By now I’m sure everyone is familiar with front-running presidential candidate Dr. Ben Carson, the neurosurgeon-turned-politician. Since Carson dropped the scalpel and picked up the microphone, his controversial opinions have proven contentious both within the GOP and throughout the presidential race at large. Recently, Carson stated that if he had been present at the Oregon shooting, he would "not just stand there and let him shoot. [He] would say, 'Hey guys, everybody attack him. He may shoot me, but he can't get us all.’" FBI officials have since clarified that rushing a shooter is an undesirable response to a gun-involved emergency situation, so it might be best to resist the urge.
While Carson’s hypothetical response beautifully mirrors white blood cells combating a foreign bacterial cell, perhaps his biological background has led to misguided expectations of human behavior. As we’ve all learned, bystanders do not often take this kind of bravado initiative in emergency situations, regardless of their moral values. In fact, the larger the group gets, the less likely it becomes that anyone will offer help in an emergency situation. Latané and Darley’s five step process to helping in an emergency tells us that not only does an individual need to recognize an event as an emergency, but they must also know the appropriate response and assume responsibility to act.
In the case of the Oregon shooting to which Carson was referring, it is unlikely that anyone would fail to notice the situation as a dire one. However, many people don’t know the best course of action in a mass shooting scenario. Obviously, Carson’s recommendation falls short at this step, as his suggestion is not an appropriate form of assistance. Even if it were a viable choice of counter-action, it is unlikely that a large group of bystanders would reflexively think to run at the source of death and risk their lives to mitigate the impact. Bystanders often fail to react in situations that would be unlikely to cause them harm, so it is far-fetched to believe that they would voluntarily charge a shooter in such a high-risk situation.
Garcia, Weaver, Darley, and Moskowitz (2002) provide empirical evidence to support the improbability of Carson’s solution to gun violence. The researchers completed a series of studies that involved introducing others into an imaginary emergency over time while simultaneously presenting one individual with help-decisions. Participants were far less likely to exhibit helping behavior if they were cognizant of the fact that other individuals, even ones entirely incapable of helping, were present in the situation. Unfortunately for Dr. Carson and his political campaign, his solution to mass shootings is not only logistically ill-advised but also psychologically unlikely.
[Victoria Mousley]
References
Colvin, J. (2015, October 7). Ben Carson’s advice on mass shooting under scrutiny.
Garcia, M. S., Weaver, K., Darley, M. J., Moskowitz, B. G. (2002). Crowded minds: The implicit bystander effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 843-853.
This blog is great! Being from Oregon, I have thought about the situation and what I would do. I like to think that I would do what Ben Carson suggests and rush a shooter, helping the victim. However, this post helps me truly realize that when placed in such a situation, I may succumb to situational factors such as a high number of other bystanders or a high chance of self harm and I may be led to act differently from my moral views. I hope to never find out by being in a situation such as the Oregon one however.
ReplyDelete