Yes, but if we were birds, would traffic STILL be backed up for miles?

June 8, 2009 1:30 PM

Is there a scientific explanation for rubbernecking beyond "simple curiosity"? Are we predisposed as a species to run towards danger?

I was re-reading David Brin's Uplift War, and a character mentions that this is one way in which primates are unusual compared to other animals. Is this is an accurate assessment? Do other animals do so? Have there been any sociobiological studies of various animal orders or species which support or refute the concept?

posted by zarq to science & nature (13 comments total)

One explanation for rubbernecking is that people are predisposed to imitate others. Stanley Milgram conducted an experiment in the 1960s in which he had several people stand on a corner looking up at the sky. As the size of this group increased (from one to five to fifteen), more and more passersby would stop and also look up into the sky. A very large group caused 80% of passersby to stop and look up. [You can find an extended discussion of this and other imitative behavior in Surowieki's The Wisdom of Crowds]. We Its conceivable that the same thing is at work in rubbernecking: we see everyone else slowing down to take a look at something (we don't know initially whether its dangerous or not), so we do too. This phenomenon thus may have little to do with running towards danger, and more to do with following the herd.
posted by googly at 1:44 PM on June 8

Ravens will harass eagles, even though eagles will kill ravens if they can catch them. Observers say that young ravens will be obviously terrified but driven to taunt eagles for some reason. Perhaps intelligent species like to push at barriers to see just exactly where they end. Maybe we are seeking to ease our minds of a worry. If we get familiar with a danger or know that a danger is contained, we can go on with our lives.
posted by Foam Pants at 1:51 PM on June 8

It could hypothetically be about trying to identify the source of danger so we know how to respond, rather than actually running towards danger.
posted by emilyd22222 at 1:58 PM on June 8

Hypothetically? Depending on your level of cynicism, the answer could be anything from altruism to the inherent hubris (down to the DNA) of being the species on the planet which tends to most often cause disasters rather than be required to flee them.
posted by adipocere at 2:11 PM on June 8

I recently read an economic explanation for rubbernecking on the highway. I think it was that you're forced to invest a certain amount of time waiting for everyone in the slowdown in front of you to see what's going on, and so by the time you're passing by the accident, the additional investment of time required for you to get the payoff (satisfaction of curiosity, I guess) is relatively minimal. Sort of a "we've come this far..." type of logic.
posted by lakeroon at 2:27 PM on June 8

Hmm... I don't think I run towards danger at all. What I do is stare at things that have already happened because I want to know about them. A car accident on the highway isn't danger, it's history and anthropology and biology class all rolled into one (what happened? why did it happen? how will they fix that? OMG, is that blood?). But if I saw actual danger- like an imminent explosion, I'm pretty sure I'd run away, not toward. (And then I'd turn back and watch from a safe distance.)
posted by pseudostrabismus at 2:33 PM on June 8

We learn from the mistakes of others.
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 3:13 PM on June 8

It's dramatic, it's unusual, people can relate to it, it's a (negative) version of the lottery. Combine anything with drama, luck, out-of-the-ordinary but still with a bit of "that could be me" and you will attract people like flies. I don't think it matters much what it is.
Now, as to why people are attracted to that mix? I have no clue.
posted by forforf at 3:16 PM on June 8

I think it's an atavistic response to danger. In nature, stillness is a defensive mechanism. An animal will freeze in mid-stride at the first sign of an approaching predator, partially to locate and identify the threat and partially to avoid his own motion attracting the eye of the enemy. Us civilized and educated animals make a nod to this behavior by slowing down and checking for details. It isn't "morbid curiosity", it's survival instinct.
posted by EnsignLunchmeat at 3:19 PM on June 8

Ravens will harass eagles, even though eagles will kill ravens if they can catch them.

This behavior is called mobbing, and is not limited to birds, although they display the most notable examples.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 4:37 PM on June 8

On mobbing, this is interesting ...

Adaptationist hypotheses regarding why an organism should engage in such risky behavior have been suggested by Eberhard Curio,[4] including advertising their physical fitness and hence uncatchability (much like stotting behavior in gazelles), distracting predators from finding their offspring, warning their offspring, luring the predator away, allowing offspring to learn to recognize the predator species,[5] directly injuring the predator or attracting a predator of the predator itself. The much lower frequency of attacks between nesting seasons suggests such behavior may have evolved due to its benefit for the mobber's young.

Interesting note about "allowing offspring to learn." Perhaps the apes that stopped to watch their fellow apes get eaten by lions passed on lion-fearing behaviors.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 4:39 PM on June 8

We like the feeling of relief that we get from being grateful that we didn't suffer the same fate. It seems to be a cousin to Schadenfreude, but instead of being glad about other's suffering to their detriment, we are simply glad that it wasn't to ours.
posted by SpacemanStix at 7:18 PM on June 8

Thanks for your answers, everyone. :)
posted by zarq at 7:23 AM on June 9