Psychologists have profiled the kind of person who is willing to confront anti-social behaviour

By Alex Fradera

“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?

18 thoughts on “Psychologists have profiled the kind of person who is willing to confront anti-social behaviour”

  1. Finally! A Psychological Study that all humans should read and take to heart.
    Thank you, for this study. I will do everything I can to make this article go “viral.”

  2. I have come across people who play very loud mysic in their cats disturbing the other drivers on the road.Atleast. playing music to oneself in low voice is much better than playing mind games.

    1. “I have come across people who play very loud mysic in their cats” Funny, funny typo!

  3. *Anecdote alert* On the occasions when I have intervened in a difficult situation (someone kicking their dog to make him or her lie down on the train, for example, or smoking ditto) I am aware of a strong feeling of not being able to face the internal shame of NOT speaking up.

    1. I agree, I can’t stand the thought of not saying anything when something unfair is going on. It is so strong that i don’t care if something hapens to me as a result.

  4. I have spoken up on several ocassions even if this involved talking to people behaving aggresively on a tube, bus etc. There is usually no one speaking up so major limitation of this study is that people had to imagine this.

  5. Surely the study is more severely undermined than you suggest. People’s imagination of what they might do, feel or say inn responding to future situations may be quite inaccurate when compared with reality (see for example, Stumbling On Happiness, by Dan Gilbert). The study clearly needs an observational approach to avoid yet another superfluous study of people’s self delusions.

  6. But given the desirability of the intervener profile identified in the article comments about ones willingness to intervene posted here may well be just an artifact !!! But wouldn’t it be good if the research did promote long term social responsibility.

Comments are closed.