Unrecognized Bullying: II

A variety of cognitive biases can cause targets, bystanders, perpetrators, and supervisors of perpetrators not to perceive bullying behavior as bullying. Because the relevant cognitive biases act differently on different people in different roles with respect to the bullying, the space to be explored is two-dimensional. One axis is the kind of cognitive bias. The other is the person's role relative to the bullying. That is, for each relevant bias, we can describe how it could affect each role.

That's a big project. Too big for a weekly newsletter or blog. But I can demonstrate the approach with one cognitive bias. This post explores the effects of confirmation bias [Nickerson 1998] on targets, bystanders, perpetrators, and supervisors of perpetrators.

How confirmation bias affects targets' perceptions of bullying

Consider the case of the supervisor bullying a subordinate. Targets tend to believe that supervisors supervise; that the supervisor's role is to guide the target's professional development and to provide resources, guidance, and support as needed for the target to carry out his or her responsibilities. In short, targets want to believe that supervisors are benevolent. For many subordinates, this belief is consistent with reality. But when a supervisor bullies a subordinate, a target's belief in supervisor benevolence can function as an inaccurate preconceived notion of the supervisor's agenda.

Confirmation bias then leads the target to search for evidence of benevolent behavior by the supervisor, and to reject evidence of bullying behavior. It thus raises the level of evidence necessary for targets to finally accept that their supervisors are bullying. Confirmation bias causes targets to interpret the bullying supervisor's behavior as "tough discipline" or even "tough love" instead of the abuse that it is.

How confirmation bias affects bystanders' perceptions of bullying

Bystanders are witnesses of bullying behavior who aren't themselves current targets of the perpetrator, and who haven't been targets of that perpetrator in recent memory. Bystanders do see what's happening — both the aggressive behavior of the perpetrator and the pain experienced by the target. Some bystanders recognize the behavior as bullying. But some do not. The question is: why do some bystanders fail to recognize bullying as such? For some bystanders, confirmation bias provides an answer.

Because most bystanders Cognitive biases can cause targets,
bystanders, supervisors of
perpetrators, and perpetrators
not to perceive bullying
behavior as bullyingof common bullying incidents are peers of the targets, let's consider that case. I'll refer to the target as Tracey (for Target), one of the bystanders as Brian (for Bystander), and the perpetrator as Phillip (for Perpetrator). Suppose Brian witnesses an incident in a meeting in which Phillip bullies Tracey. Feeling extreme discomfort, Brian doesn't want to intervene or even exit the meeting, because he fears that Phillip would interpret these acts as criticism. Brian fears that he might then become Phillip's next target.

So Brian keeps his counsel. He isn't proud of this, but he isn't aware of a safe alternative. Because he doesn't supervise Phillip, he feels no obligation to teach Phillip about manners or courtesy. He wants to believe that Phillip's behavior is harsh, tough, and maybe even rude, which enables Brian to see Phillip's behavior as something other than bullying. And it sets up a confirmation bias for Brian. He interprets everything he observes within a framework of rude behavior. Protected by confirmation bias, the question of bullying doesn't arise for Brian.

How confirmation bias affects supervisors of perpetrators

Some supervisors aren't perpetrators themselves, but they are meta-perpetrators. That is, they're willing to accept the "benefits" of having subordinates who, in turn, bully their subordinates or who bully their peers. I'll discuss meta-perpetrators briefly in the section below devoted to perpetrators. For now, let's focus on the nonperpetrating supervisor who has a perpetrator subordinate.

I'll refer to such a nonperpetrating supervisor as Olivia (for Oblivious). Confirmation bias can cause Olivia not to recognize as bullying the aggressive actions of the perpetrating subordinate, whom I'll call Phillip (for Perpetrator). Olivia wants to believe that Phillip's aggressive behavior is necessary to produce the results that Olivia so eagerly desires. Olivia is reluctant to recognize Phillip's behavior as bullying because she might then be obliged to intervene, and she fears that intervening could compromise Phillip's performance. Olivia wants to believe that Phillip's behavior is merely tough, rather than bullying. And so Phillip's bullying goes unrecognized.

How confirmation bias affects perpetrators

People who intentionally harm others are available in wondrous variety. Among these are people who harm others and who believe that doing so is a severe transgression. Some of these need a way of viewing their own behavior that protects them from charging themselves with bullying. They want to continue bullying while claiming to themselves that they aren't bullying. Tall order.

Confirmation bias to the rescue. It can work like this: "Bullying is bad. What I'm doing isn't bullying." That's the preconceived notion that forms the foundation of the confirmation bias. The perpetrator then searches for (and finds) definitions of bullying that don't fit the perpetrator's view of his or her own behavior. Any attribute will suffice. For example, a definition might require that the activity be repeated in a sustained campaign, while the perpetrator's pattern is to move from target to target after only one or two incidents. Or the definition might require physical abuse, while the perpetrator's pattern might consist of purely psychological abuse. Or the definition might require the physical presence of the perpetrator, while the perpetrator's pattern might involve directing others to carry out the abuse — an approach that makes our perpetrator a meta-perpetrator.

Confirmation bias thus serves to protect the perpetrator from his or her own self-condemnation for bullying, by excluding the perpetrator's actions from any class that could be called bullying.

Confirmation bias is just one example of a cognitive bias that can cause bullying to go unrecognized. Any cognitive bias that confirms our preconceptions can function in this way. Possible candidates include ingroup bias, the just-world hypothesis, the halo effect, and choice-supportive bias. Homework: pick one of these biases and work out how it can cause targets, perpetrators, bystanders, and supervisors of perpetrators not to notice bullying.   First issue in this series    Next issue in this series   Top    Next Issue

Is a workplace bully targeting you? Do you know what to do to end the bullying? Workplace bullying is so widespread that a 2014 survey indicated that 27% of American workers have experienced bullying firsthand, that 21% have witnessed it, and that 72% are aware that bullying happens. Yet, there are few laws to protect workers from bullies, and bullying is not a crime in most jurisdictions. 101 Tips for Targets of Workplace Bullies is filled with the insights targets of bullying need to find a way to survive, and then to finally end the bullying. Also available at Apple's iTunes store! Just . Order Now!

Footnotes

Your comments are welcome

About Point Lookout

Thank you for reading this article. I hope you enjoyed it and found it useful, and that you'll consider recommending it to a friend.

This article in its entirety was written by a human being. No machine intelligence was involved in any way.

Point Lookout is a free weekly email newsletter. Browse the archive of past issues. Subscribe for free.

Support Point Lookout by joining the Friends of Point Lookout, as an individual or as an organization.

Do you face a complex interpersonal situation? Send it in, anonymously if you like, and I'll give you my two cents.

Related articles

More articles on Conflict Management:

The Advantages of Political Attack: III

In workplace politics, attackers have significant advantages that explain, in part, their surprising success rate. In this third part of our series on political attacks, we examine the psychological advantages of attackers.

The Perils of Political Praise

Political Praise is any public statement, praising (most often) an individual, and including a characterization of the individual or the individual's deeds, and which spins or distorts in such a way that it advances the praiser's own political agenda, possibly at the expense of the one praised.

Nonlinear Work: When Superposition Fails

Much of the work we do is confounding, because we consistently underestimate the effort involved, the resources required, and the time required to get it done. The failure of superposition can be one reason why we get it wrong.

Twelve Tips for More Masterful Virtual Presentations: II

Virtual presentations are unlike face-to-face presentations, because in the virtual environment, we're competing for audience attention against unanticipated distractions. Here's Part II of a collection of tips for masterful virtual presentations.

Conversation Irritants: I

Conversations at work can be frustrating even when everyone tries to be polite, clear, and unambiguous. But some people actually try to be nasty, unclear, and ambiguous. Here's Part I of a small collection of their techniques.

See also Conflict Management and Conflict Management for more related articles.

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming February 26: Devious Political Tactics: Bad Decisions

When workplace politics influences the exchanges that lead to important organizational decisions, we sometimes make decisions for reasons other than the best interests of the organization. Recognizing these tactics can limit the risk of bad decisions. Available here and by RSS on February 26.

And on March 5: On Begging the Question

Some of our most expensive wrong decisions have come about because we've tricked ourselves as we debated our options. The tricks sometimes arise from rhetorical fallacies that tangle our thinking. One of the trickiest is called Begging the Question. Available here and by RSS on March 5.

Coaching services

I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenjTnUayrCbSnnEcYfner@ChacdcYpBKAaMJgMalFXoCanyon.com or (650) 787-6475, or toll-free in the continental US at (866) 378-5470.

Get the ebook!

Past issues of Point Lookout are available in six ebooks:

• Get 2001-2 in Geese Don't Land on Twigs (PDF, )
• Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, )
• Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, )
• Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, )
• Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, )
• Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, )

Are you a writer, editor or publisher on deadline? Are you looking for an article that will get people talking and get compliments flying your way? You can have 500-1000 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info