about a lot about framing around issues like “the replication crisis”. We don’t really have a crisis of replication in our field, rather we have a crisis of framing or centering our narratives. Too much emphasis on facts rather than process is one clear problem, as you all note. Students claim to “know” that science is a method not a series of facts, but the standard practice of testing factual knowledge means that they still think more about facts and struggle with incremental process-focused thinking. Newsletters like this make that shift in perspective look so easy though. This is a refreshing read. I’d love to see more of this across all the sub-fields in psych.
I remember the Kitty Genovese incident clearly. I was a senior in college about to receive a commission in the Army Infantry. It touched off a national debate as to moral obligations to help others in trouble. It soon expanded to the obligation of a country to help another country in trouble--being invaded, etc. Vietnam became a large part of the debate. I personally believed in the obligation to help others even if it included a personal risk. That is one reason I became a combat officer in Vietnam.
Great article that highlights the right lessons, I believe, about the Kitty Genovese case and bystander effect research. Some make such a big deal about the fact that the story wasn't accurate, and of course textbooks should update coverage. But the incident was reported that way in the New York Times, and it's a great example of a real life event spurring research into an important phenomenon. Thankfully, inaction isn't the typical response, but when it is, the results can be quite disturbing, especially, as noted, when captured with cell phones.
Refining our understanding of when the effect is most likely to occur and distinguishing between the chances of an individual helping vs. anyone stepping up to give aid shows how scientific knowledge progresses. When teaching, I always present the Levine study alongside bystander research as it's a good example of a field experiment demonstrating a large effect, while bringing in an important additional factor of similarity, or group membership. Will have to look into the newer model, seems like it would connect to the empathy-altruism hypothesis.