A Policy Capturing Investigation of Bystander Decisions to Intervene against Workplace Incivility

Abstract

The current research integrates theory on the contextual characteristics that impact bystanders’ decisions to prosocially intervene against workplace incivility. We built a model based upon two of the most influential theories of prosocial intervention—Latane and Darley’s (1970) decision-tree model and Piliavin et al.’ (1981) arousal: cost-reward model—and assert that decisions to intervene are affected by the inherent ambiguity of the uncivil context as well as the costs versus rewards of intervention in ways that facilitate action. Yet, depending on the gender composition of the dyad involved in the uncivil exchange, and both the moral identity and the role (i.e., supervisor versus coworker) of the observer, ambiguity and cost-reward considerations may differ in their relative impact. Policy capturing methodology was used to test the relative influence of ambiguity-reduction (i.e., harm to the target, appeal for help) versus cost-reward (i.e., target’s task performance level, bystander workload) situational cues on coworker and supervisor bystanders’ decisions to intervene with either social support to the target or confronting the perpetrator. Results of a large-scale experiment with over 3400 participants revealed that each of the situational cues surrounding the uncivil exchange positively influenced observers’ decisions to intervene in theorized ways and that cost-reward considerations and role obligations are intricately intertwined.