Omniscient, Omnipresent: Not Completely Stupid Concepts After All

Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5134
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Omniscient, Omnipresent: Not Completely Stupid Concepts After All



How the Illusion of Being Observed Can Make You a Better Person

Even a poster with eyes on it changes how people behave

mind matters, mind, brain, eyesBE GOOD: I have my eyes on youImage: Eva Serrabassa

Many years ago, when I was still in high school, I was extremely fond of chewing gum, especially during class hours. However, sooner or later the chewing gum would either lose its taste or I would become bored with it. After a while, I would start looking around, wondering how I could get rid of the gum nice and quietly. As you might have guessed by now, yes, I was that kid sticking his used gum underneath the desk. And as I grew older, I started noticing that I wasn’t the only one deviating from the social norms that society has laid out for us. How often is it that we conveniently forget to return dirty food trays in the cafeteria?  Or let our dogs poop in the park and head off before anyone has a chance to notice?

I think Thomas Jefferson was on a similar train of thought when he wrote, “Whenever you do a thing, act as if all the world were watching.” I always found this to be a particularly interesting quote, as it reminds us of the fact that we tend to be on our best behavior when we know that we are being observed. While this may seem obvious, new research points to something far less obvious: it doesn’t take a fellow human being to make us feel “as if the world were watching,” not even another living organism. All it takes is an image of a pair of human eyes.

A group of scientists at Newcastle University, headed by Melissa Bateson and Daniel Nettle of the Center for Behavior and Evolution, conducted a field experiment demonstrating that merely hanging up posters of staring human eyes is enough to significantly change people’s behavior. Over the course of 32 days, the scientists spent many hours recording customer’s “littering behavior” in their university’s main cafeteria, counting the number of people that cleaned up after themselves after they had finished their meals. In their study, the researchers determined the effect of the eyes on individual behavior by controlling for several conditions (e.g. posters with a corresponding verbal text, without any text, male versus female faces, posters of something unrelated like flowers, etc). The posters were hung at eye-level and every day the location of each poster was randomly determined. The researchers found that during periods when the posters of eyes, instead of flowers, overlooked the diners, twice as many people cleaned up after themselves

In fact, this research builds on a long tradition of psychologists being interested in explaining and stimulating human cooperation in matters of the collective. In technical terms, we often speak of a “social dilemma,” that is, a situation where personal interests are at odds with that of the collective. (For example, it would be easier for me to throw my trash on the ground, but if everyone thought that way, we would all be stuck with a huge pile of waste.) Robyn Dawes and colleagues showed in the 70’s that the presence of other people in the room tends to have a positive effect on people’s decision-making when faced with a social dilemma. Yet, it wasn’t until a few years ago that Terence Burnham and Brian Hare published an article in Human Nature that showed people make more cooperative choices in economic computer games when they are “watched” on the screen by a robot with human-like eyes. Somewhat baffled, a number of researchers subsequently conducted a set of experiments that confirmed these initial findings.

Ernest-Jones, Bateson and Nettle sought to better understand the effect of staring-eyes on behavior. Part of the added value of the scientist’s current research is that the results were generated outside of the laboratory. This is important because it allowed the researchers to document naturally occurring behavior, providing greater confidence that the results obtained are not merely an artefact of experimentation. Equally important, it also served to illustrate that the effect of staring-eyes carries across a range of social behaviors.


"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck

B166ER's picture
Posts: 557
Joined: 2010-03-01
User is offlineOffline
Orwell wouldn't be surprised...

Beyond Saving
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5484
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
 Cameras are virtually

 Cameras are virtually everywhere in a city now and for the most part, you will never know if another human actually watches it. As we get used to being filmed everywhere, I wonder if this effect will decrease? 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X

Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
 Beyond Saving wrote:


Beyond Saving wrote:
Cameras are virtually everywhere in a city now and for the most part, you will never know if another human actually watches it. As we get used to being filmed everywhere, I wonder if this effect will decrease?


Possibly that could happen. However, I think that awareness of the matter has to be stipulated even if not on a conscious level. I say that because everyone knows what eyes look like so they have a fairly immediate effect. But do cameras always look like cameras? Not so much.


If you live in a reasonably populated area, then have yo ever seen just how fast the highway dept. can clear a disabled motorist? It might not all be cameras (think about the signs leading to tunnel and bridge entrances telling yo who to call) but there are odd bits of hardware mounted on poles that you drive past all the time without a thought. For that matter, just how many people get mailed a ticked for whizzing past a red light camera?


Heck but how did they do that experiment in the first place unless they were able to observe what was going on under each picture? I think it is unlikely that there were real people in the area making the counts as that would at least be noise in the data which would be hard to deal with.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."