Darin

Bystander Effect: The Myth about Kitty Genovese

Every Introduction to Psychology and Social Psychology course has a discussion about the bystander effect. And, inevitably, the phenomenon is coupled with the story about Kitty Genovese. Kitty was a New York City bartender who was killed near her residence. According to the story, multiple people heard Kitty’s screams for help, but they did nothing.

The Bystander Effect is when the presence of other people discourages others from acting. We see this happen all the time. We regularly pass people on the highway who are stranded and need help. (I know this is simplistic, as there are many other factors at work, but this is a legit example.) Typically, the bystander effect occurs when there is an emergency situation or a bully.

Despite the neatness of the Kitty Genovese story in illustrating this phenomenon, the story is largely inaccurate. The New York Times had originally posted that 37 witnesses saw or heard the attack (later corrected to 38 witnesses). Further research has found this number to be inaccurate. The story usually continues by discussing how no one called police. That is also incorrect. There were several individuals who called the police during the attack. Kitty was killed. People did witness, and some did act to help her. Others did not help. The responsiveness of the police likely also contributed. It was a series of cascading failures that led to Kitty’s murder, not just bystander apathy.

Interestingly, the internet and social media have become mediums to mitigate this phenomenon. “Karens” are being recorded and broadcasted so people can shame them. Is is working? I’m not sure, but we are seeing regular recordings of people standing up to racist bullies. It would be interesting to see if these videos are helping people combat the bystander effect.

Some Sovereign Citizens: Trump will be President

Even though the U.S. Congress certified the 2020 Presidential electoral college results on January 7th, individuals have continued to spread conspiracy theories on how President Trump will actual retain the presidency for another four years. Anyone with a foundational knowledge of American civics know this is not the true; however, it is interesting to parse out the arguments:

19th President

Picked up on Reddit from what appears to be a Parler post by ClericJohnPreston (play off a character from the 2002 sci-fi film Equilibrium), the post suggests that on March 4th, Trump will be sworn in as the 19th president. This builds on sovereign theory that the United States has been a corporation for a while. Some theories suggest the U.S. became a corporation between the end of the Civil War and the abandonment of the gold standard in 1933. This author believes it happened in 1871. Conditional to this belief is the suggestion that “Biden, Harris, Pence, Pelosi, etc.” must be arrested by January 20th. Then, the “corporation known as United States” will cease to exist, and Trump will become the 19th president (following, of course, Ulysses S. Grant).

Nye County, Nevada, Post

Another interesting conspiracy post is this one from Nye County Central Committee. The author discusses that Trump has not conceded to Biden, and, because of this (and other reasons), he will be sworn in on January 20th. Apparently, Trump knew of an election conspiracy and predicted that there would be a 4am dump of ballots. (This has been fact checked by Reuters.) This dump is proof that there is a conspiracy against Trump.

Among the other claims is the mention of the January 6th U.S. Capitol riot and how “95%+” of the people in the building were Antifa. Interesting since the FBI has been arresting people, including a Des Moines, Iowa, individual arrested by my former FBI team.

The author concludes with some benchmarks to look for, including a social media blackout, the use of the Emergency Broadcast System, and “high profile” arrests before January 20th.

Harmony Between the QAnon and Sovereign Citizen Movements?

In the past several months, we have seen a significant increase of reporting on the QAnon phenomenon or movement. Among those who participated in yesterday’s riot at the U.S. Capitol were supporters of the QAnon movement. The term “QAnon supporters” generally describes individuals who believe in a wide-range of conspiracy theories, including that a secret organization of Satanic-based, pedophiliac individuals control the government and are plotting against President Trump (see The New York Times, The Atlantic , and AlJazeera). Even before yesterday’s atrocities, this movement had become more mainstream than other similar movements.

Another anti-government collective is the sovereign citizen movement. Sovereign citizens generally believe that the government is illegitimate, and, by following a process that varies by adherent, a person can become a “freeman”. Over the past two decades, several incidents involving sovereign citizens have become violent. It is good to note that the sovereign movement, as a whole, is not a violent movement. It is just that some adherents may act aggressively when confronted by law enforcement or public officials regarding their viewpoints.

The FBI has begun investigating those involved in yesterday’s insurrection at the Capitol. Several QAnon followers have already been identified as having been part of the movement. Given the potential for sovereign citizens to want smaller government (e.g., more Republican-leaning), I pondered whether it is possible among the individuals were sovereign citizens. Let’s do a quick examination:

There are reports on individuals who are linked to both movements. In November 2020, Florida law enforcement arrested Neely Petrie-Blanchard for the Kentucky murder of Christopher Hallett. Based on social media, Petrie-Blanchard appeared to be both a supporter of the QAnon conspiracy and the sovereign movement. Additionally in Oregon, the Kinney family created a blockade in attempt to prevent them from being evicted, claiming they were an “Afro-Indigenous family” that owned the land. William Kinney aka William X. Nietzche appeared connected to both the sovereign and QAnon movements.

The movements have similar key elements. As mentioned above, QANon believes in a secret society controlling the US government. Sovereign citizens do not believe the government is legitimate. Both believe in conspiracies about the current government that compel them to not trust the current US government. Both have some supporters who believe it is OK to not follow the government’s rules or laws.

There is already an historic pattern for similar synergies to exist. In the other domestic extremist movements, animal rights extremists (the Animal Liberation Front, etc.) are known to run in the same circles as environmental rights extremists (e.g., Earth Liberation Front). Even in Islamic terrorism movements, individuals involved in the Taliban would often have associations with the Haqqani and Al-Qaida movements. The same is likely with members of Al-Qaida in Iraq (QAI) and the Islamic State. If there was a similarity in beliefs, then some of the movements’ followers would join the others. After all: “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”.

Without being able to link individuals involved in the QAnon movement with those involved in sovereign citizen movement, it is likely that we will not know if there is harmony between these two ideological groups. It is something to ponder. What do you think?

Warnings of an Uptick in Sovereign Citizen activity?

Last week, the “sovereign citizens of the Great State of Arizona” attempted to submit their electoral college votes early. They sent notarized documents to the National Archives in an attempt to give 11 electoral college votes to President Donald Trump and Vice President Mike Pence. While this attempt failed, could this be signs of an increase in sovereign citizen activity over the next four (or more) years?

According to data a colleague and I are using for research on the sovereign citizen movement, 149 events (out of 165) of violent or non-violent reported sovereign activity occurred between 2008 and 2014. This is significant because these were the years when President Obama was in the White House.

As a quick background, I co-authored a publication regarding sovereign citizens and a structured professional judgment tool in 2018. The current research built upon the roughly 60 incidents for the previous paper, and it expanded the dataset to 165 events that occurred between 2004 and 2014 and involved known or suspected sovereign citizens.

The sovereign citizen movement usually involves individuals that believe in smaller government. At their core, they believe the current federal government is operating illegally. Sovereign citizens are able to then declare their sovereignty and not be concerned with the rules and regulations of the United States. That’s how they justify not paying taxes or maintaining proper vehicle registration/licensure.

With the administration changing from Trump to President-Elect Joe Biden, are we going to see a similar uptick in sovereign citizen activity over the next few years? If the past gives us indication for the future, then I would suggest that we will se an uptick. Time will tell.

Personality and e-Learning: Can Just Anyone Learn Effectively?

Having worked in the e-Learning field for over 15 years, I have heard dozens of students tell me “I’m just not a computer person” or “I learn best when I am in a classroom”. Or, maybe “I love PowerPoint-based lectures”. Actually, I haven’t had any student tell me the last statement, but you get the point: Many students are intimidated by using computers and technology.

Dr. Casteel’s (2016) dissertation describes research into personality and transactional distance. Michael Moore’s (1993) Transactional Distance Theory focuses on the distance-learning environment and the three learner interactions that occur: learner and instructor, between learners, and between the learner and the content. Among the various measures utilized to evaluate transaction distance is the Structure Component Evaluation Tool (SCET). This rating tool has learners evaluate the content, syllabus, schedule, delivery, and the interactions. Casteel (2016) used the SCET along with a five-factor personality measure.

The five factor personality model (FFM) is probably the most ubiquitous personality measures used today (see my dissertation if you want some more details). The FFM sums personality on five dimensions or traits: Agreeableness; Conscientiousness; Extraversion; Neuroticism; and Openness to New Experiences. There are dozen of measures—both free and paid—that evaluate the FFM (check one out here).

In his research, Casteel (2016) found both Openness to New Experiences and Extroversion were positively correlated with SCET scores. As the strength of these personality traits increased, the transactional distance decreased. In a way, these results are suggesting that individuals with stronger Openness and Extraversion scores may be better prone to learning effectively through e-Learning.

Interestingly, I was unable to find many other studies examining personality and e-learning specifically. In Nakayama et al. (2007), the researchers found Conscientiousness was strongly related to the number of e-learning modules the sample of graduate students completed; however, the researchers did not provide any other information related to this relationship. Another study (Helle et al., 2010) found higher Conscientiousness and lower Openness to New Experiences scores were associated with better performance in a microscopic pathology class.

From other personality literature, it would definitely appear higher Conscientiousness (or a personal awareness behavior impacts others around them) would be a good indicator of e-Learning success. An individual with lower Neuroticism would be more ideal, especially since they would not be able to misinterpret email or asynchronous communication. Higher Agreeableness would be better, as the individual would go along with the e-Learning plan. And, I actually believe higher Openness to New Experiences would be useful for a person who is new to or transitioning to e-Learning. As far as Extraversion, an individual with higher Extraversion will be more likely to connect with the instructor and other learners vs. someone with lower Extraversion.

At present, there is not a ideal personality type for e-Learners. The research field is not clear on the findings, perhaps because there are too many other factors contributing to learning success than personality. What do you think?