Posts
Bystander intervention is when you, as a witness, see a bully, a predator, an aggressor or an attacker target someone and you, as a decent human, intervene.
One of the hardest pieces of this is to convince yourself that you should, in fact, intervene on someone who is hostile, dominating, aggressive, threatening, and just plain scary. We may be culturally opposed to such intimidation or we may even be hard-wired to want to stand up for the vulnerable, but humans also seem wired to seek any justification for not being involved.
I'm not strong enough. They will figure it out by themselves. Someone else will intervene and fix this.
Our ability to justify our impulse to "let George handle it" is impressive--and a straight-up abdication of our duty to the vulnerable as humans.
Research helps us understand and prepare (Peck, Doumas & Midgett, 2024). Critically, "when individuals find they have acted in a way that contradicts their moral compass, they may activate 'disengagement' mechanisms to avoid the discomfort of negative self‐sanctions" (Gotdiner & Gumpel, 2024, p. 634).
Thus, forgiving ourselves for shameful conduct in past bystander intervention fails is the first step toward learning how to gain agency and a stronger chance to be an effective intervenor in future situations where we observe an aggressor and a targeted person.
One of the strongest deterrents our minds wrestle with in the real-life moment of witnessing a bully attacking a targeted person is "perceived costs" (McCary[1], 2017). To accurately calculate these perceived costs is critical, and then to calculate the costs of not intervening, compare the two, and make a decision.
Tactics that reduce the perceived costs are thus vital to enable bystanders to intervene.
One may imagine the bully refocusing on oneself instead of the original target. When that happens, are there tactics that can mitigate that possibility and thus reduce the perceived costs?
Approaching the targeted person as a friend, or at the least a friendly other, can help the intervenor attenuate the tension without calling out the aggressor.
Treating the interaction as something to dismiss rather than shout about can de-couple all parties' moral engagement, investment, and need to either assert dominance or survive by abject surrender. Not making eye contact with the aggressor can assist in not engendering an atmosphere of dominance calculation in the moment. Making eye contact instead with the targeted person can evoke a measure of trust in many situations. Smiling or even laughing "with" the targeted person can relieve some tensions in some cases and thus psychologically deëscalate all parties. Affecting non-dominating but reframing behaviors can often significantly reduce risks to all parties. Asking questions rather than making statements cedes one form of power in order to enhance another form of power.
Reframing reality is altering it and creating a new reality.
Are these guaranteed strategies?
There is no such thing.
References
Gotdiner, V., & Gumpel, T. P. (2024). Bystander intervention style and motivational factors influencing behavior in bullying situations. Psychology in the Schools, 61(2), 631–646. https://doi-org.proxy.lib.pdx.edu/10.1002/pits.23075
McCary, Jennifer (2017). Teaching bystanders to intervene. TedxGettysburg College. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3iY_X4O-wno
Peck, M., Doumas, D. M., & Midgett, A. (2024). Examination of the Bystander Intervention Model Among Middle School Students: A Preliminary Study. Professional Counselor, 14(2), 119–134. https://doi-org.proxy.lib.pdx.edu/10.15241/mp.14.2.119
No comments:
Post a Comment