The horrific road mishap at Banastarim on the night of August 6 shocked people across the State.
But shock also turned into anger and revulsion when it was revealed that an affluent and prominent couple in a luxury car driven by an inebriated driver had rammed into vehicles, killing three of them and injuring three others.
The Banastarim road mishap had brought into focus that yardsticks and judgements tend to be applied differently to different people, depending on the ‘who and what’ in society, a psychologist has said.
Judging the powerful
“People judge people and evaluate events all the time. One’s own experiences, future expectations and moral code will come into play here. Attributions behind peoples’ behaviour take an interesting turn especially when the behaviour, in question, is negative in nature or has resulted in some negative outcomes,” explains Dr Ubaldina Noronha, associate professor at the Department of Psychology at St Xavier’s College in Mapusa.
“The correspondence bias explains this tendency wherein we judge a person rather harshly because we assume that bad behaviour is caused by the bad, prominent or influential character of the person. So, we tend to attribute negative behaviour of the person to their own personal or dispositional traits, perhaps even ignoring that the very same behaviour could have been caused by some external or situational factors.”
“However, if it comes to explaining the same with regard to ourselves then we would normally displace the blame to some external or contextual factors rather than ourselves.”Dr Noronha explained that though people would all like to believe that they think objectively all the time, it may not be the case.
“We are all subject to implicit biases from time to time, without being consciously aware of it. Our brain has a natural flair to seek out experiences, events and mental shortcuts that endorse our thoughts and judgements.”
“As a result, we do not really apply the same yardstick to all people. A case in point would be times when a celebrity or someone affluent or in power is caught on the wrong side of the law. Our judgement of them would be different from that of a common man doing the same thing. Our judgement could go either way and we are, maybe, more tolerant or extremely critical than otherwise.”
Doubting law enforcers
Dr Noronha also pointed out that sometimes it is not the person in question, but rather how people understand the factors around them and how things could pan out in their favour.
“It could be the police, media, right connections, money power and past instances that make us doubtful of the functioning of the law enforcement agencies and procedures. People tend to feel that law and justice could be biased towards the celebrity, affluent and powerful. If, however, people had unflinching faith that true justice will be served, then ‘who’ the person is, will never matter,” explained Dr Noronha.
“Public outcries in such instances really expose more than just the person concerned or the truth. It reflects the helplessness people feel about their circumstances against the very people and system that is supposed to be protecting them.”
“And while we may not be justified in all our judgements, we have to be more conscious of ‘who and what’ are we really judging at the end of the day with the hope that someone is listening to bring about a change,” she added.
