Duh Files: Bystander Effect Is Less Effective on Autistics

Like many studies before it, we have told them time and time again how we are but decades later, there is a study, run by York University, that says we are less likely to succumb to the bystander effect and actually do something when there is an emergency. This is something we have been saying for YEARS.

What is the Bystander Effect?

The bystander effect is where people are less likely to intervene or help in a bad situation when other people are there because they think someone else will intervene. When there are people who witness the incident, the more likely it is for people not to do anything.

The three main mechanisms of the bystander effect are:

1. Diffusion of personal responsibility, ie someone else will do it
2. Group influence, relying on others’ reactions to recognize the need for help. The perception is that other witnesses do not appear to be worried.
3. Evaluation apprehension, prevailing social norms about exercising “voice,” lack of confidence in one’s ability to intervene, thinks they will make it worse.

The Study

Lorne M. Hartman, Mehrdad Farahani, Alexander Moor, Ateeya Manzoor and Braxton L. Hartman ran a study at York University called Organizational Benefits of Neurodiversity: Preliminary Findings on Autism and the Bystander Effect.

This is one of the first studies of its kind. There is a plethora of psychology literature on the bystander effect but not when it comes to autistics.

This study examines whether autistic employees are more likely to report issues or concerns in an organization’s systems and practices that are inefficient or dysfunctional. This will give autistic people more opportunities to improve organizational performance, leading to the development of a more adaptive, high-performing, and ethical work culture.

Study Design

This study had 33 autistic employees, with a clinical diagnosis, and 34 non-autistic employees complete an online survey to determine whether autistic employees are:

1. More likely to report if they see concerns about organizational dysfunctions
2. Are less likely to report they were influenced by the number of other witnesses to the dysfunction
3. If they do not voice concerns, are more likely to acknowledge the influence of other people on the decision
4. Are less likely to formulate “elaborate rationales” for their decision to intervene or not.
5. Whether any differences between autistic and nonautistic employees with regard to the first two hypotheses, intervention likelihood and degree of influence, are moderated by the individual differences in blending in.

The participants were recruited via social media and contact with autism organizations. Autistic participants self-reported an “official” diagnosis. The average age of diagnosis was 30.1 years.

Procedure

All the participants were sent a link to the study. It was hosted by Qualtrics. Once they clicked the link, they read the information sheet and provided informed consent.

In addition to demographic questions, the autistic group also completed the Camouflaging Autistic Traits Questionaire and the Moral Disengagement Survey.

After this, all participants were assessed using the Organizational Scenarios Survey, which was designed to evaluate how people reason about workplace situations when they witness situations that may be problematic.

Each scenario also had a specific number of other bystanders that ranged from 1 to 12 other people. These scenarios were originally developed to conduct critical incident technique interviews.

After each scenario, participants were asked how likely it is that they would take action with a scale of 1 to 4. They were also asked to explain why they made the decision they did.

Results

According to the survey analysis, they determined that autistics are less likely to be affected by the bystander effect and report if they see a situation that needs to be fixed. Neurotypical people are more likely to be affected by the bystander effect.

They also found that the rate of reporting increases when masking increases. They have a theory that people mask in order to perform well at their jobs. They found two main reasons:

1. relational reasons to ease everyday social interactions
2. conventional reasons serving a functional purpose in workplace and educational situations.

Organizational Benefits

This study does mention that hiring neurodivergent employees will be a benefit to an organization, this is a very positive study.

The benefits they list are:

• reputational enhancement
• productivity gains
• quality improvements
• boosts in innovation capabilities
• broad
• increases in employee engagement
• able to “hide” autistic traits, masking. (Masking is harmful and many of us have to spend a long time unmasking ourselves.)

There are some past studies that suggest the advantages of having neurodivergent people enter the workforce.

In 2021, Cope and Remington asked autistic employees their opinions about employment-related strengths they experienced. Lab experiments exploring attention to detail in visual search tasks and tolerance for repetitive tasks have been reported.

The research evidence is not enough to provide clear support for a workplace neurodiversity advantage, according to researchers.

This study considers something very important benefit to organizations in having autistic employees because of the willingness to identify and report inefficiency to the proper department.

Barriers To Employment

The researchers do recognize that there are barriers for autistic people to getting hired for jobs. It is mostly in unstructured job interviews which are biased against people who are not neurotypical.

Even if autistic get hired, there are negative attitudes or stereotypes about customizing standard job roles.

My Final Thoughts

In finding this study, I was excited to finally see a positive study involving autistic people who are able to consent. As I read through the study report, I saw that the results were promising.

After reading further, I saw something that was highly problematic. What they call camouflaging, is masking. Masking is pretending to be neurotypical. It is often a survival skill and not all autistics can do it. It is a privilege but for those who can, it causes psychological trauma.

This is a step in the right direction but there is plenty more work to do.

Source:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/aur.3012