When serious police errors occur, the public conversation often focuses on individual competence, character or intent. Questions are asked about whether officers cared enough, whether they were properly trained, or whether they made poor decisions. While these questions matter, social psychology suggests that another factor deserves equal attention: the power of the situation itself.
As a retired police officer, I’ve found myself forced into high risk and dangerous situations. The lack of clarity, the noise, the presence of others and the fear become part of the moment. A part that at times meant I didn’t always make the right decision. Thankfully I had colleagues who simply said mistakes happen, learn from them. At a time of intense media scrutiny, public expectation and with a backdrop of serious concerns about police officer behaviour there has never been a time when policing needs to think differently about its approach to wellbeing and police culture. Such a new thinking would benefit us all.
The work of psychologists John Darley and Daniel Batson in the 1970s provides a valuable framework for understanding how well-intentioned people can make mistakes in high-pressure environments. Their findings help explain not only why police errors occur but also why active bystandership is such a powerful tool for preventing them.
The Good Samaritan Experiment
Darley and Batson conducted what became one of the most influential studies in social psychology. They recruited theology students and asked them to walk across campus to deliver a presentation. Some students were told they were running late, while others were told they had plenty of time. Along the route, each participant encountered a person who appeared to be in distress and in need of assistance.
The results were surprising. Those who believed they were late often walked straight past the individual, despite studying subjects closely linked to compassion, morality and helping others. Only 10% stopped. What was also surprising was that in the group who were told not to rush, 63% of people stopped. You may be thinking that’s higher than 10% but for me that’s still very low for a group who have all the time in the world to get to a destination.
The most important finding was that helping behaviour was not primarily determined by values, knowledge or personality. Instead, situational factors such as time pressure had a significant influence on behaviour. The lesson was clear: good people do not always do good things when circumstances narrow their attention. Even when not rushed, the stress of “still having to get somewhere” clearly played out.
The Relevance to Policing
Police officers operate in environments far more demanding than a university campus experiment. They are often required to make decisions within seconds, frequently based on incomplete information. They work in situations characterised by uncertainty, emotional intensity, risk and competing demands. Under such conditions, cognitive resources become stretched. Attention narrows. Individuals focus on the information that appears most immediately relevant to resolving the situation. This does not mean officers stop caring. It means they become vulnerable to the same psychological processes that affect every human being.
The challenge is not whether officers are good people. The challenge is whether the environment allows them to see clearly.
Understanding the Henry Nowak Case
The tragic case involving Henry Nowak provides an example of how these psychological dynamics can unfold in real life. Following a violent attack, officers responding to the incident were reportedly confronted with conflicting accounts and a highly chaotic scene. Initial information suggested one version of events, while critical evidence indicating the true nature of the incident was not immediately recognised.
Subsequent reviews and public discussion focused on why officers failed to identify what had happened sooner and why certain decisions were made during those critical moments. Social psychology does not excuse mistakes. However, it can help explain how they occur.
Darley and Batson’s work suggests that under pressure people often focus on the first explanation that appears to make sense. When attention becomes narrowed, other important information may receive less scrutiny than it deserves. The issue is not a lack of concern. The issue is that stress and urgency can shape perception itself.
The Danger of Early Assumptions
One of the most powerful influences on decision-making is the first story we hear.
Psychologists refer to this as anchoring. Once an initial interpretation has been formed, people naturally begin to interpret subsequent information through that lens.
Closely related is confirmation bias, the tendency to seek evidence that supports existing beliefs while paying less attention to information that contradicts them.
In policing, this can be particularly dangerous.
If officers arrive at a scene and receive an immediate account of events, that account can become the framework through which later observations are interpreted. Even experienced professionals can unconsciously give greater weight to information that fits the emerging narrative.
This is not a policing problem alone. It is a human problem. Doctors, pilots, military personnel, business leaders and emergency responders all face similar risks when operating under pressure.
The Bystander Effect in Teams
Darley’s research extended beyond helping behaviour. His work on the bystander effect (1968) demonstrated that people are often less likely to intervene when others are present.
Responsibility becomes psychologically shared.
Individuals may assume someone else has already checked the facts. They may believe another person has more information. They may wait for others to act before taking action themselves. In organisational settings this can create dangerous blind spots.
Within a police response team, for example, one officer may assume another has assessed a victim’s injuries. Another may believe someone else has verified the facts. A third may assume the initial assessment has already been challenged. As a result, critical questions may never be asked.
Again, this is not about indifference. It is about predictable human behaviour.
Why Active Bystandership Matters
This is where active bystandership offers a practical solution. Active bystandership is often described as the willingness and confidence to step forward when something appears wrong. However, its true value extends far beyond challenging misconduct.
At its heart, active bystandership is about creating cultures where people feel able to question assumptions, share concerns and interrupt error. I’ve written before linking active bystandership to issues of wellness.
An active bystander does not need to know the correct answer. They simply need to be willing to ask a better question.
Questions such as:
- What evidence are we relying on?
- What might we be missing?
- Have we tested our assumptions?
- Could there be another explanation?
- Has anyone checked on the welfare of that individual?
These questions can act as circuit breakers against cognitive bias. They slow thinking just enough to allow alternative possibilities to emerge.
Building Safer Organisations
The real lesson from Darley and Batson’s work is that preventing errors requires more than recruiting good people. Most organisations are already full of good people. The challenge is designing cultures and systems that help those people overcome the psychological traps created by pressure, uncertainty and assumptions. In its current form policing doesn’t encourage people to step outside the box. In many situations questioning a mistake would be seen as not supporting a colleague. Actually, when you do you are being a better colleague.
Active bystandership provides one way to achieve this. When leaders encourage curiosity, challenge and constructive intervention, organisations become more resilient. Errors are identified earlier. Assumptions are tested more rigorously. Individuals become less vulnerable to the blind spots that affect all human beings.
The Henry Nowak case serves as a reminder that mistakes can emerge not only from individual decisions but from the interaction between people and the situations they face.
Darley and Batson demonstrated this principle more than fifty years ago. Their research continues to highlight a simple but powerful truth: if we want to reduce harm, we must pay as much attention to the environments in which people make decisions as we do to the people making them.
Sometimes, the most important intervention is not an answer. It is a question asked at exactly the right moment.
grahamgoulden.com 