The echoes of historical events, such as the Holocaust, genocide in Rwanda, and the Srebrenica massacre, have sparked curiosity about society’s tendency to remain silent in the face of racial atrocities. While overt mass tragedies of that scale may no longer occur in today’s democratic societies, everyday forms of racism persist. From the casual prejudice voiced on public transportation to exclusionary behavior at the workplace, these incidents prompt crucial questions about the consequences of bystander silence.
How does remaining silent impact individuals? Does it lead to self-justification and a subsequent increase in prejudice? In a collaborative research effort conducted by colleagues from Hungary, Israel, and the U.S. (Hanna Szekeres, Eran Halperin, Anna Kende and Tamar Saguy), we sought answers to these pressing questions. The findings shed light on the effects of bystanders’ inaction on their perceptions of the events and the victimized groups.
The Research Context:
The year is 1945, the place is Eastern Europe, and two men arrive by train to the station. The whole town panics. They thought “these” people will never return, and they now ask themselves – will they be more survivals coming back, will they want their shops, businesses, houses, paintings, jewelry, and other means back? The town becomes angry at them. But really, they feel ashamed.
This scene taken from Gabor T. Szanto’s poignant short story, “Homecoming,” vividly depicts a disturbing phenomenon wherein following the Holocaust, fueled by antisemitism, fear, and guilt, the local population attacked the remaining or returning Jewish survivors.
Such phenomenon led us to question how people cope with the immorality they witness. How they cope with turning a blind eye to such events? Do they empathize with the victims or, instead, shift blame onto them to justify their own inaction?
The Experimental Design:
To explore these questions, we designed an experiment that involved majority members of society engaging in an online game, which was carefully pre-programmed. Participants observed a player displaying discriminatory behavior towards a minority individual and subsequently received a private message containing a prejudiced statement, such as “You can’t trust those damn Muslims”, or “Yeah like if you could only trust Latinos not stealing our jobs”.
The decision to confront and to stop the discrimination rested solely with the bystander participant as nobody else was present in that messaging. We conducted this research across two countries, U.S. and Hungary, focusing on five different minority groups as targets of prejudice: African Americans, Latino individuals, Muslims, Jews, and Roma people.
Findings:
The results of our study revealed a disconcerting trend among participants who had the opportunity but chose not to confront the prejudiced incident. They exhibited an increase in prejudice towards the victimized group after the incident compared to their initial levels.
Additionally, these non-confronters displayed higher levels of prejudice (agreement with statements, such as “I would feel unfavorably living next door to Muslims”, or “There are very few proper or reasonable Roma people”), denial of responsibility (e.g., “It was not my place to say or do something”) and trivialization (e.g., “this behavior did not hurt people”) compared to those who either witnessed the bias but had no opportunity to confront it, or witnessed a different type of bias without confronting it.
Crucially, these control groups confirmed that these effects were not attributable to personality traits or desensitization to prejudice.
The Role of Self-Justification:
Self-justification emerged as a key factor driving these patterns. Participants who initially held less prejudice towards the minority groups experienced a greater increase in prejudice following their inaction. This is because those least prejudiced needed the most self-justification for their inaction.
Such cognitive dissonance reduction phenomenon led non-confronters to realign their attitudes about the victims, the necessity of taking action, and their own responsibility. In effect, failing to challenge the perpetrator’s beliefs resulted in a paradoxical intensification of prejudice within the non-confronters themselves.
Implications for Society:
Our research findings hold significant implications for today’s democratic societies, where racial intolerance persists and has the potential to escalate rapidly. The events such as the White supremacist rally in Charlottesville (US, 2017), the post-Brexit anti-immigrant wave of attacks (UK, 2016), and the neo-Nazi serial murders targeting the Roma community (Hungary, 2008-2009) serve as reminders of this alarming reality.
Our study highlights that when bystanders choose not to speak out against prejudice, not only do they miss an opportunity to challenge the perpetrator’s beliefs, but they also become more tolerant of prejudice themselves. This counterintuitive effect underscores the urgent need to address the issue of inaction in a society prone to biases.
Conclusion:
In an era where the echoes of past atrocities mingle with the persistence of everyday racism, our research sheds light on the consequences of bystander silence. By unraveling the intricate relationship between inaction and increased prejudice, we hope to raise awareness and encourage individuals to confront prejudice whenever they encounter it. Only through active engagement and empathy can we break the cycle of inaction and foster a more inclusive society.
The study, “Endorsing negative intergroup attitudes to justify failure to confront prejudice”, was published in Group Processes & Intergroup Relations.