Category: Bystander Intervention

Dr Gill Harrop

If you use social media, the chances are that you’ve seen the ‘man vs bear’ question being posed, discussed and even argued about. Essentially the question is this:

“If you’re walking through a forest, would you rather encounter an unknown man or a bear?”

Tiktokker ScreenshotHQ posted a video showing women answering this question and an overwhelming majority said they’d choose the bear. By May 2024, this video had been viewed more than 17 million times and provoked a plethora of responses. Most could be split into three categories: (1) women explaining why they’d choose the bear, (2) some men being incredulous and/or angry that women chose the bear, and (3) people noting that those who don’t understand women choosing the bear perhaps don’t understand the harassment and risk that many women face on a daily basis. By exploring these responses, we can start to understand the psychology behind them.

Why women choose the bear

The first thing to note is that this is not actually about bears. It’s not a debate on brown bears versus black bears or how to survive a bear attack. It’s a hypothetical situation that shines a light on the harassment that many women experience in the world, and the everyday decisions that many women have to make to stay safe. So why are women choosing the bear? There are two main options here: either women really love bears, or they’re seeing the unknown man as a greater potential risk. Assuming it’s the latter, is this a reasonable concern for women to have? Unfortunately, the data suggests it is. The World Health Organisation (2018) found that around 1 in 3 women have been subjected to physical and/or sexual intimate partner violence and EVAW (2022)  reported that 2 out of 3 women aged 16-34 had experienced harassment in a single 12-month period, 44% had experienced catcalls, whistles and unwanted sexual comments and 29% had experienced being followed. The number of sexual offences, including rapes, reported to police in England and Wales is at an all-time high and around 2 women a week are still being killed by a partner or ex-partner, a figure that incredibly, has stayed the same for decades. Against this backdrop, we see the devastating murders of women such as Sarah Everard, Zara Aleena and Sabina Nessa, who were attacked and killed by men while walking home or to meet friends.   It’s important to note of course, that it’s not all men. It’s not even most men. The problem is that when faced with an unknown man, there’s often no way for women to tell if he’s dangerous or one of the many good ones. The dangerous ones don’t wear badges or villain costumes to reveal their true nature, so women can know how to react.  Wayne Couzens even wore a police uniform, and had a warrant card, which should have been the ultimate signal that he could be trusted, that he was safe, and yet he still abducted and killed Sarah Everard just because he wanted to. So the man versus bear decision becomes a question of risk assessment.

Additionally, many women spoke about choosing the bear as they would be believed more readily if they reported that the bear had attacked them rather than the man. X user AmberLynnfit­_noted that if a woman survived a bear attack, no one would ask what she had been wearing or been drinking. No one would suggest that the bear had always seemed really nice beforehand and that she might have ‘led him on’ or encouraged the attack. They wouldn’t have checked to make sure she had really said no and they certainly wouldn’t suggest not reporting the bear, for fear of ruining his reputation. While this response is arguably somewhat tongue-in-cheek, research on victim blaming confirms that these are very real concerns for women and girls who experience male violence. Anderson and Overby (2020) explored the negative impact of victim blaming on survivors of sexual violence and found that victim-blaming responses were common amongst friends and family, even when they supported the victim e.g. asking what they were wearing or if they had done anything to lead the perpetrator on. Anderson and Overby found that such victim blaming negatively affects the way that people respond to survivors of violence and can make it more difficult for victims to report their experiences.

Why does victim blaming happen at all?

Lerner (1980) suggested that people try to make sense of what we see around us to fit in with the idea that the world is just, everything happens for a reason and we will be okay as long as we just follow the ‘rules’. Essentially, bad things only happen to people who don’t follow the rules so as long as we follow them, then we’ll be okay. Of course, this is not how the world actually works and the problem occurs when this belief in a just world is used to frame people’s experiences of violence or harassment. When we see that someone else had a bad experience, the just world hypothesis can lead to us feeling scared that it might happen to us and make us worry that we are also at risk. So to make ourselves feel better and safer in what can feel like quite a scary world, we can seek to identify something the victim did that might have led to the dangerous situation happening. For example, if someone learns that the victim had a few drinks before an assault, they might say to themselves “well I wouldn’t drink that much so I’ll be okay”. Or they might decide that the victim said or did something that led the perpetrator to behave violently, so they can think “I would never behave that way, so I don’t need to worry”. The problem is that in making themselves feel better and more safe, they are unfairly placing blame for what happened onto the victim.  Stromwall, Alfredsson and Landstrom (2023) found that belief in a just world was a powerful predictor of how much blame was attributed to victims of sexual violence. Essentially, the more we want to believe the world is fair and we can keep ourselves safe, the more likely we are to engage in victim blaming.

So how can we prevent victim blaming?

Firstly, by recognising that the only person responsible for violence, abuse and harassment is the perpetrator. It doesn’t matter what someone was wearing, what they were drinking, or whether they had been ‘nice’ to the person prior to the event. 100% of the responsibility lies with the perpetrator, so the next time someone describes a difficult situation to you or discloses that they have experienced harassment, consciously try to replace victim-blaming questions with more supportive responses such as ‘that’s not okay’, ‘it’s not your fault’ and ‘what can I do to help?

Why are some men angry that women choose the bear?

Much of the answer to this comes down to perception. Those who are annoyed at women choosing the bear often perceive it as a dig at them or at men in general. As if the women are saying “I’d rather risk death or injury from a dangerous animal than encounter you”. But as discussed above, the scenario is based on an unknown man. Women are not saying they’d choose a bear over their partner, their dad or their male friends, who they know to be trustworthy. They’re rejecting the unknown male, where there is no way of knowing the level of risk posed. This response also speaks to some people’s lack of understanding of the risks that women face in everyday life and perhaps even an unwillingness to accept that these are women’s experiences. They assume that women must be exaggerating the risk or must just be a man-hater. Why else would they choose a dangerous bear over a ‘safe’ man? They don’t perceive the man as a risk to them so can’t understand why a woman might view it differently. The reality of course is that men getting visibly angry at women choosing the bear, and berating them for their decision, actually reinforces many women’s response to the question. As X user AndreaRhoden put it “a bear wouldn’t ask me ‘man or bear’ and then ‘bearsplain’ to me why I chose wrong’. If someone get genuinely angry at women for choosing a hypothetical bear in a hypothetical scenario, and just wants to tell her why she’s wrong, rather than listening to and believing her lived experience, maybe they would benefit from engaging in some self-reflection about how to better support the women in their life.

So what can you do?

Consider what good allyship looks like, think about how to be an active bystander and listen to a range of opinions on this hypothetical scenario. A great place to start is Tiktokker DadChats  who brilliantly analyses the scenario from a statistical perspective to determine the risk of the man versus the bear. You can also talk about it to others. Fairbairn (2020) suggests that having conversations about hypothetical scenarios is an ideal way for people to get a better understanding of violence against women and girls, and see the role that they can play in tackling it. Such conversations lead to narrative shifts and development of a better understanding of the societal norms that enable, or conversely tackle, such violence and harassment. If we’re going to tackle violence against women and girls, more people have to first acknowledge that there is a real problem which is worthy of tackling, and having these conversations is a vital part of that process.

How would you answer the man versus bear question now?

Maybe you’re still strongly team bear, or maybe you’re dead set on choosing the man and think that it’s ridiculous that anyone would choose the bear. Whichever way you fall on this issue, here’s the reality: most women ARE choosing the bear. Whether you consider that to be a sensible choice or not, this is not coming out of nowhere and it is too many women to just brush it off as silly decision-making, extreme feminism or even a lack of bear-knowledge. If you’re lucky, you didn’t have to be told about self-defence from a young age, or learn to ‘wolverine’ your keys through your fingers while walking home at night to fight off a potential attacker. Hopefully you’ve never experienced having to get off a train at the wrong stop as the creepy guy in the carriage won’t leave you alone, been groped in a pub/coffee shop/on the street, had to cross the street to get away from the man who was following you or called out to a pretend housemate as you opened your front door so the taxi driver who had been making lewd comments to you the whole way home thought there was a man inside your house. If you’ve never had to think about any of these things, the bear probably does seem like a crazy choice. But that is the reality for many women as they go about their lives and until that changes… sorry, but I’m choosing the bear.

Dr Gillian Harrop

Dr Gill Harrop is a Senior Lecturer in Forensic Psychology at the University of Worcester and leads the UW Bystander Intervention Programme.  She is a member of the Trauma & Violence Prevention research theme within the Interpersonal Relationships and Wellbeing Research Group.

Picture the scene – you’re in the cinema, ready to watch the next instalment of your favourite film franchise. As the opening credits roll, the person behind you starts talking loudly on their phone and kicking the back of your seat. How do you feel? And more specifically, are you bothered by their behaviour? The likelihood of course is that you’re extremely bothered – they’re disrupting your cinema experience. But what about if they were just whispering on their phone, or if the seat kicking was just an occasional tap? Or maybe they move to be closer to their mate, and now it’s not your seat that’s being kicked anymore, its someone else’s a few seats down. Are you still bothered?

Why does this matter?

The type of things that we notice and are bothered by affect the way that we respond to the world around us. Berkowitz (2010) noted that if we personally find a particular behaviour bothersome, we’re more likely to notice when it happens and take action to address it.

Deitch-Stackhouse et all (2015) explored this link further by investigating exactly how bothered someone must be by something, for them to regularly intervene. They found that there was a significant step up in willingness to intervene when people went from being ‘moderately bothered’ by a situation to ‘very bothered’. So essentially, we have to think that something is pretty bad in order for us to consistently notice it and think about intervening. This works reasonably well when behaviours do meet that ‘bothering’ threshold, such as someone committing assault or stealing another person’s property. These behaviours would be considered problematic to most people, usually generating a response of “this is not okay and someone should do something”. In a traffic light system, of red, amber and green, these would be considered red behaviours i.e. clearly problematic.

The traffic light analogy is a useful way to consider a range of possible behaviours across a spectrum of how problematic they are. In 2014, Brook adapted a traffic light tool from Family Planning Queensland (2012) to reflect the spectrum of behaviours in young people from unacceptable ‘red’ behaviours such as sexual harassment to more acceptable ‘green’ behaviours, such as mutually consensual hugging with peers. Essentially green behaviours are considered safe and healthy, while red behaviours are not. But what about the amber behaviours that do not fall neatly into either red or green?

The Hackett Continuum (2010) in Barter & Berridge, 2010 suggests that amber behaviours are those which have the potential to fall outside of safe and healthy behaviours, and can be affected by a range of factors, including context, age, and the vulnerability of those concerned. This can make it much more challenging to notice and correctly identify these behaviours when they happen. They can also generate a lower level of ‘bother’, resulting in little or no action being taken (remember Deitch-Stackhouse et al.’s finding from earlier that someone needed to be ‘very bothered’ by something to consistently notice and intervene). There are two options for responding to this challenge from the perspective of preventing problematic behaviour: (1) focus on addressing only the red behaviours and accept that amber behaviours are often going to be overlooked or (2) increase awareness of amber behaviours and encourage a culture where people are more bothered by them, so they are more likely to notice and intervene.

The argument for the second option is that red and amber behaviours are not separate entities. They are intrinsically linked, and a healthy culture does not include either type of behaviour, therefore increasing awareness and ‘bother’ towards amber behaviours is an important part of the prevention of violence and abuse.  Steven Connell’s powerful spoken work piece ‘We Are The Lions’ includes the observation that there is often is a link between the things that we don’t have a problem with, and the things that we do, which speaks to the idea that people can often ignore or ‘shrug off’ amber behaviours as they are not deemed to be bad enough, failing to recognise that they can contribute to a culture of red behaviours. For example, someone laughing when their friend shares a sexist WhatsApp message may not feel like a big deal – they may justify it by saying it’s just a joke or that it’s not serious enough to result in any consequences for the sender (e.g. “I wouldn’t want my mate to lose out on his placement just for having a laugh”). The question then becomes: where is the line? What would it take for that person to stop brushing it off and meet Deitch-Stackhouse et al.’s threshold of being ‘very bothered’ – when a specific person was named in the message? When the sexist ‘jokes’ were made in front of others? When female friends leave a night out early because they feel so uncomfortable by the sexist ‘banter’? There has to be a line somewhere, and in order to a achieve a culture where problematic behaviour is not tolerated, the noticing and feeling bothered enough to act must start with the amber behaviours rather than waiting for the red.

There is no way to compile an exhaustive of possible amber behaviours as it encompasses so many possibilities, but essentially it is those behaviours which make someone feel uncomfortable, or would make them uncomfortable if it was directed at them or those they cared about. Of course, problematic behaviour should not be acceptable regardless of who it is directed at, but using the ‘would I feel uncomfortable if it was directed at me/my friends …?’ strategy can be an effective way to encourage people to notice behaviours that might otherwise be brushed off or go under the radar.

How to respond to amber behaviours

The short answer is to do something – be an active bystander. There is often a misperception when it comes to bystander intervention that to intervene means to be loud and accusatory “You are doing something wrong, and I am calling you out on it!” However, that is simply not the case. Being prepared to speak up and address amber behaviours simply means doing something when you encounter them. That might be having a conversation with a friend, adding a comment in a WhatsApp group that you don’t think something’s okay, or even noting that you’ll be muting the group for a while. You could also use indirect methods of intervention, such as having a conversation with a tutor, coach, or committee chair to discuss any concerns. You might distract or interrupt a situation to stop it progressing, or just ask the people around you if they also feel uncomfortable with something. Often all it takes is for one person to say they feel uncomfortable, for others to feel able to admit that that they feel the same.

Flood (2011) suggested a range of specific actions that could be taken to challenge problematic behaviours, including lower level ‘amber’ behaviours:

• Ask for an explanation – the phrase ‘what do you mean?’ can be really impactive here as it requires the speaker to explain what they have just said. A sexist joke can quickly lose its humour if they are required to explain the problematic tropes contained within it.
  
• Express your disagreement – This can be as simple of saying ‘that’s not right/okay’. If you don’t want to be confrontational in the moment, Khan (2015) suggested the phrase “I’m not interested in having this conversation right now, but it’s important for you to know that I am not okay with what you just said”. This would work face to face or as a written message e.g., on WhatsApp

• Explain why you disagree with the behaviour – Khan suggested the example phrase “what you’re saying is not only untrue, but is also harmful”. You can acknowledge that they may have meant it as a joke, then note the possible effects e.g. “I think comments like that contribute to our female friends feeling less safe around us on nights out so I think we need to be more careful”

• Personalise the injustice – Virginia Tech (2010) noted that a useful phrase to help personalise behaviours is “I hope no one ever talks about you like that”. You could also ask how they would feel if some behaved that way towards their friends/partner/family member.

• Use impact and ‘I’ statements – this involves stating how you feel, naming the amber behaviour and noting how you want them to respond e.g. “I was annoyed when you made that comment on a night out and caused our friend to leave early. Don’t do that any more or we won’t invite you on nights out”.

• Encourage their best self – use the phrase ‘come on, you’re better than that” (Be The Hero, 2009)

• Use your friendship – e.g. you could say ‘as your friend, I need to tell you that showing everyone the pictures that your girlfriend sent you in private is not okay and you could get into a lot of trouble.

• Invite the group to be allies – a good phrase to use here is “I don’t feel right about this. Does anyone else feel uncomfortable?” (Be the Hero, 2009)

These suggested actions align with the ‘Maate’ campaign launched by the Mayor of London in July 2023, where men were encouraged to challenge problematic behaviour from their friends by using the term “maate”. This campaign focused on the premise that many men and boys want to intervene when they see sexism and misogyny, but don’t necessarily know exactly what to say or how to start the conversation. Having a specific term to use, such as “maate”, or using some of the phrases suggested by Flood above, can mean that bystanders don’t have to come up with something in the moment, and instead can rely on an existing bank of suitable phrases and interventions.

By committing to these types of actions, every single person can start to challenge amber behaviours, often before they have the chance to turn into red ones, and in doing so, we become part of a culture where there is a clear message that violence and abuse, however low-level, will not be tolerated.

/

This blog ends with a challenge – the next time you’re in a situation where you feel a little uncomfortable, even if you’re not sure why, channel Catherine Tate’s famous teenage character Lauren, and ask yourself “am I bothered?” And if you find that you are, even if the behaviour is only amber rather than red, make the decision to act

For more information about the UW Bystander Intervention Programme, please email g.harrop@worc.ac.uk or visit our website:

Dr Gillian Harrop

Dr Gill Harrop is a Senior Lecturer in Forensic Psychology at the University of Worcester and leads the UW Bystander Intervention Programme.  She is a member of the Trauma & Violence Prevention research theme within the Interpersonal Relationships  Wellbeing Research Group. Further details of Gill’s work can be found at  https://www.worcester.ac.uk/about/profiles/dr-gillian-harrop