This research examined the personality characteristics of individuals who 'speak up' and confront perpetrators of norm transgressions. We tested whether those who intervene tend to be 'bitter complainers' or 'well-adjusted leaders'. In four studies (total N = 1,003), we measured several individual differences that are directly implicated by at least one of the two concepts. We also presented participants with uncivil, discriminatory, and immoral behaviours and asked them how likely they would be to intervene if they were to witness each of these behaviours as a bystander. The results confirmed the well-adjusted leader hypothesis: Participants' self-reported tendency to confront perpetrators correlated positively with altruism, extraversion, social responsibility, acceptance by peers, independent self-construal, emotion regulation, persistence, self-directedness, age, occupation, and monthly salary, but not with aggressiveness or low self-esteem. Individuals who confront prejudice also speak up against other immoral and uncivil behaviours. We discuss the implications of these findings for the perpetuation and change of social norms.

When witnessing an uncivil, immoral, or discriminatory behavior, bystanders have the opportunity to “speak up” and confront the perpetrator about his/her act. We examined whether the closeness of the relationship between the bystander and the perpetrator affects the bystander's reaction. We asked middle schoolers, high schoolers, and university students (N = 1,386) to indicate how they would react if they were to witness each of 26 uncivil, immoral, or discriminatory behaviors. We experimentally manipulated the relationship to the perpetrator, who was described as a friend, an acquaintance, or a stranger. Results showed that the closer the relationship to the perpetrator the greater the bystander's self‐reported likelihood of “speaking up.” The findings speak to the role of close relationships in the perpetuation of social norms. They also suggest ways to curb anti‐social behaviors in a variety of school and organizational settings.

We examined whether cognitive resources are necessary to react effectively to norm transgressions of others. In Study 1, we showed that a polite verbal expression of disapproval was the most effective form of social control because perpetrators were least likely to engage in the same norm transgression again in the future. In Study 2, we manipulated cognitive load and asked participants how they would react when witnessing different uncivil behaviors. Compared to participants in the cognitive load condition, participants in the control condition were more likely to use effective forms of social control and less likely to use ineffective forms of social control. The findings are integrated with recent theorizing about normative pressures and people's reactions to deviance.