To draw everyone’s attention to the “Identifiable Victim Effect”?

[Thoosa]

thedecisionlab.com/biases/identifiable-victim-effect/

There was lots of dispute earlier on threads about Rayan Awram’s tragic death. The same arguments often break out on Mumsnet when individual tragedies are discussed and lots of “there are dozens of people dying in Y, but you’re obsessing inappropriately about X” type posts.

However, it’s actually quite understandable that people relate to named individuals, isn’t it?

I probably should add the disclaimer that I’m not trying to defend prurient or intrusive media coverage, just the empathy we have for strangers.

Ha. Just me then.

(Although some votes there.)

Yanbu OP. It's like when people obsess about one animal (Cyril the lion, that alpaca recently) but happily eat others. It's weird when you think about it but humans are not rational!

One person or animal has characteristics and personality and family and thoughts and feelings.

Hundreds is just a large homogeneous mass.

Maybe? 🤷‍♀️

"The death of one is a tragedy
The death of a million is just a statistic"

@OnlyClothes

One person or animal has characteristics and personality and family and thoughts and feelings.

Hundreds is just a large homogeneous mass.

Maybe? 🤷‍♀️

Yes, I think Stalin said something along those lines. About the famines. Of course he had horrible intentions and it suited him that people couldn’t relate to large numbers of nameless victims. Still an astute observation about human psychology, though. I don’t think it’s a choice we make, but how we have evolved.

@DropYourSword

"The death of one is a tragedy The death of a million is just a statistic"

X post.

That was him, wasn’t it? The Stalin quote?

Of course YANBU. There's lots of interesting research and writing around this. I really enjoyed Paul Bloom's book 'Against Empathy' as a starting point.

It's apparently often mis attributed to Stalin. Not sure who originally said it.

I was directly quoting Marilyn Manson

Oh I’ll put that on my reading list @HarlanPepper Thanks

@DropYourSword

I think it’s honestly some sort of protective thing? I saw a stat that said something like one whole class of primary school children die from cancer every day, So why do we get really attached and invested in the ones that are visible, have social media campaigns etc? And no one cares about it until it’s something they feel personally attached to - no one wants to raise money for our local kids hospice (or even acknowledge it exists) until someone outwardly does a story on how it’s helped them, what it does, etc

I think it’s a weird part of our brain that protects us from horrible stuff

Yes, to stop ourselves being overwhelmed @Blueeyedgirl21 - makes sense.

It’s why case studies are so central to campaigning and fundraising, I suppose.

Maybe it’s also because we feel powerless to help the many. Lots of people dying from disease, malnutrition, dirty water, lack of healthcare etc is overwhelming and we can’t personally save them, we can support charities etc but it still happens. A big effort to help one person or a few people in difficulty gives you a feeling that something can be done - a heartwarming feeling that everyone cares and that people can be saved.

I’m not suggesting that people don’t actually care in these situations, they do, but just that this caring and effort can become a focus for all things we can’t fix.

This is why, in a hostage situation, you should tell your captor your name and talk about your family, etc. You need to be a person, not a number.

I’m not suggesting that people don’t actually care in these situations, they do, but just that this caring and effort can become a focus for all things we can’t fix.

Yes well put.

@WallaceinAnderland that instantly made me think of Stephanie Slater. I wonder how many cases it’s made a decisive difference in.

Obviously worth a go if the worst happens.

I think some people cannot comprehend that you can have empathy for things simultaneously.

I remember when Amy Winehouse died, which I was really upset over. Around the same time, anders breivik murdered all them kids at a camp in Norway.

It was almost as if how dare anyone be upset that Amy Winehouse drank herself to death, when this other awful tragedy had happened.

People have the ability to be upset about 2 things at the same time. One does not detract from another, but it may be that you feel a connection with one thing more than another.

It’s why people donate to local charities as well (eg local kids with cancer) rather than ones in developing countries (eg African kids with neglected tropical diseases) where they could make much more of a difference

I knew about this a long time ago in terms of how its used in advertising for charities.

I must admit to finding its use very cynical and manipulative because I know about the effect. I find it off putting. The children concerned rarely have much ability to refuse because of desparation of the parents. So in terms of ethics when people are asking for money, i find it dubious.

Especially when you know about the levels of corruption and exploitation in the charity sector.

There are other ways to do the same thing without using an actual real life case (but of course this might not real in as much sympathy and cash)

Im more cautious about who i give money to for charity as a result.

Tbh i found the threads on mn yesterday pretty voyeuristic and grim. Its sensationalist tabloid selling of suffering for commercial gain. Same as all the stuff that exploits the victims of terrorism. Its pure click bait.

We should learn to recognise it and avoid it, demanding better.

I think it is normal that people do feel for one individual more than a mass especially if there's something (eg their child's the same age) that makes it feel more personal.

However there are times that the MN threads on such things seem to go into competitive, who can be the most upset, who can think of the worst punishment for anyone whose fault it has been etc.
It reminds me of people taking a selfie at a traffic accident and posting on on fb to say how devastated they are.

If those sort of threads were more how can we help this not happen again, but the majority of posts are more about how upset the poster is.

There's specific ways people like to get involved and show support with charities which are back handed.

My charity for example always gets people wanting to donate items, and people get incredibly angry we decline them because they aren't suitable (we can't take duvets for example as the animals we have can't have them, they aren't washable and it's a nightmare). People want to volunteer but only for a day or odd weekend ignoring the actual skill involved and the amount of staff time that would be wasted getting someone for just a day

People are willing to donate items but dont give actual money (which is more needed for things like meds, keeping the lights on, and staff costs). We can buy a certain item from our wholesaler for a half the cost, but because of not wanting to give money instead we get smaller versions that people can buy themselves on amazon for twice the price

You can see that in things like operation shoebox child where people will spend £10 on filling a shoe box, companies will pay to have it shipped across the world, there's lots of people involved in distribution that costs more than the box contents. However people wouldn't give that £10 for people to chose things to buy in country and support the economy of that town

I used to live abroad near a charity where people would fundraise thousands of pounds to go to the country and help build a school. As part of doing it they made a few hundred pound donation to the school but 90% was based on getting someone with zero construction skill halfway across the world to shoddily build the wall.

The charity needed that few hundred so was happy for the rest of it to go by the wayside, then use the actual money they got to employ workers to build a safe wall that was structurally sound.

They knew that people needed to feel emotionally connected to it, and would never give that money without getting something for them selves

I must admit to finding its use very cynical and manipulative because I know about the effect. I find it off putting. The children concerned rarely have much ability to refuse because of desparation of the parents. So in terms of ethics when people are asking for money, i find it dubious.

You mean like crowdfunding? Or parents consenting for their children to be case studies for an established charity?

Yes it gets murky in terms of charity fundraising ethics quite easily, I should imagine.