Article Summary

Article Summary

Many people would rather stand and watch an immoral act or a person suffer in distress, rather than intervene. They do not feel entitled to helping strangers, especially in situations where there are small crowds. Moisuc, Brauer, Fonseca, Chaurand & Greitemeyer (2018) investigated the characteristics of individuals who are likely to intervene in a distressing situation under a social setting. The article discusses the personality traits of people who tend to confront the perpetrator of an immoral act by expressing disapproval.

Some arguments have questioned if the intervener is a bitter complainer with low self-esteem or an exemplary leader. A bitter complainer seeks an opportunity to make themselves feel better. In this case, they will direct their aggression towards the perpetrator of an action through intervention. Aggressive individuals perceive an immoral behaviour to have equally evil intent, prompting them to speak up or intervene (Moisuc et al., 2018). An exemplary leader intervenes in a situation from a moral conscience. They try to promote a positive environment by encouraging observation of morals in society. This research tested the bitter complainer versus exemplary leader personality traits to explain intervention behaviour between the two individuals.

The study used three study methods, Study 1, Study 2, and Study 3a and b. Study I used four key search words, altruism, moral outrage, self-esteem, and aggressiveness. The study used 291 students, with 209 being women and 82 men from an Austrian university, and used online surveys for the study. Participants were asked to describe their emotions about a particular video they were shown and then explain their reactions.

Study 2 was a replication of results from study 1, by testing altruism and moral outrage in an encounter with an actor of immoral behaviour.  The participants were from a French university and were asked about their response to a video showing an unethical behaviour. The study used 322 participants, 177 being women and 17 men. A further 125 students volunteered to participate. The research used questionnaires to measure outrage and personal reactions to the situation.

Study 3A and B was an extension of the two previous studies. The study involved 500 participants, 172 men, 295 women and 33 unidentified with a mean age of 24.28. Participants in study 3a were required to fill in questionnaires that they had filled in the initial tests. Aggression and empathy were assessed in a short description of immoral behaviour. Participants in study 3b tested personal attributes such as self-esteem, and emotional reactions, through an online survey.

The results demonstrated a close relationship between personal attributes and the need to speak up or intervene in immoral behaviour. Well-adjusted leaders tended to exert control by intervening in a situation, as they felt they were acting under their moral obligation (Moisuc et al., 2018). Bystanders who feel obligated to intervene disapproved of reckless behaviour and chose to speak up. Also, people who detested acts of racism and discrimination were more likely to intervene against immoral practices. The results showed that there was no relationship between empathy and the tendency to speak up against unethical behaviour. The bitter complainer hypothesis received zero support, while aggressiveness equally did not relate to social control. However, the results showed that individual differences account for people’s reactions to behaviours they find inappropriate.

The major limitation of this study is the use of self-reports. There is no guarantee that the participants are telling the truth about their behaviours. The researchers had to make assumptions regarding participants’ reactions, using conventional norm transgressions. Another limitation is that the study involved a small number of participants. Therefore, the results should not be used to generalize people’s reactions. However, they represent individual differences in personality traits.

Future research should endeavour to test people’s reactions to the actual norm transgressions. Such an approach would provide more accurate results on the effects of personality traits on the ability to speak up. Also, future research could examine the results provided by participants to ensure consistency.