Summary: A new study emphasizes the crucial role of bystanders in confronting anti-social behavior. Three studies showed that bystander support reinforces social norms and discourages harmful conduct, while silence or subject-changing undermines these efforts.
This research suggests that active bystander participation is essential to maintain pro-social norms and prevent the acceptance of anti-social behavior. The findings have significant implications for bystander training programs and broader societal conduct.
Key Facts:
- Bystander support following a confrontation of anti-social behavior reinforces social norms and helps curb harmful actions.
- Silence or avoidance by bystanders can weaken social norms and inadvertently condone anti-social behavior.
- The research highlights the need for effective bystander training to encourage proactive support in confronting anti-social acts.
Source: University of Bath
Witnesses to anti-social behaviour must speak up to support the lone voices of people who confront it to reduce the risk of such behaviour becoming tolerated in society, according to research from the Universities of Bath, Groningen and Western Australia.
Three studies into the impact of bystander conduct showed that when bystanders step in to support someone who is calling out mistreatment or harmful behaviour it sends a strong message to onlookers that this behaviour is unacceptable, helping to prevent a gradual erosion of social norms.
Conversely, staying silent, or changing the subject to avoid awkwardness, can be interpreted by others as a lack of agreement and undermines the efforts of the confronter.
The research shows bystander actions are pivotal in helping or hindering efforts to address anti-social behaviour.
“If something anti-social happens we look to someone to step in and say something,” says lead researcher Anna Tirion. “It’s tempting to think ‘someone else has got this’ and we don’t need to get involved, but what we’ve been ignoring is that the initial confrontation is not the end of the interaction. If other bystanders stay out of it, it’s not without consequences.
“If no one says anything to support the confrontation, people start to think the norm wasn’t that strong. It chips away at pro-social norms that protect being kind and helpful to others, and not causing harm. Over time people start to think a particular (antisocial) behaviour doesn’t matter,” said Tirion.
The researchers hope that the findings will make a positive contribution to bystander training. They hope that future studies will also look at the role of bystanders in whistleblowing scenarios and other contexts, such as when the people involved are all strangers.
The research was conducted during Tirion’s undergraduate psychology studies at Bath, on a placement year at the University of Groningen in the Netherlands.
The studies investigated the effect of bystander responses to social confrontation in the context of Covid-19 social distancing rules, which were in place in most European countries in 2020–2021.
Participants were shown various scenarios where someone confronted a social distancing rule-breaker (admitting to hosting/ attending parties during lockdown) to investigate the effect of different bystander reactions (support, silence, or changing the subject) on how strong participants found the norm of following the rules.
The researchers also measured to what extent the participants thought the bystanders agreed with the confronter based on their reaction. When the confronter was left without support, participants concluded that the bystanders did not strongly agree, leading them to think the norm to socially distance was weak.
Despite the specific Covid context the researchers say that understanding the mechanisms of this behaviour makes it widely applicable to social confrontations in the workplace, on public transport, and in society at large.
“How bystanders can lend their support depends a bit on the situation,” said Tirion. “If your face is visible to everyone, like on the Zoom call we simulated in one of our studies, simply nodding might be enough to send that supportive signal. Otherwise, a verbal expression of support like ‘Yeah, you’re/they’re right’ should do it.
“If you’re physically some distance away from the confrontation, you might want to go stand next to the confronter before you say something so your whole body language expresses that support – if you feel safe to do so.”
Co-author Dr Annayah Prosser, from the University of Bath’s School of Management, said: “There is a personal cost for people to go against the norm, to cause tension and friction. Even if people find someone’s behaviour unacceptable there is a social norm against speaking up. Causing friction is uncomfortable and this can hold people back.”
People may also be reluctant to step in for fear of overkill, but the researchers say this is far from the current reality. “People’s intuitive response can be that it will be a ‘pile-on’ but this is not a problem currently,” said Dr Prosser.
“People are taking a lot of social risk to intervene and going unsupported. We need to make sure intervention against anti-social behaviour is supported by bystanders, and not just met with silence.”
About this antisocial behavior and psychology research news
Author: Chris Melvin
Source: University of Bath
Contact: Chris Melvin – University of Bath
Image: The image is credited to Neuroscience News
Original Research: Open access.
“The sound of silence: The importance of bystander support for confronters in the prevention of norm erosion” by Anna Tirion et al. British Journal of Social Psychology
Abstract
The sound of silence: The importance of bystander support for confronters in the prevention of norm erosion
Observing deviant behaviour can lead to ‘norm erosion’, where a norm is no longer seen as relevant and compliance with it is reduced. Previous research argues that social confrontations can mitigate norm erosion.
However, this work has not considered the impact of bystanders to confrontations, who might influence the outcome by supporting—or failing to support—the person confronting a social rule breaker.
We examine the effect of bystanders’ reactions on preventing norm erosion across three experimental studies. We examined how supportive and non-supportive bystander reactions to a confronter impacted the perceived strength of a prosocial norm among participants and their behavioural intentions.
We find that when bystanders explicitly supported the confronter against the rule breaker, the norm was perceived as stronger—and sometimes, compliance intentions were higher—than when bystanders did not respond to the confronter. A mini meta-analysis across the three studies reveals that the effect of bystander support on perceived norm strength is large and robust.
Our work demonstrates that for the prevention of norm erosion, confrontations benefit greatly from being explicitly supported by bystanders.
