sigh
Thank you!
When inquired about the reason for the prosocial gesture, most of the responses in the two conditions referred to the importance of recognizing pregnancy, with some directly referring to social norms, education, or safety (see Table 1).
Interestingly, among those who left their spot in the experimental condition, nobody directly associated their gesture with the presence of Batman, and 14 (43.75%) reported that they did not see Batman at all.
Interestingly, while the data suggest that this perturbation may have a strong effect, a notable percentage of individuals were not consciously aware of the reason behind it. Given that attention is socially influenced (e.g., the phenomenon where people instinctively look toward the same point of interest as those around them), we can hypothesize that the pattern of awareness triggered by a disruption in routine may be socially transmitted, extending beyond its original cause. This may also help account for the subset of participants who reported not noticing Batman but nevertheless offered their seat. A speculative interpretation is that the disruptive effect can operate at an interpersonal level: shifts in attention or prosocial cues triggered in some individuals may spread socially within the group, influencing behavior even among those not directly aware of the initial disruption, consistently with research on the social contagion and interpersonal synchrony of prosocial and emotional behaviors14.
This was a really interesting read!
The potential applications for this research are worth a mention, too:
These findings contribute to discussions on how public spaces and social interventions can be designed to encourage kindness and cooperation. If unexpected yet non-threatening events can increase mindfulness and prosocial behavior, urban planners, policymakers, and psychologists may consider ways to integrate “positive disruptions” into daily life. This could range from artistic or theatrical interventions in public spaces to strategic messaging campaigns designed to momentarily break routine and engage individuals more deeply with their environment and community.
It sounds like more public art can lead to more pro-social behavior, especially if the art is changed periodically (to keep it “unexpected.”) There’s a lot to be explored with this idea.
I read somewhere that being or feeling watched makes people behave better, so just pictures of people will have an effect.
Makes sense. They see what looks like a person, the brain eagerly looks up “how do I act when there’s someone here?”, then realizes it’s just a painting, but the good behavior is already looked up.
Sure, but where is the control group who saw ManBat instead of BatMan? Further research is required.
It also stands to reason that more people are likely to notice the pregnant woman when their attention is drawn to a nearby Batman, whether that attention is direct or drawn by other people looking at Batman.
More people noticing the pregnant woman increases the chance that one of them will offer their seat.
You done good, buddy
I was expecting a meme and I’m walking away learning about pro-social behavior
Kinda disappointing this research wasn’t conducted by the Batman University
Batman University
Amazing, it’s real! I had never heard of this before.
Check the “location” section right under the seal.
I saw it in the wikipedia article, thanks.
The patriarchy don’t respect the matriarchy unless in the presence of the batriarchy. Got it.
isnt it just thay you’re more likely to notice someone dressed up, and the people around them whilst staring at your phone, instead of never looking up because the pregnant woman has normal trousers
What an interesting potential explanation! Guess you’ll have to go out and test to find out. You could also choose less bombastic moral characters to test if the moral judgement angle is also true (like a priest with his tab removed)
Pretty sure that was the hypothosis the experimenters came to. Suddenly seeing batman out of the corner of your eye is way more jarring that it forces you to focus more on your surrondings.
Yes, but someone baselessly speculating is different than researchers conclusions, yes? And my response leads to deeper thinking about the possible explanations than thought terminating assumptions, no?
Also, no, subjects were more likely to offer their seat even if they didn’t see batman, meaning it was seeing the change in others brought by the shocking individual that made others more cognizant of their surroundings, rather than needing to directly see the shocking stimulus. See? By trying to make their assumption fit the outcome, you missed information that was in the paper that disagreed with you. That’s why curiosity is more valuable than needing to be right.
Can you not just correct someone without being passive-aggressive about it?
You just brought huge value to the thread and I’ve learned a lot about the study that I never would have gotten from the caption alone and I’m grateful to your insight about it. It’s something that I otherwise wouldn’t have pursued deeper due to limited interest, so why do you have to be so nasty about it?
Comrade, I have ASD and while I’m aware I’m perceived that way, it’s either talk like this sometimes or never say anything ever again. I am constantly putting effort into not looking like a condescending ass, so think of how far I have to edit this shit before it comes out of my mouth in order for me to come off as slightly high and mighty.
It’s honestly borderline crippling and I have literally driven myself mad over my inability to be understood before.
I’m a very jovial person and that comes across in my off-screen interpersonal interactions, but I can’t get that to come across in the wild west of internet comments.
But yeah, I’m working on it. Sorry about the assholeishness
well, alright, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt – I get that tone is hard to convey properly over the internet. Have a good day!
Thanks! You as well!
You seem very needlessly hostile to me. Is there a reason you’re being a dick? Have I offended you in some way?
All I did was confirm that the scientists think batman appearing got people to focus more on their surroundings.
Nah, man. Sorry about that. I was trying to be big and silly to demonstrate my point and the reason for it. Unintentional assholery, sorry again.
I think an easier experiment would be the same pregnant woman, but alone and she’s wearing more eye catching trousers + shoes
(Easier in the sense that I don’t have to do anything…)
Yes. This would be important to differentiate between the associations with the Batman character and an eye catching abnormality.
It would also be interesting to see what the impact of the Joker would be. If the Joker would also elicit greater propensity to offer the seat to the pregnant woman, once could claim that Joker, being the antithesis to Batman, similarly leads one to think of the imperative to offer the pregnant woman the seat.
Finally, another important variation would be another eye catching character specific to this experiment rather than one belonging to a fictional franchise.
This would allow one to more clearly differentiate the impact between the control (just the pregnant woman) with the introduction of eye catching costumes and with the pregnant woman wearing something eye catching herself.
Another important experimental design consideration would be to avoid repeat passengers between the multiple trials.
What? Why with the tab removed…? And also, wouldn’t that just be someone in a black robe?
Probably because people are often too distracted, something that takes attention like someone wearing a Batman costume, would bring people attention to their surroundings
Right! I demand a retest with the Riddler
Why, of all of Batman’s rogues gallery, the Riddler? I feel like the Joker would’ve been the obvious choice.
The Riddler is the best!
Because right now this is a riddle and we need an answer!
This actually really does sound like a good addition to the study. See if it’s any different with a villain.
Batman takes the metro after a long night fighting crime. His feet hurt. He just wants to sit for a few minutes. Why is no one offering Batman a seat?
What if some crazy shit breaks out? Can’t have Batman all relaxed and unprepared.
Dude, I want you well rested and ready to fight at a moment’s notice. You get a whole bench if you want it. Hell, I’d even listen1 if you just need to vent; Joker has got be fucking exhausting to deal with.
- It’s no superpower, but it’s what I can do.
To be fair Batman has no superpowers either. Except being a filthy rich guy.
filthy rich, and access to the world’s best sports science and putting in some effort to use it.
So he has at least one single actual merit: He did exercise.
Not all heroes wear capes!
Nope, Edna won’t make them anymore.
i want my batman relaxed and prepared for his fight.
we offer him the special, flushing seat the crackheads made. pregnant lady can pee later
Oh… uh, hmmm… gee… thanks?
we must have had less ingenious crackheads on our busses. Some seats had definitely been toilets but I don’t recall any getting flushing mechanisms.what’s a mechanism
Username checks out
Looks like the “Put Kevlar specific glue on the seat” plan is a bust…
Everyone knows he has high quality Bathotics.
Was it because of morality associated with a superhero? Batman specifically? Or was it just because normally people mind their own business and avoid looking around and qualifying one another until an unmissable weirdo is in their presence and they keep looking and only then notice the pregnant woman?
No, they are batman haters and don’t want batman to get the seat.
He can buy his own seat.
Hell, he can buy his own train!
You’re assuming the train goers know his secret identity.
I wouldn’t want to be in a vulnerable position like being seated if Batman was about to get into a brawl with goons.
Need to repeat the experiment but with someone dressed as the joker.
Also with batman and joker fighting.
and with pregnant batman vs pregnant joker
A while ago, I also heard of a study, where they had kids do a task until the kids would give up. And when they let the kids dress up as their favorite superhero, the kids would persevere much longer.
Obviously, the kids being in a better mood can be a factor, but if I remember correctly, it was also a conclusion that the kids persevered, because they thought the superhero would persevere in this situation.
You can probably tell quite well, when their mood falls off a cliff, but they still push on, so could certainly see that being a conclusion…deleted by creator
bollocks, bollocks, BOLLOOOOOOCKS
You’re goddamn fucking right
[ cape blows in the wind ]
I wonder how they concluded that it was one over the other, I mean, unless you ask the kids. But that could change their thought process
I mean, I can imagine very well that you can just tell from their emotions.
Like, let’s say this was their emotion timeline without superhero costume:
🧍♂️😃🙂😮💨❌
If they’d just generally be in a better mood, the emotion timeline would look like this:
🦸😁😄😃🙂😮💨❌
So, their mood starts higher, but there’s the same rate of decline.
Whereas, if they persevere, it’s more like this:🦸😃🙂😮💨😔😑❌
So, similar starting mood as without costume, but the decline is only at the start until they hit the point where they would normally give up.
And then they muster the perseverance to continue, despite being in a bad mood from that point on.Obviously, you’d need to formalize that, and not every kid will show the same emotions. But when averaged, I do think that gives you a scientific result.
passangers looked up because they noticed the guy in the weird costume and then realized the pregnant woman which otherwise wouldn’t have.
they were all just trying to get away from the wierdo dressed as batman
Wonder what specifically about Batman causes that? Would the same thing happen with Superman? Wonder Woman? Punisher? Would it happen with a child dressed as Batman?
they should have used Robin as a control. This is the problem with psychology studies calling themselves science. Maybe people are so self involved on their phones they didn’t see the preggo but Batman distracted them.
They really should try a few characters, good and bad, in different areas so people don’t notice.
The effect, for listeners who might not know, refers to the children’s character “the Bat-Man” a strong gentleman who fights crime nocturnally
fights crime
Literally. By punching it in the face.
Don’t worry, Batman just made those guys fall asleep, he didn’t give them a TBI.
I actually had to look for this to see if it’s true, it was, but for some reason the article blurred their faces
Don’t want to reveal Batman’s secret identity, now would we?
Was it because they were dressed as Batman or because everyone assumed it was being videoed and didnt want to be recorded and uploaded as a stupid prank.
When people think they are being watched and recorded, they are more likely to polite. Dont need someone dressed as a superhero to do that part.
Just gotta say thats an extremely unconvincing pregnant woman
The Batman isn’t very convincing either
neither is the ape
The number of people actually asking questions in here on Lemmy makes me happy. If I could, I’d give all of y’all each a cookie.
Why?
Because I value asking good questions rather than a) assuming, or b) just not even asking or wondering
