"Most of us like to believe that if we saw someone being mistreated at work, we would step in and challenge the behaviour. We want to see ourselves as fair, principled, and courageous, and therefore willing to stand up to bullying or misogyny when we see it directed at those around us. Yet when these moments arrive in real time, particularly where there is a power imbalance or it happens in a public setting, silence can become the default response, rather than intervention."
"We saw this in action during a White House press conference on February 3, 2026, when CNN journalist Kaitlan Collins asked President Trump a question about the survivors of Jeffery Epstein. Trump's response was to loudly criticise Ms. Collins' network, her professional competence, and even her facial expression-specifically, that she wasn't smiling. The interaction was hard to watch, not just because of the treatment of this professional reporter, but also because of the lack of intervention from the other reporters present."
Bystanders often remain silent when witnessing mistreatment at work due to diffusion of responsibility, fear of retaliation, and reluctance to rock the boat. High-profile example: at a White House press conference on February 3, 2026, a CNN journalist was publicly criticized by President Trump, and other reporters failed to intervene. The bystander effect, identified by Latane and Darley in 1968, explains reduced intervention as the number of witnesses increases. Power imbalances amplify the effect because perceived risk rises when the aggressor holds authority. Potential interventions include visibly supporting the target or directly challenging inappropriate behavior.
Read at Psychology Today
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]