Bystander Roles in Peace and Conflict

Background and Significance

The word “bystander” can evoke images of people idly standing by and doing litle or nothing to alter the course of a social event. Bystanders, from this perspective, are merely passive witnesses to the social world of others. Findings obtained in recent years from across a wide range of disciplines show that this image of the passive bystander is incomplete. Bystanders, third parties to a social event involving others, more often than not end up playing active roles in the event and may change the course of it for the better or the worse. Given these new findings there is a real need to bring together basic and applied scientists working on bystander behavior to (i) compare and contrast findings and methods, (ii) develop new research agendas and collaborations, and (iii) devise effective bystander prevention and intervention schemes.

Much of the early research on the bystander effect consisted of laboratory research with subjects expected to respond in controlled situations acted out by confederates. Real life social behavior, of course, is much more “messy” and diverse than the situations acted out in the laboratory. As such, bystander research has been criticized for a lack of ecological validity. For practical as well as ethical reasons naturalistic observations of the social behavior of human adults are difficult to do. However, recent methodological innovations have made it possible to record and analyze naturally occuring social behavior among adults, and this is benefiting our understanding of bystander behavior “in the wild.” Given these new methods and data there is a clear need to take a critical look at the differences and similarities among the findings of laboratory and naturalistic studies on bystanders and to discuss what they tell us about the bystander effect and about bystander behavior in general.

The recent developments in bystander research coincide with a paradigm shift in behavioral science, away from a longstanding focus on violent and selfish behavior, and toward a more comprehensive approach that includes integrative and peaceful aspects of our behavior. This paradigm shift also involves new prominence for the comparative approach that traces the biological roots of our social behavior by comparing and contrasting it with that of our closest evolutionary cousins. As for bystanders, there is increasing evidence of peaceful and prosocial behavior during social conflicts by both human and nonhuman primate bystanders, challenging the notion that bystanders, if they do become involved, primarily escalate rather than de-escalate a conflict.

Bystander behavior is an important component to understanding crime, and has more recently been applied to the field of interpersonal violence. Interpersonal violence, including sexual violence and bullying, is a major social problem in many parts of the world, cutting across professional, educational, and domestic domains. Research continues to document ways in which interpersonal violence is supported by social norms and the importance of all community members playing a role in ending all aspects of this social problem. Next steps in prevention must be informed by a thorough understanding of influences on prosocial bystanders in the specific domain of interpersonal violence. Until recently there were few measures of prosocial bystander behavior in the specific context of interpersonal violence. Thanks to the earlier mentioned innovations in observational methods new data are now becoming available showing bystanders acting decisively to ‘guard social norms,’ and to ‘police,’ ‘pacify,’ and ‘console’ during episodes of interpersonal violence. Such new tools and new data are urgently needed, both to better examine patterns of correlates of bystander behavior in this context, and as program evaluation tools for bystander-focused prevention and intervention programs

Method

The week-long program includes plenary talks, Q & A sessions, topical sessions, poster presentations, break-out group discussion sessions, formal précis of the presentations and discussions, and a concluding roundtable discussion. While the plenary talks will follow a traditional single speaker format, the jointly presented topical sessions will vary in format depending on the ideas and particular goals of the session contributors. Contributors are encouraged to prepare interactive sessions that engage the audience through group activities and targeted discussions. The purpose of this flexible program format is to enable participants to come up with creative ways to work and think together and to capitalize to the fullest on the diverse knowledge and experiences that they will bring to the task.

Specific Aims

The workshop aims to (a) provide new insights into the causes, mechanisms, function and occurrence of bystander behavior, (b) identify new research questions concerning bystander behavior, and (c) facilitate the establishment of new networks through which natural and social scientists can collaboratively pursue productive research on bystander behavior. Specifically, answers to the following 3 questions will be pursued: (1) What are the conditions and/or contexts that bring about or attenuate the ‘bystander effect?’ (2) What are the conditions and/or contexts that facilitate either peaceful or aggressive and violent behavior in bystanders? (3) How can we use the empirical findings on bystander behavior to design and implement effective bystander intervention and prevention programs?