Source: Motto

‘In this public dynamic where people are increasingly getting hurt, physically and psychologically, it’s important to remember that we all can choose to act—or not act’

Donald Trump turned up the volume on the bullying rhetoric last week, escalating his attacks on Megyn Kelly by calling her “sick” and urging a boycott of her show. FOX News and several of Kelly’s colleagues stepped up to defend her against the excoriating harassment. Others did not.

In this public dynamic where people are increasingly getting hurt, physically and psychologically, it’s important to remember that we all can choose to act—or not act.

Over the last 50 years, psychologists have learned a lot about bystanders and their activist counterparts—upstanders—the people who jump in to help.

Many bystanders want to do something but just don’t know where or how to express it.

In March of 1964, a young woman named Kitty Genovese was murdered outside of her New York City apartment. Many people heard and even witnessed the murder taking place, yet they did nothing, according to reports at the time. This became known as the “bystander effect,” or the phenomenon through which people are less likely to help when they think they are part of a group than when they are alone. Though part of the case has not held up to close scrutiny over time, the story did draw researchers’ attention to questions of what motivates some people to act while others choose not to—or become inhibited.

There are numerous theories of bystander behavior: The Genovese case pointed to the “diffusion of responsibility”—the belief that, when many people are present, surely someone else will take action. One set of research studies points to the “de-individualization” that happens in crowds: People lose their sense of individuality and as a result become less rational—and more suggestible and susceptible to the group’s energy.

We’ve learned from studies of childhood bullying (and many people know from personal experience) that intervening as an upstander is complicated. Some people realistically fear getting hurt themselves. And it tends to be easier for extroverts to interject themselves than for introverts, who might choose a quieter course of action. Those with higher status also tend to feel more empowered to intervene than those with a lower status or those who feel more vulnerable.

For many of us witnessing the election cycle, emotions are running high. Maybe our candidate is not winning or we are distressed by the negative rhetoric and threats of violence. When emotions run high, access to good decision-making and judgment is limited or cut off.

Read more