Psychological analysis of bystander effect and moral disengagement

— worth a total of 153.5 billion dollars, were to give up one third of their net worth, they could solve world hunger. On a personal level, they would barely notice this donation. With this knowledge, why should I bother to give a penny? This is one example of apathy regarding our motivation to help others. What propels individuals to shift from passive bystanders who can allow harm to occur to active contributors? Classic studies by the American psychologists John Darley and Bibb Latane reveal the ingredients for bystander action. Whether it is helping someone having a seizure, being molested, or in danger of suffocation from smoke, we are more likely to help when alone than when in a group. We are also more likely to help when we recognize the situation as a crisis and think that there are plausible solutions. These are all characteristics of the situation. There are also characteristics of the mdividual bystander, including their level of compassion and empathy toward others, their capacity to identify with the victim, and their self-control. For example, people who intervene in cases of child abuse, as opposed to the passive bystanders, are more likely to have been abused as children, more likely to perceive a solution, more likely to feel responsibility to intervene, and more likely to experience the weight of guilt for not intervening. We are back to individuals differences. We are back to the egg and coop, and their joint contribution to helping or harming others. We are back to the established genetic differences in compassion, risk-taking, and self-control that combine with a history of experience to create some who sit and watch and others who actively participate. We are more likely to pardon bystanders because we tend to see omissions as less bad than actions, and omitters as less responsible for the consequences than actors. This is a dangerous effect. Bystanders are part of the equation of evil. As noted by the American genocide scholar and psychologist, Ervin Staub, bystanders start out as passive players on the side lines, but are rapidly transformed into perpetrators. The transformation starts with the challenge of maintaining passivity while watching other humans suffer; to maintain this observer status requires suppressing empathy for the sufferers, while recognizing that they are in the minority and you, the bystander, are with the majority. To avoid feeling guilty for not feeling empathy, bystanders distance themselves even further from the victims. Distancing 1s an adaptive response as any association with the victims could put a bystander in harm’s way. But like so many other psychological states discussed in this book, distancing leads to dehumanization. Dehumanization leads to moral disengagement and greater justification for the perpetrators. Justification lends cheering support for violence. This is the final transforming step, from passive bystander to active participant. Recall that on my account of evil, evildoers either have a desire to cause harm directly or desire something good, recognizing that it will cause harm indirectly. This is true of actions and omissions. For example, keeping a secret, even if pressured into spilling the beans, is a good thing because it upholds a Hauser Chapter 4. Wicked in waiting 139 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012885