Swedish Social Experiment - Domestic Abuse

Has anyone read or heard about this social experiment?

http://http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/nov/14/swedish-social-experiment-shows-people-ignoring-domestic-abuse-in-a-lift

Basically two actors (a man and a woman) play out a domestic abuse scene (the man is the aggressor) to see how many people would get involved, only 1 in 53 reacts.

It seems to me that getting involved in such a limited space in something that could easily turn into 2 on 1 is a bit risky.

Would calling the police once you're off be the best thing? What do you think the right move is?

 

Fixed the link, my bad.

I agree the result would probably be same/similar for any aggression. I suppose they went for domestic abuse because of shock value.

Does bystander effect apply if there is only one witness?

 

I tend to find people who are abusive to women are pretty much inclusively abusive to women, they tend to be very good at beating women but no so when it comes to a man.

Choosing to intervene works two ways. You can think that the abuser is some sort of maniac with a good tool set and steer clear or he can think you're a man and more than a match for him and pipe down if you choose to intervene.

I think most people here would intervene in certain circumstances. For me i would have to asses how vulnerable the person being abused actually is, is she fighting back? is she holding her own in a verbal standoff? - is this escelating to violence? Will i be dragged into it anyway for the duration of the lift ride.

The real problem with intervening in this scenario is the after affect. She most probably would get it worse when no hero is around to save her.

For me i think it would depend on how i felt at that moment.

Baza

 

Probably 'cause domestic violence is supposed to be common in Scandinavia and there is an attitude that it's between the couple and outsiders shouldn't get involved. Traditionally people have turned a blind eye to it, more so than other places.

 

This is something I would be very concerned about.

Also, anyone remember this video?

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jy5vRGtKPY0"]The video might change the way you see domestic violence. - YouTube[/ame]

 

like OP said - it would likely turn 2 on 1.
Domestic abuse is often not uni directional (man beats woman) but both partners assault each (reciprocity) other so getting involved with 2 people in an emotional state is a bad idea.

you may also escalate the situation between them by getting involved once you leave so its better to offer support in private.

we're better off using Californian laws of domestic abuse where the state will prosecute an abuser without the partner's co-operation as long as the partner makes the initial complaint.

 

So basically, the short's objective is wrong/ill-advised?

I'm presuming they want to shed light on people's lack of action in the filmed or similar circumstances in order to change them. But acting in such a situation would more probably make things worse, both for the victim and for the person who intervenes.

The video with the two scenarios is quite illustrative, I hadn't seen it before.

 

I remember a shortened video of this. To be honest i wouldn't intervene if it was a girl that was the aggressor, i wouldn't know how to handle that situation. Add to the fact that women are MENTAL!

Barry

 

Yeah, I can't remember where I read it but I'm pretty sure most domestic abuse murders take place once the abused partner tries to do something to escape, so I'd imagine that unless your plan to help the abused person is to offer a permanent solution you might just be intensifying the violence.

I remember, turns out there is a good chance the footage was manipulated. The implied reactions are never seen in the same shot as the act itself plus the lighting frequently changes suggesting that a lot of the "reaction shots" were filmed at different times and may not necessarily have been in response to the actors.

Link: http://wehuntedthemammoth.com/2014/...initiatives-violenceisviolence-video-a-fraud/

Turns out the same thing was done recently but from a different angle called "The Drunk Girl Experiment" where men were supposedly secretly filmed trying to take advantage of an attractive women (played by a sober actress).

Turns out "The Drunk Girl Experiment" was orchestrated by a 20 year old film student who told the men that it was for a student comedy film and then proceeded to provided them lines and direct them as actors.

As a result one of the guys in the film lost a contracting job. Link: http://www.laweekly.com/informer/2014/11/12/drunk-girl-video-was-a-big-fat-set-up

Bottom line don't trust "social experiments" where you don't get to see the raw footage or know anything about the set up. It's actually kind of weird the rate at which youtube, and particularly the "prank" part of youtube has started setting itself up as an amatuer sociologist society.

 

Yeah, I kind of expect everything I see to on film to be fake to some degree.

But, did it not make you think about how you might react differently to the two scenarios?

 

The one I posted made me think about what I would do and I realised I wasn't sure about what I should do.

 

It's a thorny subject, that's for sure!

 

To be fair I don't know how I'd react in either scenario so I can't really make the comparison.

I like to call these sorts of videos "morality porn", they are fictions constructed to be watched with the intention to be ashamed or outraged and in all reality they are probably produced with that kind of self-serving delusional response in mind. That's not to say that what is being seen isn't real but the emphasis placed on particular responses and the way we interpet them is misleading

It's made to provoke a certain reaction that isn't really intended to serve anything other than the immiediate thrill that comes with being a judge of other peoples choices.

Don't know if I'd step in if it was women attacking man... but then again I don't know if I'd step in if it was the other way round.... and worse, probably not for some noble reason of not wanting to make it worse for the abused partner.

 

I have read numerous pieces of anecdotal evidence where people have tried to intervene only for both the man and the woman to turn on them.

I think that is what would most likely put me off getting involved.

 

I'm catching up on a lot of the fascinating discussions I've been missing so sorry if I'm dragging up things you've all put to rest.

I have a friend who witnessed a fellow slapping his GF in the street and when he intervened they both turned on him and kicked him unconscious.
HOWEVER,
One of the reasons I do MA is that I was robbed and beaten in the street as a 13 y.o. by other kids and adults walked past and did nothing. Since then I promised myself I would never just walk away.

I have witnessed public DV a number of times and have not walked away but it is hard to know what to do. As has been said, unless you are offering a permanent solution you could make matters worse.

Scenario 1.
I just stopped my bike and stood with it and watched - the man was not beating the woman, but he was shouting in her face and she was visibly scared. Eventually he turned to me and asked profanely what I wanted. I stayed at a safe distance and just stared. He asked again and got angrier and angrier with me. He left her and came towards me and I rode away. He stopped. I stopped and stared some more. He shouted at me and I just stayed at a distance.
He went back to the woman and they walked off, argument over.
I do not know what happened afterwards, but I hoped that he would at least remember that he had come to some public attention that could have consequences if he resumed his assault on her.

Scenario 2.
Woken 5.30 one summer morning, woman shouting in the street "Don't hit me! Don't hit me."
I went down and saw the lady with a bloody nose.
The fellow was saying, "Give me my money." She refused. I looked closer. I began to suspect that she was a he. I conjectured that the money had been exchanged for services to be rendered and the subterfuge being discovered the fellow had demanded a refund which was refused.
By now several people had come into the street in their pyjamas and dressing gowns. The man, looking more and more self-conscious, got in his car and left. The 'lady' walked off, financially better off, it seemed, but still the worse for wear.

Scenario 3. .. then I'll stop.
Mid afternoon, a woman crying hysterically in the street "Leave my baby!". I went down, there was a man holding a woman against the wall by the throat, push-chair and baby nearby.
A group of workmen were standing on scaffolding across the road, watching but not moving.
I told the man to let go, he told me to leave. I told him I would call the police and did, in front of him. - he let go. I later found out they were our neighbours, breaking up with each other. We did not see him again, but the woman always gave me a smile and a "hi" when we passed in the street after that.
(NB - on none of these occasions was I yet a police officer. That changes the dynamic.)

What I deduce from these episodes is that attention defuses the situation. The angry person resents the attention but that deflects his ire from the person he is angry with - short term solutions, I know, but you cannot heal peoples' lives unless they want it.

 

I don't think you were wrong for standing up for victims, but the sad thing is you can never know if you might have caused more suffering behind closed doors.

I'm not saying I would have acted differently (without being there, I couldn't say), but it's a very thorny subject.