Individual voices opposing hate speech are not enough to soften its perceived impact, according to German researchers at Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität in Munich (LMU).
Uninvolved bystanders frequently do not object to hate speech incidents against Israel, Jews, and others that take place around the world, according to the researchers, who investigated what significance the reactions of bystanders to verbal hate attacks have regarding the formation of social norms.
Such negative events often occur in social settings, from public transport and universities to football stadiums. To counteract a prevailing passive attitude towards them, governmental authorities, sociologists, and philosophers stress bystanders’ responsibility to oppose or block hate speech.
Recent studies have found that the norm against hate may be unpopular for a population segment and that compliance is contingent on the belief that the majority agrees. In addition, when people more likely to hold xenophobic attitudes are exposed to hate speech, the tendency to imitate such behavior increases.
Do ordinary citizens view hate-speech incidents as more harmful when they occur in front of silent, passive bystanders? Do third-party observers regard bystanders who voice their opposition as helpful in reducing the harm created by hate speech incidents? One study in particular examines these two core questions, exploring under which circumstances and contexts ordinary people perceive hate speech as harmful and an opposing response as effective in reducing the harm created by such incidents.
The study, published in Nature’s Humanities & Social Sciences Communications journal under the title “Bystanders’ collective responses set the norm against hate speech,” casts doubt on the established hypothesis that claims it is enough when one stands individually against hate. “It’s crucial to study bystanders’ responses at a group level instead of individually,” says lead author Dr. Jimena Zapata, a lawyer at the faculty of philosophy, philosophy of science, and religious studies.
“A collective response, especially unanimous, plays a crucial role in shaping societal norms on how to respond to hate speech by indicating either a permissive social norm by remaining silent or indifferent or a disapproving one by showing opposition,” she said. “This is particularly relevant as, in most everyday situations, reporting and recording of hate crimes depends on the perception of victims and bystanders.”
How the study was conducted
For their study, the scientists carried out online experiments in which ordinary citizens were shown images depicting incidents of hate speech occurring in the presence of bystanders who either remained indifferent or showed their opposition. They conducted their study with participants from the UK, where reporting and recording hate crimes heavily rely on victims’ and bystanders’ perceptions.
They discovered that the silence or intervention of a group of bystanders modulates how harmful the incident is perceived to be. By contrast, the reaction of an individual bystander had scarcely any effect. In addition, the study demonstrated that the effectiveness of voicing opposition as a harm-reducer depends on how strongly such a reaction is followed. Only unanimous opposition indicating social disapproval was perceived as helpful in minimizing the harm created by the incidents shown.
The team said their study stresses the need to overcome the prevailing passive attitude toward hate speech and emphasizes the importance of bystanders’ collective opposition to hate speech incidents. “The implications of our research go beyond the academic sphere and affect public policy, moral philosophy, and the broader social discourse around hate speech,” Zapata concluded. “The results call into question the widespread social norms that perpetuate silence in the face of discrimination and support public policies that promote public engagement against hate speech. A key finding of our work is that uninvolved witnesses play a crucial role when it comes to shaping social norms against hate speech.”