Can one learn moral courage?
Veronika Brandstätter-Morawietz, 46, is a professor of motivational psychology at the University of Zurich where she heads the research group Zivilcourage. She has developed a training for civil courage
ChroniquesDuVasteMonde: Professor Brandstätter-Morawietz, at S-Bahn station München-Solln, businessman Dominik Brunner was kicked out by young people almost a year ago. An outcry went through the republic. In court is now negotiating who slammed first: Dominik Brunner or the young people. But what worries me more is that nobody came to the aid of the businessman, many watched. My question to you as a moral courage expert: Would I have helped?
Prof. Veronika Brandstätter-Morawietz: You mean, you as Mrs. Ottenschläger?
Yes.
I can not answer the question, I know you too little. You came to my office just two minutes ago.
What would you have to know from me to answer my question?
First, in civil courage research, we have found clear personality traits that a helper has: he takes social responsibility, empathy, and self-confidence.
That sounds pretty general. I thought you would say something like this: A typical helper is not afraid. Is not fear the big stumbling block?
There is a whole bunch of obstacles, fear is certainly one of them, but so are other influencing factors, some are based on the person, others on the situation. And you are right, the personality traits must of course be filled with life.
So, what does social responsibility mean?
That you feel responsible for complying with social rules. It starts on a small scale: they let your counterpart speak and greet the cashier in the supermarket, because you do not feel like something better. On the whole, it's about humane basic human values, about tolerance and solidarity, for example. The second pillar, empathy, describes our ability to place ourselves in the position of another person: we are empathizing with what the victim is experiencing.
Women are generally considered more empathic than men. Are women more civilized?
No. Civil courage research has found no gender differences. Even the age does not matter: we can not say: Young help older or older. That keeps the balance.
The third personality trait of the typical helper is self-confidence.
Yes. Helpers are people who believe in themselves. They are convinced that they can successfully end what they are doing.
And the people who do not intervene lack these three qualities?
No. I'm sure, for example, that there were enough people in Solln who have exactly those personality traits and yet have not done anything. In psychology, there is a very simple formula: how a person behaves depends on what he is for a person, and it depends on the situation.
Person plus environment equal behavior.
Exactly. The problem is, however, that situations that demand civil courage are often ambiguous. For example, we're in the subway and see a man and a woman arguing over there. But we do not know: is that just an ugly relationship noise? Or is there just a woman being sexually harassed?
We could get up and look.
We do not do it. If we do not know if we can rely on our perception, we will orient ourselves to others. So we look questioningly into the round. And look into questioning faces. It's like a mirror: The questioning face of the other gives us the answer - maybe there is something, but there is nothing bad.
In the crass cases, of which we read later in the newspaper, but something very bad happens, often visible to all.
A really significant influence factor is the number of spectators: the more people there are, the less will be helped.
This totally contradicts our intuition: I feel safe when I can immerse myself in a crowd, at night in the subway, for example, in a well-filled car.
Psychologically, however, something else happens: in the crowd, the individual gives responsibility. For example, you might think, "I'm a woman, more petite than that," said the man in front. Or: The woman in the red coat is much closer to me than I, which has certainly brought help. Here we have to make ourselves clear: If I do not intervene - who then? But then comes the next obstacle: Most people find it terrible to attract all attention. Who acts is suddenly in the center, a really unpleasant feeling. We are all afraid of doing something wrong and being punished by the bystanders. So we do not do anything. Also because we have a false image of moral courage.
Namely?
We associate heroism with moral courage, the siblings Scholl, for example, now Dominik Brunner. Although motivational psychology says demanding goals are motivating. But if you are overwhelmed, do not act anymore. Imagine the following situation: You sit in a cozy lap in the pub, at the next table or even at your table one pulls over foreigners. They think: I should say something now. The goal that most people are facing now is to convince others that he talks heck. So arguments are considered. Or you say nothing because you do not have enough arguments at hand. It is enough to say: I find this remark unsuitable.
They say: There is a kind of helper personality. At the same time you have developed a civil courage training. Can you even learn moral courage?
Above-average numbers of helpers come from professional groups who know how to behave appropriately in a moral courage situation; for example, they are paramedics, firefighters, bus drivers or police officers. Here we are again at the beginning of the interview: If I do not know how to behave I will hardly dare to step out of the crowd and intervene. That is why we are strengthening the third pillar of our training, self-confidence. Lacking the other two pillars, social responsibility and empathy, it becomes difficult. Again and again I hear this from teachers. They say: "The young people are not so much lacking in self-confidence, they like to express their opinion, but they lack the feeling for the need of a stranger."
Do we live in a threatened society from your point of view?
We live in a society in which the pressure has increased. Being there for others, advocating for their values and beliefs will be lost if we are under pressure. That certainly starts in school: It's about good performance, because only the high school graduation should be done. But above all in working life, the pressure in recent years has increased extremely, showing courage in the workplace is therefore certainly the hardest. Because you - not without reason - in extreme cases have to fear for their own jobs.
Some dare anyway. What are their motives?
People help because they perceive a situation as extremely wrongful or unjust, or because they feel compassion for the victim. But we have also noticed that there are other motives, such as addiction. People help because they like to be the center of attention, their help is more power-motivated. Another motive is self-consistency: I have to stay true to my own values and beliefs, so I have to get involved. This is not primarily about the victim, but about my personal feelings.
Studies show a kind of sacrificial hierarchy: young people, homosexuals, the homeless and the disabled are rarely helped. Why?
Because similarity with the victim is a very distinctive factor. So you would be most likely to help a woman of your age who is being harassed by a man because you know: I too could be in this situation. For young people is often thought: they are responsible, perhaps they were cheeky.
So that means blaming the victim?
Exactly. We know this from sexual assault, there was a long time: The rape victim is guilty, what is the woman wearing a short skirt ... Psychologically speaking, the following happens: Who blames others, relieves itself. You do not have to act, because the person is to blame for their situation, which could have prevented that, so why should I intervene now?
Who actually has the best chance of success when intervening?
There is no interpreter typology in the sense that a certain type of person is most successful. It is important to follow certain basic rules, then the older lady can be just as successful as the Muckimann. Rule number one means: never put yourself in danger. Therefore, one should always focus on the victim, not the perpetrator. Try to actively accompany the victim out of the danger situation. For example, you can reach out and say, "Come with me." If that seems too dangerous, call the victim to get help. In many cases helpers take the offender, want to calm him down or move away from the victim. That's the worst thing you can do because you're the one who crosses a border. An offender should always be gesiezt. Otherwise, the impression quickly arises: This is a dispute among acquaintances. It is also important to call others directly to help, and not: "Let's see what happens ahead?" But: "Since somebody needs our help, please come with us! And you, in the blue jacket, please call the police!" Anyone who seeks help really does a lot.
