“Lower your music, you’re upsetting other passengers.” Without social sanction, society frays at the edges. But what drives someone to intervene against bad behaviour? One cynical view is that it appeals to those who want to feel better about themselves through scolding others. But research putting this to the test in British Journal of Social Psychology has found that interveners are rather different in character.
The French-Austrian collaboration team led by Alexandrina Moisuc conducted a series of studies asking participants to read hypothetical scenarios involving anti-social behaviour such as someone tearing up posters, spitting on the pavement, or throwing used batteries into a flower pot in a shared yard. The use of hypothetical scenarios and intentions can be considered a limitation of the study, as this may not truly reflect real-world action; on the other hand, it allowed the researchers to investigate a broader range of situations.
Participants were asked how they would respond, on scales that ranged from total inaction through sighing to addressing the transgressor mildly or aggressively. They also rated how morally outraged they felt about the transgression, with higher ratings correlating strongly with a desire to intervene. In addition, participants rated themselves on their personality and other traits.
Moisuc’s team thought that one candidate personality profile of an intervener could be the “Bitter Complainer”: a person with low self-esteem who uses hostility towards others to feel better about themselves. There is some limited past evidence to support this view: for instance, experiments that make people feel more insecure lead them to judge others more harshly. Social sanctions are effectively a form of “altruistic punishment” (because they are for the wider social good) and some research on punishment in economic games shows that low-empathy individuals are more willing to punish others. On the other hand, the researchers anticipated that perhaps people with a personality more akin to the archetype of a strong leader might be more inclined to step in.
Moisuc and her colleagues found that traits like self-esteem and low levels of social capital – the “bitter” components – and also traits associated with lashing out, such as aggressiveness, poor emotional regulation, and social dominance orientation (seeing the world as hierarchical and so potentially wanting to put others down to keep yourself up), had no, or even a negative, relationship with preparedness to act. This was true in student samples in Austria and France, and a further French non-student sample; in total around 1100 participants.
The personality factors that were associated with an intention to speak out included extraversion, confidence, persistence, being good at regulating emotions, valuing altruism and being comfortable expressing opinions. Those who already felt socially accepted, and happy to take on social responsibility – such as voting and paying taxes – were also more likely to say they would intervene. This is a very different picture from the Bitter Complainer. These traits are related to successfully managing difficult situations in teams, and to taking the risk to whistle-blow on organisations. Accordingly, Moisuc’s group characterises this as the “Well-adjusted Leader.”
The data also indicated a connection between willingness to intervene and holding anti-prejudicial attitudes: lower “social dominance” was associated with speaking up, both in the more generic scenarios and a subset that involved racist or sexist behaviour.
It can be convenient to explain away other people’s pro-social behaviour as selfishly motivated, as that justifies our own inaction. These findings undermine that negative interpretation, suggesting that those who intervene are those well-adjusted to deal with difficult encounters, and a sense of responsibility toward their environment and the greater good. This is a call to examine ourselves: what do we need to set right in our own lives so that we can defend the world we truly want?
Alex Fradera (@alexfradera) is Staff Writer at BPS Research Digest
—Individual differences in social control: Who ‘speaks up’ when witnessing uncivil, discriminatory, and immoral behaviours?
PretentiousSOB on March 31st, 2018 at 16:19 UTC »
What they really found was the profile of a person who THINKS they would confront such behavior. If they were gonna do this ALL self-report maybe at least ask some "How many times have you actually intervened in the last year" type questions...
People whose job this is (first responders) are typically higher in dark triad traits (primary psychopathy traits and Machiavellianism specifically) along with extraversion.
UnintendedCashbox on March 31st, 2018 at 16:07 UTC »
Extroverts, introverts, and other personality types are likely to speak out about antisocial behavior if they know it won’t lead to a violent reaction. In my opinion through observations business owners, managers, and people who have worked their way to the top through empathy, integrity, and humor are more likely to say something than not. I’m on the asocial side and also run my own small business. I speak up when others are being bullied or the conversation isn’t fair for everyone and could lead to turmoil. I prevent antisocial behavior by introducing conversation in a way where no one’s ego gets hurt. However, there’s a line. If someone is truly out of line I will speak up and risk the social consequences because I know there are other good people out there who have my back whether or not they are verbal about it. Actions speak louder than words over time and people learn to trust the person who has been fair and kind.
Psyman2 on March 31st, 2018 at 14:52 UTC »
That's a bit of a stretch.
Asking people how they would vote can give you an estimate of how people would vote. Asking people what they would do if terrorists stormed the building gives you "720 noscope headshot".
There are questions where hypothetical scenarios suffice, speaking out is not one of them because things like this happen:
That's an obvious correlation.
Now, usually in scientific studies it's difficult to determine what was obvious. Most of the time we need those studies in order to be sure about obvious things, else it's just hearsay and feelings.
But this, this is obvious without any study. "People who tell you they would feel stronger emotions are also telling you they would take stronger actions." Of course they do. It's still them telling you about it.
I get the intention of their work, but leaving it all to hypothetical scenarios and the person's honesty is too vague for me to accept their findings as proven.