Greetings, greetings, fellow travellers (anyone ever watch the “Star Gazer” (previously “Star Hustler” until they decided to change the name in the late 90’s) spots on PBS with Jack Foley Horkheimer once upon a time? Sadly, Mr Horkheimer passed away in 2010, but I always remember he’d open with “Greetings, greetings, fellow star gazers!” Loved catching those right before Dr. Who aired on the local PBS station in the 80’s and 90’s. Anyway, on with the show...)!
First, a bit of housekeeping, so to speak. You might already be familiar with my ongoing series that began a couple of months ago, Logical Fallacies Bootcamp, in which I explain a formal or informal logical fallacy and give a few examples. Today, I am beginning another series, “Cognitive Bias Bootcamp” which will explore various cognitive biases. I’ll endeavor to shoot these out once per week. Logical Fallacies Bootcamp already drops on Wednesday and Friday, so I believe I’ll try to shoot for Mondays for the Cognitive Bias series (except for this one, which I’m publishing now, of course). I may also continue to drop occasional Information Literacy, News Literacy, or Critical Thinking diaries as well, but not on a specific schedule, those will appear “as the mood strikes.”
Uh...What’s a Cognitive Bias?
Before we move on to the Cognitive Bias du jour, let’s first define what a cognitive bias is, so we’re all on the same page. This is a bit tricky, as there is not full agreement on what constitutes a cognitive bias or what the causes are. But I think we can apply what seems to be the broader consensus and roll with it. Just be aware that I am by no means offering a universally accepted definition here.
A cognitive bias is a (usually unconscious) error in thinking, sometimes subtle, that occurs as we process the information we take in from the world around us. They sometimes occur as part of our attempt to simplify the information our brains are processing. Sometimes they are related to memory, or to attention, as we have limited resources of both and the brain has to either consciously or unconsciously choose what to remember or to commit attention to, and a bias occurs as a result.
Although these biases usually occur unconsciously, we can teach ourselves to try to recognize them in others and ourselves. In doing this, we may also be able to adopt new ways of thinking about information, and to recognize in which directions our own biases may run and thereby mitigate their effect by consciously acknowledging the bias to ourselves.
Ok, but...how are cognitive biases different from those logical fallacies you’ve been talking about?
I’m glad you asked!
Logical fallacies are an error in a specific argument — in a formal fallacy, an error in the structure or logic of the argument, in an informal fallacy there are other errors in reasoning committed. In either case, it’s an error in reasoning that weakens an argument. In a cognitive bias, the error is a built-in aspect of our information processing. Some logical fallacies may stem from cognitive biases, but the two are not interchangeable.
And now, let’s finally get to the particular subject of today’s installment…
The Bystander Effect
The Bystander Effect is a situation where the presence of others has an inhibiting effect on an individual taking action. Classic examples are instances of bullying or assault, or accidents like an auto accident, where there are multiple bystanders present and yet none take action to stop the bullying or assault, or move to assist the injured in the car accident example.
One way the Bystander Effect can manifest is by an individual looking to other bystanders and, seeing none of them taking any action, hesitates to step in themselves — the presence of inactivity of the others has an inhibiting effect, and so the person does not step forward to intervene. Another way is that the individual simply decides that they do not need to intervene or offer assistance because surely some other bystander will do so. Some research has also indicated that factors like familiarity with the environment (is the person in a familiar environment, like their local neighborhood), how ambiguous a situation is (i.e., is it clear what happened and that there are injuries?), whether the person/persons in need of assistance are perceived as part of the observer’s “in-group” or not (for example, are they obviously a local or a foreigner, or of a different ethnic group or religion, etc.), and the number of bystanders (the more bystanders there are, the less likely a particular individual is to offer assistance, though the effect becomes less pronounced with each added individual in the group).
The Genovese Case — Not quite as “textbook” as it seemed.
The classic example of Bystander Effect for many years was the murder of Kitty Genovese in Queens, New York in 1964. In that instance, Genovese, a bartender, was returning home to her apartment building after work when she was sexually assaulted and stabbed to death by an attacker over a half hour period of time, during which period various individuals witnessed the attack. At the time, it was claimed in New York Times coverage that 38 people in the neighborhood had heard or witnessed the attack and yet none of them attempted to assist Genovese or call police (some people simplify this to the point of implying 38 people literally stood around gawking as a young woman was raped and murdered in front of them. That’s not the case). Decades later, research showed that the reported number of witnesses was exaggerated (it was more like a dozen witnesses), and that what witnesses observed was more ambiguous than originally reported, with no witness seeing or hearing more than a small part of the incident (there were multiple attacks, as Genovese would escape briefly only to be chased down again by her attacker) and misinterpreted what they heard/saw, such as believing it was lovers or drunks quarreling.
Still, despite the issues with the accuracy of reporting of the Kitty Genovese case, it remains true that the bystander effect is a real effect that has been studied by psychologists. So if it was inaccurate, why did I bring up the Genovese case? Because it is still sometimes trotted out as an example of the bystander effect even though many details later proved to be exaggerated or erroneous, and I wanted to set the record straight on the incident. It is still an example of the bystander effect, but not quite the “textbook” example it is sometimes portrayed as being.
Wrap-up
As noted, the issues with the Genovese case notwithstanding, the bystander effect is a real observed and studied cognitive bias, though there are various factors that can have an influence on the extent to which it might occur in any one individual. I hope you’ve enjoyed this first foray into cognitive biases, perhaps have learned something, and will tune in for future installments! Feel free to let me know what you think of the new series in the comments!
Edit: Just a few minor edits to correct typos or fix some shaky grammar.