http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-402594?hpt=Sbin
New York City has been known for its bad attitude and generally unfriendly population. One man (a comedian named Mark Malkoff) decided he would put this stereotype to the test. He had people carry him through the city on the coldest day of the year. He ended up convincing155 people to carry him through the city, a total of almost nine and a half miles. Obviously, the main point of this whole situation is to get a laugh or see how far he can take this idea. It is pretty amazing that he convinced so many people, but would the same amount of people have responded under different circumstances? If it was a homeless man (as someone commented under the original blog) would the same number of people be willing to help? I doubt it. The reason these people were motivated to carry this man through the city was because so many other people were doing it (social affiliation), there was a camera, and there were people around watching and laughing at the particular situation.
The aspect of social affiliation plays a part in this situation. Reeve discusses how social affiliation comes from fear of rejection, and the need to feel like part of a group (Reeve, 192). This is exemplified in this experiment because people are less likely to reject to carrying the man if everyone else has been carrying him. In addition, because the man was a some-what popular comic, people were also less likely to reject him because he was accepted by the general public. By carrying him, they are avoiding rejection from the rest of the crowd, the camera, and the city of New York.
Why can't we take this meaningless collectivism and incorporate it towards something more positive? If this single man can influence 155 people to carry him though a city on the coldest day of the year (for no apparent reason other than a laugh) then why can't we influence more people to help the homeless? Why is it likely that these same 155 people probably walk past a number of homeless people (on the coldest day of the year...) without a second thought of helping them out? What about the Kitty Genevive case-a woman who was brutally raped and murdered in front of a number of witnesses, none of which called the police, called for help, or tried to help the innocent girl. So does this little "experiment" disprove the NYC stereotype? I don't think so. It would have been much more interesting to see if these same results would happen if someone who really needed help was put in the situation that Malkoff played. It would also be interesting to see this "experiment" in a city that is not known for negative attitudes, or even done in a small town.
Leave a comment