Today is ‘National Bystander Day’. I learned this through a post by Nottinghamshire police who were discussing their ‘Upstander training’ for police officers. In the post they appeared to suggest that the bystander effect was the main reason people don’t speak up. Two things created some conflict with me and have led to me writing this blog.
The term ‘upstander’ is far too simplistic a term and masks the realities and complexities we all face when faced with harmful events. I remember explaining this to a very senior police officer in the UK after the murder of Sarah Everard. It was clear they preferred the term upstander and completely ignored the evidence I presented. They simply said that the term ‘sounded better’. It wasn’t my evidence they ignored. They ignored around 60 years of social science research. I would suggest that ignorance of the science has achieved very little within policing since the arrest of serving police officer Wayne Couzins for Sarah’s murder.
As someone who delivers active bystandership training and who works a lot with police officers, in the UK, the US and more recently in both Cyprus and Bermuda I would also suggest that the reliance on the term the ‘bystander effect’ hides a number of other reasons why police officers fail to act when harm is witnessed amongst their colleagues. The biggest reason, by far, is fear. In the context of friends and colleagues it not a physical fear, it’s social. In policing it’s a fear of isolation, being the snitch or troublemaker, career progression, getting it wrong, getting a colleague sacked, or being the subject of discipline themselves. The fear is massive and fear needs to be reduced. You don’t reduce the fear by not talking about it and simply saying it’s the group’s fault.
In recent years, many organisations have embraced the idea that people should not remain passive when they witness harmful behaviour. Bullying, harassment, discrimination and abuse often survive not because everyone supports them, but because too many people remain silent in the moment. Training in active bystandership has therefore become a powerful tool for cultural change.
Alongside this movement, another word has appeared in conversations and training materials: upstander. At first glance, the term sounds positive. It suggests courage. It implies moral strength. It paints a picture of someone standing tall in the face of wrongdoing. Yet when we look closely at the psychology of behaviour and culture change, the term becomes unhelpful. The language we use in training shapes how people interpret their role in difficult moments. In some cases, the word “upstander” creates barriers that make intervention less likely rather than more.
Understanding why requires us to look at how people think, behave and make decisions when they witness harm.
The Hero Problem
One of the unintended consequences of the word upstander is that it creates a sense of heroism. When people hear the term, they often imagine someone brave, outspoken and morally fearless. It evokes images of dramatic interventions where someone publicly calls out wrongdoing.
The problem is that most people do not see themselves in that role. Social psychology shows that when behaviour is framed as something only exceptional people do, ordinary people mentally step back. They assume that intervention requires a special personality or a particular kind of courage that they may not possess. The result is a quiet psychological shift: instead of thinking I should do something, people think someone braver than me should do something.
Active bystandership training tries to do the opposite. It aims is to normalise intervention so that it becomes an everyday behaviour rather than a heroic act. Small actions by ordinary people are what change culture. Such actions as opposed to heroic actions tend to change culture much quicker.
A False Moral Divide
Another issue with the term upstander is that it creates a binary identity: bystanders versus upstanders. This framing subtly suggests that people fall into two moral categories, those who act and those who remain silent. Human behaviour is far more complicated than that.
Researchers studying the Bystander Effect have long shown that hesitation in difficult moments is extremely common. People pause because they are unsure what they saw, because they fear making things worse, or because they worry about social consequences. Silence in these moments is rarely a sign of moral failure. It is usually a sign of uncertainty.
When training creates a moral divide between bystanders and upstanders, people may fear being judged if they do not respond perfectly. Instead of encouraging learning and experimentation, the language can create pressure and anxiety.
A more effective approach acknowledges that everyone begins as a bystander in any situation. What matters is not the label we give people, but the options they have for responding.
When you witness harm, you are present. It’s what happens next that matters. US Psychologist Dr Ervin Staub defines a bystander as “a witness who is in a position to know what is happening and in position to know what is happening”. When we present this definition of the term, we move the focus from the passive to also the active.
I interviewed Dr Staub a few years back and he said that in trainings people must be aware of the power they have in either of these roles. When we remain passive, we fail to act but we also signal acceptance for the behaviour. Also, it’s clear that passive bystanders create a fogginess in the lens of other bystanders. This can lead to others remaining passive but also leads to some becoming complicit. When you are active you not only intervene, but you also signal disapproval for the behaviour and by doing so you help others to do the same. Simply put “what you promote you permit”. When one person acts, others often follow. A tipping point becomes possible. That’s how cultures change.
US Psychologist John Dovidio’s research suggests that when we witness harm, we sub-consciously perform a cost v benefit analysis. When costs outweigh benefits, we fail to act. When you support people to move to a more active role you help them see the benefits. The costs will always be there, but the benefits are clear. Fear is something inside us. Courage is how we overcome our fear.
Intervention Is a Spectrum
Another challenge with the term upstander is that it implies a single kind of intervention: direct confrontation. Effective intervention often looks very different.
Active bystandership training emphasises a range of strategies. Someone might challenge behaviour directly, but they might also distract, check in with the person affected, gather support from others, or report the issue later. In many situations, indirect intervention is safer and more effective than public confrontation.
The language of upstanding tends to focus on visible acts of courage. Yet many of the most important interventions are subtle and quiet. A simple question such as “Are you okay?” can make a powerful difference to someone experiencing abuse or who is struggling with their wellbeing. When training highlights only dramatic and reactive actions, it overlooks the everyday behaviours that shift culture.
The Pressure of Perfection
Labels also create expectations. When people are told they should be upstanders, they may feel pressure to act decisively and perfectly in difficult situations. But intervention is rarely tidy. People may stumble over their words, misread a situation or intervene in ways that are imperfect. This is normal. Human interactions are messy, especially in emotionally charged moments.
If people believe that intervention must look confident and heroic, they may avoid acting altogether for fear of getting it wrong. A culture that encourages small attempts and imperfect actions is far more likely to produce change.
Collective Responsibility Matters
There is also a subtle group dynamic at play. When a role is clearly defined, people sometimes assume that someone else will fill it. If a group believes that intervention requires a particular type of person, an upstander, individuals may unconsciously wait for that person to appear. Responsibility becomes concentrated rather than shared.
Active bystandership training aims to spread responsibility across the group. Culture shifts when everyone feels ownership of the environment around them. Active bystandership training aims to build the team where a responsibility to act becomes a collective responsibility. When we help officers to act early before say a code of ethics breach, we suggest that action can save careers, prevent harm on a member of the public as well have supporting a colleague having a mental health crisis.
When intervention is seen as a normal part of belonging to a group, rather than a heroic act performed by a few individuals, people are more likely to act. Also, those who are intervened on are more likely to be willing to receive a supportive intervention as opposed to being challenged.
The Power of Small Actions
Cultural change rarely happens through a single dramatic moment. More often, it emerges through the accumulation of small signals that gradually reshape what people see as acceptable behaviour.
The writer Malcolm Gladwell explores this idea in The Tipping Point, where he argues that small actions can spread through groups until they reach a critical threshold and create wider change. The same principle applies to bystandership.
A person who refuses to laugh at a harmful joke sends a signal. Someone who checks in with a colleague sends another. A quiet comment such as “that doesn’t feel right” can shift the tone of a conversation. Remember workplaces are full of signals or relationships. Relationships are the currency of change in any workplace.
Each action may seem minor on its own. Together, they create a cultural environment where harmful behaviour struggles to survive, and silence becomes going against the norm.
Moving Beyond the Label
For training to be effective, language needs to support learning rather than create barriers. Instead of focusing on becoming an upstander, training can focus on developing practical habits of intervention. These habits include noticing behaviour, taking responsibility, understanding different ways to respond, supporting others and recognising that even small actions can have an impact.
The goal is not to produce heroes. The goal is to build cultures where silence is no longer the default response to harm. When people understand that intervention can be simple, indirect, imperfect and likely to be accepted, they are far more likely to act. When enough people take those small steps, the culture begins to change.
In the end, active bystandership is not about standing above others as an upstander. It is about standing alongside others as part of a community that refuses to ignore harm.
So, on Bystander Day we must continue to recognise the presence of bystanders and to help them on their journey to making a difference.
grahamgoulden.com 