Do you consider yourself an assertive and moral person? Are you certain goodness should prevail? Do you stick up for victims, underdogs, helpless children? Who would you help? When you witness a crisis situation, what do you do? What do you think? Giving cans of food to the food shelf is a pretty easy thing to do. So is donating a few dollars to a cause you support. Voting your conscience, even stating your opinions on social media seems a tiny bit risky, but not as risky and getting personally involved.
Do you pick up liter off the sidewalk when you see someone throw it down, or do you talk to the person throwing it? Have you ever helped a driver whose care was broken down on the freeway? Ever take a lost puppy home?
What about donating a kidney, stopping to help someone in a car accident, or rushing into a burning building? Or, do you think about what to do, consider some positive action, but then . . . do nothing, remaining a by-stander? Do the chances of you intervening depend on how much of a hurry you are in?
Now that COVID-19 is a factor, have your answers to those questions changed? Would you maintain the safe six-feet social distance in order to not get involved?
Bad behavior can range from something as peripheral, yet troubling, as vice president Mike Pence touring the hospital without a mask, to a verbal assault of someone in public or a bully physically hurting someone.
“We’re always subject to the complicated interaction between our personal disposition and the demands of circumstance. And we may never know how we’ll act until we find ourselves in a crisis.” (Greater Good)
As witnesses, we support bad behavior unless we call it what it is and stand up to the perpetrators. It’s harder to oppose someone who is in a higher position of power, such as your boss—or the vice president. And if you do, you will probably experience negative consequences in some way. Harder also to intervene if we feel we may endanger ourselves.
“Research by Dr. William Martinez and his colleagues at Vanderbilt University Medical Center has shown that even in medical settings—where a failure to speak up when a colleague does something unsafe may mean the difference between life and death—people will often fail to speak up if doing so requires challenging a person of higher authority (a nurse, say, challenging a doctor)”.(Psychology today – Pence article)
One thing I’ve learned is that none of us is innocent, even when it comes to being a bystander. I have been reading about the ‘bystander effect’. “Every day we serve as bystanders to the world around us—not just to people in need on the street but to larger social, political, and environmental problems that concern us.” (Greater Good)
It’s tempting to blame evil acts on evil people, but that leaves the rest us off the hook. Silence, after all, can perpetuate cruelty. When you witness an atrocity and say nothing, you are mutely agreeing to that behavior.
The ‘bystander effect’ also called bystander apathy or altruistic inertia which psychologists further define as “diffusion of responsibility”, prevents good people from offering help when witnessing an act that is harmful. Or they fail to help because they assume someone else will help.
Perhaps you see someone being bullied or hear a joke that puts someone down. Maybe you get mad about a rude remark or someone cutting in line at the store, but just let it go. Perhaps you witness a man dropping a pill into a woman’s drink, then helping her to the door when she gets too woozy to walk. What about that couple having an argument? When does the bad behavior move you to action? Another term for this is “social loafing”, when we slack off and let others take responsibility for what is going on around us. Even going to the bartender to report what you saw is doing something that could result in a better outcome for the victim.
How do we intervene in the face of bad behavior, whether it’s an authority figure engaging in behavior that risks our own health, a student bullying a classmate, a police officer planting evidence, or a crazy person yelling ethnic slurs on public transportation. And if we do decide to speak up, how do we go about it?
Moral Courage
Psychologist Catherine A. Sanderson, discusses the ‘bystander effect’ in Discover, in Psychology Today and in her book, Why We Act: Turning Bystanders into Moral Rebels. She reminds us of the 1964 incident where 28-year old Kitty Genovese in New York City was stabbed to death outside her apartment while neighbors watched, yet failed to step in to assist or even call the police.
“Moral courage, it turns out, is not innate. Small details and the right training can make a big difference. Inspiring and potentially life transforming, Why We Act reveals that while the urge to do nothing is deeply ingrained, even the most hesitant would-be bystander can learn to be a moral rebel.” (Why We Act by Catherine A. Sanderson)
If we self-identify as helpers, we are more likely to help. “Helping others depends on our identities and whether anyone is watching” (Psychology Today, Beyond the …) If we think we are the only ‘boy scout’ in the room, then we will be more likely to help. Or, if we think we are or should be in charge of a situation. If we have the expertise to help—for instance offer first aid, then we are more likely to help. If our child is watching us, we are more likely to act.
However, “Often, only subtle differences separate the bystanders from the morally courageous people of the world.” (Greater Good) How would you react if you witnessed a crisis or emergency situation? Would you be prepared to respond, or would you be stuck wondering if someone else would step up to the plate?
The bystander effect occurs when the presence of others discourages individuals from intervening in emergency situations. When many people are witnessing a crisis, everyone assumes that since so many people are around, someone else will help. They felt less personal responsibility to intervene. The greater number of witnesses, the less likely people are to provide help to the distressed individual. In fact, the mere presence of other people inhibits many individuals from intervening.
Bystanders also fail to help someone in distress because they don’t want to be mistaken for the cause of that distress. (Greater Good) bystanders don’t intervene in an emergency because they’re misled by the reactions of the people around them. They mistake the calm of others as a sign that all is well. It is somewhat embarrassing, after all, to be the one who loses his cool when no danger actually exists.
In addition, ambiguity of the facts prevents us from getting involved. It may not be really clear what is happening, or if something is really wrong. We don’t want to be embarrassed by over-reacting or accused of rushing into somewhere we are not welcome by either party. We may not want to embarrass others, either. In many situations, it’s difficult to discern what, in actuality, is happening.
A case in point: the COVID pandemic. We have many questions. Safe behavior for this time in our society is unclear. We are getting differing messages from a variety of people. How safe is it to go outside our home? Will the safety measures being taken truly be effective? Are we over-reacting when we should be just going about our daily lives like before this happened? The ambiguity of what the outcome might be, prevents us from being sure our actions are, or will be, effective.
Why do some people respond to a crisis while others don’t?
People are actually more likely to take action if they are the only witness to a crisis or emergency, if they can’t depend on someone else to rescue the victim, or if they have experienced something similar to the crisis event, such as a fire or car accident. A bystander is most effective it they think they are the sole person to take action and that their actions will matter. There are five characteristics of emergencies that affect bystanders, according to Latané and Darley. (Wikipedia). Emergencies cannot be predicted or expected, involve threat of harm or actual harm, are unusual and rare and require immediate action. The type of action required in an emergency differs from situation to situation.
In order for bystanders to react to an emergency, their thought-process must move through these steps:
- Notice that something is going on
- Interpret the situation as being an emergency
- Feel a degree of responsibility
- Have knowledge of the form of assistance needed
- Implement the action choice
Again, individuals step up more readily when they are the only witness, or are in the presence of children. If they have expertise that fits the event, or feel the most responsible for the situation, these individuals are more likely to help.
Skill set required:
There are specific skills we can cultivate so as not to come across as too confrontational, when interrupting a crisis situation. Intervening with an offer to help, with humor or with a question may reduce the risk of making the instigator defensive, while clearly indicating that their comment or behavior was wrong. This approach clarifies the need for appropriate behavior, but doesn’t make the person appear stupid or bad.
One strategy is to suggest the problem is really about you, not them. Another is to distract the aggression by asking a completely out of context question, like asking for directions.
We could also expand our “in group” and actively seek to identify with the person who is the victim of the person’s bad behavior to foster empathy for the victim.
I find it interesting to think about how our behavior changes depending on what group of people we are hanging out with. Is our behavior different when attending church on a Sunday morning, from Friday night at the football game or later that night at the bar when our team has won or lost? Are we more likely to help someone whose wearing our team’s jersey or the opposing team’s jersey? What about political parties? Prof. Sanderson says we are more likely to help/ stand up for someone who is wearing the team jersey we support or our political party. Research has shown that people are more likely to help those they perceive to be similar to them.
“People also deeply care about what their choices display about their beliefs, traits, and groups, and these findings show how social influence affects pro-environmental behavior. . .” (Psychology Today. “Beyond the …“)
So, witnessing a bully beating on someone for no apparent reason inspires you to take out your phone and snap a photo is a different (and a more passive) response than shouting that you are calling 911 or intervening in the situation.
Those people who are trained to help in an emergency (doctors, nurses, fire fighters, police officers) are more likely to spring into action when witnessing a crisis situation. It’s knowing what to do that allows folks to move in that situation.
Moral Rebels
Let me turn your attention to the “active bystander,” that person who witnesses an emergency, recognizes it as such, and takes it upon herself to do something about it.
Psychologists call those who display moral courage and choose to do something in a crisis or emergency, moral rebels – they do something instead of watching in silence. These folks stand up for their moral values and rail against the status quo. They tend to have a confidence about their own judgement, values and ability. They believe their actions will make a difference.
Asking yourself if it will matter if you stand up for the victim or stay silent is one thing. But, actually doing something is the proof of the pudding. It is the ability to say or do the right thing in the face of social pressure.
This reminds me of Peter denying Christ three times before dawn on the very night Christ was being beaten and whipped. Peter’s social pressure was immense – if he said he was a disciple; he would have been given the same treatment as Christ. Yet, it was unthinkable to deny Jesus, his lord and master. Poor Peter had to witness Christ being crucified knowing he had denied even knowing Jesus. How that must have stung him with bitter regret.
Is it better to watch a loved-one being hurt or experience that pain yourself? That is the question people ask themselves, who witness crisis situations, especially where someone is being hurt. That is the question moral rebels answer.
What under-pins the moral courage it takes to stand up in the face of danger? As it turns out, there are certain personality traits that identify moral rebels. They feel good about themselves and are self-confident about their ability to accomplish goals. They feel capable of standing up to social pressure and able to overcome challenges. They believe in the correctness and superiority of their own views and beliefs. Moral rebels feel they have the responsibility and social obligation to state their opinions. These moral rebels don’t care (as much as most people) about fitting into the crowd, rather they will do what their conscience dictates. In fact, they are willing to stick to their own views even if others disagree.
In addition, Moral rebels score higher on risk-taking, altruism, empathy and social responsibility when filling out psychologists’ questionnaires.
One final plug for moral rebels—a Georgetown University study in 2014 suggests that those who are identified as moral rebels have a larger amygdala. In fact, the part of their brain that processes emotions – the amygdala, was 8 % larger and more active than brains in most other people. It is possible that these people were born with a larger amygdala, but it appears that engaging in this type of extreme altruism (donating a kidney, helping in emergencies, etc.) actively rewires the brain. The research team saw clearly distinct patterns or neural activity that showed a greater responsiveness to emotion.
The brains of those who scored high as moral rebels showed high levels of empathy. So high in fact, that they experience pain in the same way when they hit their own thumb with a hammer, as when they see someone else’s thumb is being hit with a hammer. The ability to feel empathy is an important characteristic to have if you want to respond in a crisis situation.
If given the proper tools and primed to respond positively in a crisis, most of us have the ability to transcend our identities as bystanders. (Greater Good)
So, it seems having confidence in your abilities, have a heightened concern for the welfare of others, having independent, altruistic self-confidence, empathy and a strong sense of social responsibility are qualities to refresh or grow if you want to become a moral rebel. We are all bystanders. But we don’t have to be.
Bibliography:
“Action” by Catherine A. Sanderson, Discover, June 2020, Pgs 50-55.
Why We Act: Turning Bystanders into Moral Rebels by Catherine A. Sanderson, Harvard University Press, 2020.
“What to Do When No One’s Doing Anything.” by Bakari Akil II, Ph. D., May 16, 2016 Psychology Today. At: https://bit.ly/2T-whattodowhen-noone-does
“Mike Pence and the Bystander Effect in Action” by Catherine A. Sanderson, posted May 3, 2020, Psychology Today at: https://bit.ly/2LMikePence
“Bystander Effect”, Psychology Today at: https://bit.ly/2ZBystanderEffect
“What women need to know about the bystander effect in men” by Susan Krauss Whitbourne Ph.D., Psychology Today, posted May 16, 2015 at: https://bit.ly/2LWhatWomenNeedtoKnow
“Beyond the Bystander Effect” by Cameron Brick, Ph, D. Posted July 24, 2017, Psychology Today at: https://bit.ly/2yBeyondBystanderEffect
“Bystander Effect” definition from Wikepedia at: https://bit.ly/2WikiDef-bystander
“We are all Bystanders” by Jason Marsh, Dacher Ketner, September 1, 2006, Greater Good at: https://bit.ly/2WeAreAllBystanders
“Why We Act: Turning Bystanders into Moral Rebels” with Amherst College professor Catherine Sanderson, for an Apple Pod cast “Getting to Yes, and ” by Kelly ? posted April 14, 2020 at The Second City Works. at: https://bit.ly/3MoralRebels