Watch this video. Caution- VERY GRAPHIC
On display you will see a very angry woman acting very aggressively and her actions are a perfect demonstration of her hot cognition. Hot cognition you will remember is action-oriented cognition (PSU, 2014). How the aggression was antagonized by the victim should be of little importance in the shadow of how the aggressor chose to act. Apparently angered by rumors that the victim was allegedly spreading about the assailant, the assailant pursued and preceded to assault the victim. Based on the theory of hot cognition this assailant did not take the time to rationalize her actions and acted instead on her emotions.
At one point in the attack you will hear the assailant demonstrate concern about losing her job. Had she been rational in the cognitive process to pursue the victim she may have realized that assaulting the victim could also lead to her losing her job, especially since she was still wearing her work uniform. After the assault was over and she witnessed someone videotaping her she rationally told the recorder not to post the video- knowing it could cause harm to her reputation (Gallo, 2014).
Now let’s turn our attention to the obvious bystander effect that was taking place. Aside from the victim’s toddle son, no one tried to intervene in the assault. The bystander affect occurs when, even if there are many people around, no one does anything to intervene in an emergency situation. I counted six individuals around the area watching and commenting on the events that took place and witnessed no one stepping in to try to reason with this woman. It seems we live in a society where there are only a few answers to the question of why no one tried to help. Either people are too afraid of getting involved and possibly getting hurt themselves, or we have become too desensitized by the violence we see every day in media and everyday life that it doesn’t cause us to rise up in defense anymore. Another option, and I hope it is not the case; people are more concerned with getting “hits on the social media pages”. This video could have very well just have been turned over to the police without being uploaded to someone’s social media outlet. It wasn’t the recorder that alerted the police to the video but a viewer who did.
Was it rational- cold cognition that persuaded the bystanders to do nothing? Or is this a twisted form of hot-cognition where the inaction of simply recording or watching attacks like this becomes the action part of the hot cognition? If hot cognition is action based and emotionally driven then I suppose it does make sense that inaction is the action. People are so afraid of getting sued, getting shot, or getting involved that the fear drives them to do nothing. This inaction takes place every day. People make the cognitive choice to not get involved even when they can clearly see that a situation calls for action. We all have a media driven fear of the “mean world” that we expect every dark corner to hide a mugger and every assailant to pull a gun on us.
This “you never know” mentality of society drives us to be bystanders, it demands us to stand idly by for our own survival. Furthermore it confuses the cognition. We can’t assume that no one wanted to do anything just because they didn’t. They could have rationalized and weighed the benefits and possible risks of getting involved. I contend that if no intervention occurs for this social problem a continued breakdown in social cognition is not only plausible, it’s inevitable. Our actions and inactions sometimes are fear based. Something should be done about this.
References:
PSU (2014) https://courses.worldcampus.psu.edu/su14/psych424/001/content/13_lesson/01_page.html
Gallo, B. (2014); Mom beaten as toddler tries to intervene; Salem police seek assailant; South Jersey Times Retrieved from: http://www.nj.com/salem/index.ssf/2014/06/mom_beaten_as_toddler_tries_to_intervene_salem_police_seek_assailant_video.html
screen recorder free
Hot Cognition and the bystander effect | Applied Social Psychology (ASP)
That was truly a shocking and sad video. I find myself watching and thinking if I had been there I would have done something, at least called 911, but studies show that if I did intervene I would be in the minority. (Schneider, Gruman, Coutts. 2012). I agree that the fact that nobody intervened was due to the bystander effect. When I watch that video I am guilty of the fundamental attribution error, I automatically caught myself thinking that the people watching must have some sadistic tendencies to watch and not act. (Schneider, Gruman, Coutts. 2012). I was surprised that someone didn’t step up when the woman’s young son was not only witnessing the assault but was attempting to intervene. I would have thought concern for the boy’s welfare would have at least led someone to try to get him to a safe place and shield him from seeing that brutal attack.
I am a volunteer Red Cross trainer and one of the main points I try to drive home is the fact that if you are not willing to physically help you can make a big difference by dialing 911. The faster help arrives the better the odds of a full recovery.
Schneider, F. W., Gruman, J. A., and Coutts, L. M. (Eds.) (2012). Applied Social Psychology: Understanding and Addressing Social and Practical Problems (2nd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Kindle edition.