Standing by but not helping

Social media fodder: In this file photo with models posing for illustration purposes, a bystander films the event instead of helping the injured person, which clinical psychologists term the ‘bystander effect’.

PETALING JAYA: In an age where going live or filming videos of events has become the norm, the goal is often to attain viral content by sharing via social media platforms.

A common sight to behold is people taking videos of criminal or violent situations, which clinical psychologist Dr Justine Thong Jian Ai terms the bystander effect.

“The bystander effect is a social psychology theory that outlines the tendency where, due to the presence of others, individuals stand by and fail to intervene in an emergency situation.

“It can be linked to a diffusion of responsibility where there are other onlookers present.

“In this modern world of social media, where posting sensational video content is rewarded by attention and recognition, it also, in my opinion, further encourages the act of “standing by” and watching the incident as opposed to actively intervening,” she told The Star.

Furthermore, there are arguments that in this era, due to the content we are exposed to, bystanders are often more desensitised to violence and crime situations, Thong added.

When asked why people tend to press record rather than offer help, Universiti Sains Malaysia Assoc Prof Dr Geshina Ayu Mat Saat said there are many reasons for this kind of behaviour.

“Some want to have a record of it in case they are called to become a witness; some want to ‘viralise’ such incidents either to make others aware, alert, teach, or make those other people afraid.

“While some people want to help inform relatives or friends of the victims by making such incidents viral or feel like heroes for at least (what they perceive as) doing something.

“Unfortunately, some people just like to spread anything related to destruction and victimisation,” she said.

Geshina, who is also a psychologist, further explained that it can be due to fear, public apathy, unwillingness to come forward, and perceived lengthy involvement in the case, among other reasons for just taking photos or videos.

She added that it is likely that a lack of understanding, ignorance, or not knowing what to do is behind the decision not to speak out beyond taking photos or recording the incident.

“There is no straight answer for this. At the basic level, the answer is because people believe they can.

“Ignorance of the law is not an excuse because laws are available online and offline, in the news and in social media discussions.

“The answer is not only in the person’s logic but also emotional, social, and circumstantial conditions prior, during, and after involvement in crime detail sharing with others,” said Geshina.

Meanwhile, the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) has issued a reminder that any sharing of online content that is obscene, indecent, false, menacing or offensive in character with the intent to annoy, abuse, threaten or harass another person is subject to Section 233 of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 (CMA 1998).

“The MCMC does not look at the subject matter, such as the video of the accidents or crimes committed or whether it is shared or original content, but rather the nature of the content itself, whether the content is obscene, indecent, false, menacing or offensive.

“As such, the public is advised not to post contents that are obscene, indecent, false, menacing or offensive in character, as they could be in breach of Section 233 of the CMA 1998, which carries a maximum fine of RM50,000 or imprisonment of one year or both,” it said in a statement.