Robert Cialdini’s Influence inspired a blogpost back in February regarding the degree to which people defer to physicians simply because of their titles. If you missed it, go back and re-read it. Better yet, buy the book on Audible. One for the whole family to learn from, it’s incredibly well-written, with over 100 pages of endnotes and bibliography to support the information presented. And no, I receive no benefit from promoting his work.
And now, back to our regularly scheduled programming.
I surmise that most of you are like me in that the fact that most around us are not preparing has no bearing on what we do; their lack of preparedness does not slow us down a bit. We don’t look to others for an example in this aspect of our lives. Perhaps because we are absolutely sure of the correctness of our actions. However, as Cialdini points out
“[W]hen we are unsure of ourselves, when the situation is unclear or ambiguous, when uncertainty reigns, we are most likely to accept the actions of others—because those actions reduce our uncertainty about what is correct behavior there.”
Uncertainty develops when people are not familiar with a situation, and because of this, they are much more likely to follow the lead of others. Unfortunately, these other people are also in the same unfamiliar situation, and are thus also looking for a leader to guide them in the correct path to follow. The phenomenon of everyone wondering what everyone else is doing is called pluralistic ignorance. It explains something we’ve all heard of: the failure of bystanders to come to the aid of someone in trouble. Even when someone is being assaulted.
Perhaps it’s because an emergency is often not obviously an emergency. Does the racket next door stem from a loud marital argument or assault? Is that a drunk lying in the alley sleeping one off or a man having a heart attack? What’s happening? When people are uncertain, they look to others for clues in determining whether what they are witnessing is an emergency. Unfortunately, everyone else is doing the same. Because no one else sees an emergency, there must be no emergency, and people continue with their business as usual.
However, suppose there is a true emergency. How do witnesses react? Will they offer aid? Yes.
When bystanders understand that a person needs help, assistance is almost guaranteed. Experiments in Florida showed that if there is no personal concern for safety, bystanders help 100% of the time. If helping involved contact with possibly dangerous electrical wires, the victim was helped 90% of the time. So the difference occurs when witnesses aren’t sure whether an emergency exists.
Now, how do we improve the odds of receiving help from others?
1. Realize that others fail to assist because they are unsure rather than unkind.
2. They don’t know what to do.
3. Moans or groans from the pain of a heart attack or stroke are not sufficient to raise awareness.
4. Crying “help” is a start.
5. Assigning tasks is better—point to a specific individual: “You, sir, in the black hat. I need help. Call 911.” The designated rescuer now knows aid is needed, he is responsible for providing it, and exactly what it should look like.
Be precise in stating needs. Don’t permit witnesses to draw their own conclusions; they’ll often be wrong.
A woman being attacked by a man in public has to go one step further; witnesses often won’t step in to help if they are uncertain about the relationship between the two. If bystanders believe they know each other (and they usually assume this is the case), they are far less willing to get involved. Any time a woman is caught in a physical confrontation with a man, mere shouts for help are not likely to be effective. Shouting “I don’t know you!” greatly increases her odds of receiving help.
Links to related posts:
Influence and Medicine
No comments:
Post a Comment