Bystander actions during police work on the street: officer perspectives

ABSTRACT

Studies on bystander behaviour showed that bystanders regularly intervene in conflicts and crime in public in order to de-escalate, yet these studies focus solely on the way citizens manage situations in the absence of police. Bystanders, however, are also present while police officers carry out their work and might help or challenge their performance. Based on 15 interviews with police officers and participant observation during 12 police shifts in the Netherlands, this study provides insights into the way officers perceive bystanders and experience their actions. Police officers describe bystanders as a dilemma they have to face during encounters: they want to convey a positive and fair image of themselves towards bystanders, yet also want to control the situation and show their authority. The diversity of bystander actions and the dilemma’s officers face imply that more attention should be given to bystanders of police action in both research and training.

KEYWORDS:

• Policing
• bystanders
• police-civilian encounters
• Authority maintenance theory
• Procedural Justice

Introduction

Police officers perform a large part of their work in public space, which means that they often work in the presence of citizens with whom they do not directly interact. These citizens might watch the police perform, or they might even react to police action. However, academic literature on policing mainly focuses on police-citizen interactions as dyads (e.g., G. P. Alpert & Dunham, 2004; Dai et al., 2011; Mazerolle et al., 2013). Therefore, little is known about what third parties do when officers are policing the streets and how these ‘bystanders’ may influence police work. Literature on policing has mainly paid attention to bystanders in two ways: the role of bystander presence on police action (Engel, 2005; Klahm & Tillyer, 2010; J. D. McCluskey et al., 2005; Terrill et al., 2008), and bystanders who film the police (Newell, 2019; Sandhu & Haggerty, 2017). Nevertheless, research on bystanders suggests that third parties play an important role in the unfolding of conflicts and emergencies, not only by watching or filming, but also by actively (de-)escalating or intervening (Levine et al., 2011; Parks et al., 2013; Philpot et al., 2020).

While the research tradition on bystanders has assumed a rather passive role for bystanders for a long time (in line with the study of Latané and Darley in 1969), more recent studies revealed that active bystander intervention is the rule rather than the exception. For instance, Philpot et al. (2020) found that in 90% of the conflicts studied, at least one bystander intervened. Although bystanders often intervene non-aggressively and de-escalate conflicts (Ejbye-Ernst et al., 2022; Levine et al., 2011; Liebst et al., 2019), they sometimes intervene aggressively, which could lead to (further) escalation of a conflict (Wells & Graham, 1999). In other words, bystanders are often active and influential, yet also unpredictable: they could both escalate and de-escalate conflict situations. Before being able to predict bystander behaviour, it is important to gain knowledge about what actions bystanders perform and how officers perceive these actions.

The existing body of bystander research focuses on how citizens resolve conflicts in public space (e.g., Liebst et al., 2019). Hence, conflicts involving police officers or paramedics were excluded from the analyses of these studies. This is regretful as bystander intervention may vary largely across different contexts: intervention in public space is common, while intervention during robberies is rare (Pallante et al., 2022). Little is known about what bystanders do when the police are present, making it challenging to generalise the findings of previous studies to a context where officers are acting as well.

If bystanders are likely to intervene, it is important for police officers to have an idea about the kind of behaviours they could encounter. Due to the quantitative character of the field, the literature has mainly used predefined binary categories, such as active versus passive, and aggressive versus non-aggressive behaviour, resulting in a lack of knowledge on what bystanders precisely do (Bloch et al., 2018; Ejbye-Ernst et al., 2022; van; Baak et al., 2023). Furthermore, a narrow definition of bystander intervention could lead to an underestimation of how often bystanders are active (van Baak et al., 2023). Other studies have only focused on positive or negative actions. Ejbye-Ernst et al. (2022) defined bystander intervention for instance as actions to stop a fight, for instance, while Van Erp et al. (2018) solely focused on bystander conflict that public service workers encounter.

Additionally, the studies are mainly based on observations, in real life or with use of video data, or on experiments. As a result, bystander actions are labelled by researchers while little is known about how these behaviours are perceived by the actors involved. Whereas the bystander might intend to help, the police could experience this as an obstacle to their work. Additionally, similar behaviour could be viewed as helping in one situation while it might be obstructing in the next. Social psychologists have found that in general, pre-existing attitudes and expectations shape peoples’ interpretation of certain experiences. Plus, negative experiences have more impact on attitudes and behaviour (Baumeister et al., 2001; Rosin & Royzman, 2001). Selective perception and negativity bias could also shape police officers’ perceptions of bystanders. Related to perceptions of bystanders, a study on the offender perspective of burglaries has found that offenders are so focused on reaching their goals that they are barely aware of bystanders, while the researchers expected their presence would have an impact (Bernasco et al., 2013). This shows the importance to investigate the perceptions of other parties, as it reveals the impact that bystanders have or do not have on other actors.

The present study aims to answer the following research question: how do police officers experience and interpret different types of bystander behaviours they encounter in their day-to-day work? This will inform the challenges officers experience, but also the possible opportunities to cooperate with bystanders. To this end, 15 officers were interviewed about their experiences with bystanders and were asked to describe a situation with a helping bystander and one with an obstructing bystander. Furthermore, the first author went along on 12 police shifts to observe bystanders and to hear officers’ reflections right after encounters with bystanders.

Police-citizen encounters: role expectation of officers and bystanders

In order to understand how police officers perceive bystander behaviour, it is important to understand the specific features of police-citizen interactions, how officers perceive their own role, and what expectations they have of citizens in general and bystanders in particular. In the following section we will discuss aspects of authority maintenance theory and procedural justice that have different assumptions about the relationship between officers and citizens, and how the combination of these ideas can help to analyse police perceptions of bystanders.

Sykes and Clark (1975) describe police-citizen encounters as a peculiar type of interaction, as most interactions revolve around reciprocity, while police-citizen interactions are governed by an asymmetrical norm of deference: because of the police’s higher social status and formal authority, officers expect a higher level of respect from citizens than they believe they should reciprocate. Police officers are socialised and trained to be protective of their authority, while citizens are socialised to take a passive and accommodating role (Sykes & Clark, 1975). G. Alpert et al. (2020) later coined officers’ main concern with controlling the scene and maintaining authority over citizens as the authority maintenance theory. The centrality of authority and being in control arises from the danger imperative: the emphasis on potential violence during police-citizen encounters and the constant need to ensure officer safety (Sierra‐Arévalo, 2021). The role expectation of control and authority could be an important factor in how officers view their own role and how officers evaluate bystander behaviour. Based on the authority maintenance theory, bystander behaviours that do not align with expectations of passivity and accommodation could be perceived by officers as norm breaking as it may endanger their position of being in control. Additionally, the danger imperative could lead officers to overestimate the safety risk of bystander presence and actions.

Despite this asymmetry in the police-citizen relationship, both police officers and citizens are dependent on the other party to achieve their intended goals (G. Alpert et al., 2020). According to procedural justice theory, there are two key concerns for effective law enforcement by the police: First, the ability to gain immediate and long-term compliance with police decisions. Second, the ability to encourage citizens to abide by the law and cooperate with the police (Tyler, 2003). This is important as police effectiveness is largely dependent on citizen cooperation (Reisig et al., 2007). Whether citizens comply and cooperate is largely determined by their subjective judgements of fairness during encounters with police officers (Mazerolle et al., 2013). While officers could enforce immediate compliance through the threat or use of force, this is less likely to be experienced as fair by citizens, and could therefore have negative effects on their legitimacy and long-term compliance. In contrast, encounters with the police that citizens experienced as procedurally fair can build legitimacy and future compliance and cooperation (J. McCluskey, 2003). In other words, citizens are more willing to cooperate with police officers when they have a positive view of how the police acts. This positive view can be shaped through acting procedurally fair during face-to-face encounters with citizens. Important elements of a fair procedure are: decision making is rule-based, neutral and without bias; citizens are treated with respect; and citizens have an opportunity to participate, for instance by explaining their view or being included in the resolution of the problem (Sunshine & Tyler, 2003). Procedural justice focuses on the views of citizens who are in direct contact with for instance the police, but could also be relevant for bystanders. The roles of police officers and bystanders from a procedural justice perspective differ from the perspective of authority maintenance theory. Especially the last element assumes an active participating role for bystanders, rather than a passive one, and prescribes more engagement with bystanders for police officers. From a procedural justice perspective, it would be expected that officers are more concerned with how bystanders evaluate their performance, and would view bystander help as a sign of police legitimacy.

Related to the authority maintenance theory and procedural justice theory, more recent studies have argued that technological developments have had an important impact on police-citizen encounters and police legitimacy (Farmer, 2016; Sandhu & Haggerty, 2017). According to these articles, filming citizens decrease police officers’ control in both the actual interaction as well as the police image online. For example, bystanders could physically obstruct by standing too close while filming, and bystander videos increase the visibility and possibly negative framing of the police (Newell, 2019).

According to the theories that were discussed above, officers are concerned with the impression citizens, including bystanders, have of them. The authority maintenance theory proposes that officers want to show their authority, and have control over bystanders who should be passive and accommodating in their view. The procedural justice theory proposes that officers want bystanders to view their performance as positive and procedurally fair, putting bystanders in a more powerful role, as officers are dependent on their assessment to ensure (long-term) compliance and cooperation. On the basis of the discussed theories, we would expect conflicting views of police officers in terms of their own role: being in control vs. being perceived as fair, and related expectations about bystanders: do they form a safety risk and should they be mainly passive, or should bystanders be cooperative?

Methods

Interviews

In order to answer the research questions, 15 interviews were conducted with 16 police officers, including two female and 14 male officers. One interview was conducted with two officers at the same time (numbered 12–1 and 12–2 in the data). The interviewer asked the respondents the same questions separately, yet sometimes they complemented each other’s stories or discussed situations they experienced together. When one officer forgot certain details, the other could help, but perhaps they also influenced each other’s answers. To ensure the sample included sufficient (serious) conflict with bystanders, 5 officers were selected on the basis of their experience with an obstructing bystander, with the help of a case manager who accompanies officers who have experienced violence. The other officers were contacted by the research coordinator from the police. To make sure the interviews were not biased towards an urban or rural context, we interviewed officers who worked in different types of areas, as we expected there to be important differences in these contexts, for instance that in urban areas a larger number of officers work in a smaller area, and that on average more bystanders are present during incidents. We interviewed 8 officers from large cities (between 600,000 and 1,000,000 residents), 5 officers from middle ranged cities (between 80,000 and 300,000 residents), and 3 officers from rural areas were interviewed (their working area extended over multiple small villages of less than 25,000 residents), and the locations were spread across the country. The years of respondents’ work experience ranged from 2.5 years to 45 years.

During the interviews, police officers were first asked to describe how they encounter bystanders in general. After that, they answered questions about the different types of bystander behaviour they are confronted with in their daily work, how often these behaviours occur, and how they experience these different behaviours. Subsequently, respondents were asked to give a detailed description of an interaction with a helping bystander and an interaction with an obstructing bystander. The interviewer recommended to describe a recent event, to ensure the officers could remember the details of the interaction. The interviewer asked clarification questions or asked for more detail when respondents skipped parts or spoke in abstract terms. 9 interviews were conducted in person, all interviews in person were conducted at the police station where the officer works. However, due to corona measures during the fieldwork, 4 interviews were conducted online via Teams and 2 with a phone call. All respondents signed an informed consent letter. The interviews were recorded with a password protected audio recorder, and were later transcribed and pseudonymised in the Secure Analytics Lab of the Netherlands Institute for the Study of Crime and Law Enforcement (NSCR). Some of the quotes from the interviews are slightly edited for clarity in the article (e.g., stuttering was removed), but no words were changed in order to stay as close to the intended meaning as possible.

The descriptions of situations during the interviews pushed officers to describe their experiences with bystanders in concrete and detailed ways, rather than on an abstract and general level. Additionally, the description and reflections of the officer give insight into the way officers make sense of bystander actions and how they view their own role and bystanders’ role in specific situations.

Participant observations

In addition to the interviews, the first author joined police officers on 12 shifts in total. 8 shifts in large cities, and 4 in a middle ranged city. 6 shifts were with a so-called ‘public order team’ in a nightlife area, 4 shifts were emergency service, and 1 shift was with a neighbourhood officer. We chose this variation as police-bystander interactions could be influenced by the type of shift. More bystanders are present in nightlife areas, but the task of police officers is less varied than during emergency service, as mediating in conflicts is the majority of the work for public order team, while emergency services react to all types of emergency calls. Additionally, neighbourhood officers are better known by residents, which could influence the dynamics between officers and bystanders as well. One limitation is that participant observations did not take place in rural areas. During the shifts, the first author made notes on her phone about every incident or encounter with a citizen, the following aspects were noted down: the time, the type of incident/encounter, the number of bystanders present, a short description of bystander actions, officer actions towards bystanders. When there was time after encounters, the officers were asked about their experiences with the bystanders, for instance whether they were aware of them and what they thought about their actions. Additionally, a lot of time was spent in the car or at the police station during a break or administration tasks, when relevant topics were discussed, this was written down as well. Right after the shifts the notes were further elaborated in detail.

Data integration

The observations are used to supplement the interview data. The interviews focus on the experience and narrative of the officers. The interviews were likely biased towards more eventful situations where bystanders had a relatively big role, or that the officer could remember well. Situations such as arrests, chasing suspects and fights or traffic incidents with injured victims were discussed relatively often in relation to how often it occurs in their work. The observations give insights in subtle bystander behaviours that officers might not notice or remember, and allowed the researcher to ask the officers questions about these behaviours. Additionally, the researcher could observe how officers talk about bystanders to one another as well as the impact of bystanders on police officers on an average workday. At the same time, it would have taken many hours of shadowing to observe all the situations that officers described in the interviews. Therefore the combination of interviews and observations allows to paint a more complete picture of police experiences with bystander actions across a wide variation of situations. As not all bystander actions are both observed and discussed, and the methods are used to supplement each other rather than triangulate, the methods are not separated in the results section.

Analysis strategy

We decided to not define bystanders or what bystander actions entail a priori during the interviews, but rather ask officers how they would describe bystanders. Police officers often have little information when they enter the scene, therefore a too strict definition, excluding acquaintances for instance or only including certain specific actions, would not make sense. From the interviews we learned that police officers define bystanders as people who are present at the scene, excluding conflict parties, suspects and victims. However, initial bystanders could later become involved as conflict parties for instance, therefore the roles at the time of police arrival are significant.

For the analysis, interviews were coded in Atlas.ti. Inspired by Deterding and Waters (2021), we used a flexible coding approach. This means that the coding was a combination of a deductive and inductive approach as we were guided by important categories that arose from the research question, but were also open to information in the data that did not fit the a priori categories (e.g., Charmaz, 2000; Glaser and Strauss, 1967).

First, for every respondent, their years of experience and their general description of bystanders was coded. Subsequently, all descriptions of actions by bystanders and police officers were coded. Later, similar behaviours were combined to reduce the amount of codes. In this way, the analysis started close to the data to avoid too much interpretation early in the process. Additionally, every situation was categorised by the combination of the main police task and the bystander reaction, e.g., ‘Situation arrest hindering bystander’. Using these categorizations, we could identify what bystanders did in different types of situations, and how the police perceived and reacted to the bystanders.

Ethics

The research proposal was positively reviewed by the Ethics Committee for Legal and Criminological Research (CERCO) of the Faculty of Law, Free University Amsterdam (VU).

Findings

The following sections discuss four themes that officers experience in their contact with bystanders: being watched, negotiating space, being helped, and facing criticism and aggression. For each theme, the behaviour of the bystanders will be described, followed by officer experiences.

Before the specific themes are discussed, we give an overview of the general statements officers made about bystanders. The idea that bystanders are predominantly passive is not only dominant in social psychology (in line with the influential study of Latané & Darley, 1969), but also plays an important role in the perception of the interviewed police officers. When respondents were asked to give a general description of bystanders, 8 officers mentioned bystanders are often watching, sometimes in combination with filming. Officer 13 illustrated this assumption with an example: ‘Sometimes they say: While someone is drowning, 50 people are watching along the waterside and the only one who jumps into the water is the firefighter.’

However, officers also acknowledge that bystander behaviour differs per situation. The varying roles that bystanders play are reflected by the general descriptions. 4 officers mentioned helping behaviours such as providing first aid and pointing out the suspect. 8 officers mentioned interfering with their work and opposing them, which aligns with previous research where officers unanimously responded that bystanders always make the situation more complicated (Van Reemst et al., 2024). Almost all officers in this study pointed out that the risk of bystander obstruction is highest in nightlife areas, because people often come in groups and consume alcohol. Furthermore, officers experience that bystanders behave differently in different neighbourhoods. Subsequently, they often made a distinction on the basis of the socio-economic composition of the neighbourhood, and mentioned differences in how much trust these citizens had in the police, and how formal their interactions with bystanders were.

Being watched

During the observations, police presence attracted attention from bystanders. While some bystanders just turn their head and continue their way, other bystanders stop to watch what is happening, and some of them even get their cell phone to film the incident. The most observed behaviour was bystanders who walked, cycled, or drove by and turned their heads to watch or hear what was going on. Some people lowered their pace, and others stopped. During the observations a bystander said: ‘What is going on here, 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 … police officers!’ Indicating that the presence of (a large number of) police officers could draw attention from passers-by.

Being watched is a regular part of police work, as was mentioned during the interviews. Officers are aware of their visible role when they are on the street and the effect their actions on the street have on the public’s image of the police in general. Officer 3 used the metaphor ‘standing in a house of glass’ to describe this experience. Officer 9 was attentive to how his performance might impact peoples’ general evaluation of the police: ‘But I am always very aware of the people who are just watching my performance and that they take that image of the police to the next birthday party.’

As officers regularly expressed to care about the image of the police, negative posts on social media bother them more than the filming itself:

Officer 4: That depends on what happens with those videos. You know, I don’t mind if they film, they should know that for themselves, that’s their right. We work in uniform on the street, but it gets annoying when they start cutting and then posting parts of the video on social media. The whole story is hardly ever visible.

Because they find it important that citizens form a positive image of them as a police officer specifically and the police in general, they are annoyed by the fact that people distribute video images with the aim of putting the police in a negative light. The accounts of officers show that watching and filming bystanders increases the feeling of being evaluated and possibly criticised. Their concern with police’s image aligns with procedural justice theory that emphasises the importance of positive citizen experiences with the police (Tyler, 2003). The increase of filming bystanders has reinforced the feeling of visibility and the fear of negative framing of police online (Newell, 2019).

Negotiating public space

As police officers often operate in public space, varying from residential areas to busy shopping streets, citizens use that same public space, for instance for having a fun night out, for doing their groceries or for going to work.

One of the most discussed themes during the interviews was the so-called ‘safe working space’, police officers always want to create. This means that everyone needs to be at a safe distance, so officers have time and space to respond. Everyone who is too close, is experienced as a safety risk. Creating a safe working space in a busy area often means that some colleagues form a line or circle to keep people at a distance, while other colleagues perform the task that is needed. Especially in hectic situations, officers often do not differentiate between bystanders who are related to the conflict or not.

In some cases police officers often cordon off streets, for instance to secure access for the ambulance and fire brigade, or to investigate a crime scene. In these cases, they block the road by parking their car or bike in a strategic way, or they draw a tape across the street. As such, bystanders might be stuck in a traffic jam, have to take a different route than they usually do, or are (temporarily) not able to go to their home. To make sure no one crosses the tape, some officers have to guard the tape. In 10 interviews, officers stated that they often encounter obstructive bystanders in this situation, i.e., bystanders who do not agree with the fact that they cannot pass. This may lead to verbal conflict, and in some cases even arrest of the bystander.

Additionally, officers mentioned that ‘curious bystanders’ approach the tape and ask many questions about what is happening. During the police shifts, we mostly observed curious bystanders who asked many questions about what was going on, for instance a curious neighbour who asked who was involved in the fight.

Although police emphasised how important it is to cordon off the street, they also stated that stopping people is not the most exciting task and can become exhausting. Especially when a lot of bystanders come to them with the same questions and remarks:

For instance when you are standing at the tape after a shooting and people want to pass it, the one person makes a comment like ‘I want to pass, I live there’. And then you explain: ‘well that is not possible now’. But then another second and a third and a fourth and you are constantly explaining that it is not allowed and having a discussion with different kinds of people. And then there is not one specific person who is annoying, but the situation does make it annoying because you constantly encounter all kinds of angry people.

Conflicts with bystanders often seem to result from a difference in risk assessment, e.g., because police officers have information about the situation that bystanders lack. Additionally, police officers perceive bystanders to be primarily occupied with their own activities, rather than with what could be happening behind the tape. The following excerpt illustrates this:

Officer 9: When I’m standing with my bulletproof vest near a bank robbery with my gun still in my hand, sometimes people are capable to tap me on my shoulder like ‘gosh may I pass by sir, because I have to be around the corner.’ Then I think, can’t you see I’m standing here with my gun? Why should I be standing here with my firearm and my heavy vest? But even if I say, Ma’am, it’s unsafe. ‘Yes, but I have to withdraw money!’

As this dialogue shows, Officer 9 expects that the bystander is capable of judging the situation as too risky, and subsequently grows frustrated that the woman does not take him seriously after he communicates the safety risks.

Creating a safe working space is about controlling the setting and situation, especially in chaotic situations (G. Alpert et al., 2020). Although bystanders who are in the way might not even be aware of it, in the eyes of officers they might be an obstacle or even a safety risks which shows the danger imperative of officers (Sierra‐Arévalo, 2021).

Being helped

Officers receive help from bystanders in various ways. First, bystanders can give important information to the police. Bystanders who have witnessed an incident might have important information for the police about what exactly happened and who were involved. Furthermore, when officers were patrolling it happened multiple times that a citizen would come to an officer and would say something like: ‘Some people are fighting over there around the corner’. Additionally, bystanders might have important information because of their social relations to victims or suspects. For instance during observations, when two people became unwell after taking drugs, their friend could tell the police what drugs they had taken and when. In this way, it could be ruled out that they were drugged by someone else inside the club.

On the one hand, police officers are pleased with bystanders who provide information, for instance by testifying. Officer 6 mentioned that most police action is in response to calls by citizens, who are often bystanders. Officer 3 particularly finds bystanders helpful witnesses when they are not involved in the conflict or related to the conflict parties. Officer 3: ‘Bystanders can be very helpful for you, as an independent source of information. Because you know how it goes, people always tell their side of the story of course. They will not agree with the opposing party.’ On the other hand, officers sometimes question the reliability of the information provided by bystanders, for instance Officer 13:

Of course that is information, but it also depends very much on the situation. If it happens in a nightlife area and you come to an incident somewhere with 400 people, you don’t rely on one person. Or it is a security guard, as we work together with them a little, then you would believe them over some drunk guy.

A second way that bystanders facilitate the police is by de-escalating or taking their acquaintances away. Bystanders intervened when their friends or family members were drunk, emotional or in a conflict by talking to them, comforting them, removing them from a conflict, or taking them home. For example, during the observations, a man was arguing with a security guard, as he did not allow him to enter the club. A friend was trying to calm him down by patting his shoulder. When the man starts pushing the security guard, two friends take him by his arm and drag him to the other side of the street. The police officers observed the event from a distance and walked behind the friends when they took the man away. If the friends would not have intervened, the conflict could have escalated to the point that the police needed to physically intervene. Officers acknowledged that they (or the uniform) sometimes have an escalating effect, and that acquaintances are more capable to de-escalate the situation. They therefore sometimes stimulate bystanders to take up this role. 5 police officers mentioned that in nightlife areas, they regularly ask friends to take their drunk friend away to prevent an arrest.

In the case of accidents with victims, bystanders are often the first who can provide first aid. This is a third form of helping behaviour. Police mostly arrive before the ambulance, and work together with bystanders before other professionals can take over.

Police officers acknowledged the important role of bystanders and voluntary aid workers, especially in rural areas where it takes longer for the police and ambulance to arrive. As the police has multiple tasks after an accident (i.e., blocking the road, talking to witnesses, possibly arresting suspects), it is a big help when the victims are already taken care of by other parties. They have more trust in bystanders who declare they had first aid training:

Officer 7: With accidents or in any way injuries or something like that, they often come to help. Literally every traffic accident you arrive at, there is always someone who says ‘I have [a] first aid [certificate]’ and they are already taking care of the victim or whatever. Or they’re holding the neck or that sort of things. You often come to the scene that people have actually already started CPR. That role is quite large, because they can get there earlier and faster and the more time you gain there the better. If it goes well, you let them do their thing and then you see what you can do around it.

While police officers are pleased with the help, they are hesitant to ask bystanders for help when it is not necessary, as they do not want to expose bystanders to potentially traumatizing events. Another reason that police officers are reluctant to ask for help, is that they are trained and used to working together with colleagues. That is why they would only ask for help from citizens when they see no other option

Bystanders also provided practical help to the police such as getting towels for a victim or grabbing traffic cones from the police car when the street needs to be blocked. Bystanders also help by removing objects that are in the way, such as bikes or car parts that are lying on the road. In some cases when officers were chasing a suspect, bystanders helped by offering their bike or car.

In comparison to providing first aid, practical help requires less training and does not expose bystanders to as much trauma. The following case illustrates how a bystander helped, and the officers were really happy with it, but would not have asked for help:

Officer 5: And then he [the suspect] just goes full throttle, he drives away (.) And then all at once out of a street, I think it was a blue Opel Astra, with a man who says: ‘Do you need my car?’ and he gets out, he keeps the engine running and my colleague gets into that car and he races away after that car [with the fleeing suspect]. And that man was a bit like ‘yeah well if I can help, isn’t it nice? And maybe your colleague will wreck my car, then I can get a new one.’ Very friendly, really fun.

A last category of helping behaviour is providing physical help. This type of behaviour was not encountered during the observations, 5 situations of this type of help were discussed during interviews. In two situations, bystanders helped when a suspect was resisting his arrest (e.g., by grabbing a leg or holding the suspect). In two situations bystanders helped when a suspect was chased (e.g., by blocking the suspect with arms and body, chasing the suspect together with the police), and in one case bystanders helped to keep an aggressive crowd at a distance. The following case illustrates how Officer 14 was helped by bystanders as he was in need of urgent help to prevent that he would be victimised:

Officer 14: Yet he didn’t want to cooperate with that either, so he pulls away and he starts to fight me. And I heard over the transceiver that colleagues were already on their way, but that always takes a few minutes. So there were a number of people from the municipality, who were sweeping the street with a sweeper and some brooms, and they came running right away and they put that man to the ground with me, so that I could handcuff him and that he could be transported to the police station.

During arrests, police officers do not ask for help, as they put bystanders at a great risk of victimization. Another type of ‘bystander’ are security guards, their role was discussed in 6 interviews. Officers in nightlife areas work in close collaboration with guards, and if officers need help they would rather ask a guard than a citizen.

While officers are cautious with asking for help during arrests, they are more inclined to ask for help from bystanders when they are chasing a suspect. A case where a bystander helped was illustrated by Officer 7:

Like in a movie we chased the suspect through the gardens, over fences, and then you notice that such a boy in sneakers can be a lot faster than us with all that stuff we wear and I can see him about 50 meters in front of me, I see two people walking towards him, they are just walking there. So I call on them ‘Hey we have to have that guy!’ I don’t remember exactly what I said, but at that moment those people go and stand in front of him and they block him. And because of that we could get him. So that is a nice one. Because otherwise we would never have had him. Never.

As described above, bystanders provide help in various important ways, and when that help is needed it is appreciated by officers. That bystanders are willing to help the police, also shows they have a certain level of trust in the police (Tyler, 2003). In most cases, however, officers are hesitant to accept help. They doubt whether they can trust the information of bystanders or whether they have enough skills to be helpful, and they fear that bystanders could become traumatized or victimized in some situations. Allowing bystanders to help reduces their control and authority in the situation (G. Alpert et al., 2020). Refusing unwanted help creates tension, however, as officers are aware that they rely on help and compliance by bystanders, and that harshly telling them to leave could negatively impact bystanders’ view of the police.

Facing criticism and aggression

When bystanders watch police action, in some cases they verbally obstruct officers by screaming, saying or yelling something to the police. Some comments are insults related to ‘the uniform’ and the police. Other comments criticise how officers perform their work. Negative remarks about their performance are largely related to, firstly, proportionality of police action in relation to the offence. For instance, during a fining conversation, bystanders might say: ‘You’re not going to give that person a ticket right? You can just give a warning.’ Secondly, to the level of force that is used by the police, for instance, bystanders might scream: ‘You are chocking him!’ And thirdly, unequal treatment of citizens, officers are for example accused of racism or sexism by bystanders. Bystanders have been heard to shout for instance: ‘That’s not normal! They only do this because he is black!’ during an arrest. Officers also mentioned that using force against women or young people is more often met with verbal resistance from bystanders.

Insulting an officer is illegal in the Netherlands, and officers can choose to arrest the insulter. There were great individual differences between officers, however, about when they feel offended and when they would arrest someone for an insult. The number of bystanders that could hear the insult, was an important factor in the decision making process of officers:

But you are insulted in public, because it is not only that circle of friends that is present that hears the insult, but also the 100 bystanders who have arrived in the meantime. And to what extent, if you don’t act then. That paints a picture of the police of: ‘They let them walk all over them, look, someone calls him asshole and he just gets away with it!’

Being accused of racism was mentioned in 5 interviews in different contexts. In all cases, officers found it hard to react to that as they were convinced they did not treat people different on the basis of race, and it therefore contradicts their self-perceived identity.

A police officer explained how he experienced being called a racist by a bystander, when he fined a black man for throwing dirty water into the drain on the street after washing his car:

Officer 4: If you call me a racist, then you are really insulting me. And then I feel really offended, because I’m not a racist at all. (.) Then I cried the whole ride back to the office. I was so pissed off that someone personally attacks me about how I do my job. He was really convinced that I gave him a fine, because I was a racist or something.

Officers are bothered by negative verbal remarks as it paints a negative picture of them personally or of the police in general. Additionally, it undermines their authority in the situation (G. Alpert et al., 2020; Sykes & Clark, 1975). These accounts show that bystanders have the power to influence the definition of the situation and the role and image of the officers, which makes it harder for officers to be in control of the interaction and their own image.

During the observations it was quite rare that bystanders would physically hinder police officers other than standing in the way. Yet in the interviews, 14 officers described a situation where they were physically hindered during arrests, and in almost all situations these bystanders were acquainted with the suspect. Additionally, officers emphasised that it mostly occurred in nightlife areas. In 3 cases, the suspect also asked for help from bystanders.

The most common behaviours were pushing and pulling either the officer or the suspect, in order to prevent the suspect from being arrested. This was mentioned in 10 of the interviews. In some extreme cases the physical hindrance involved hitting and kicking (in 4 interviews), spitting (in 2 interviews) and violence with an object (in 3 interviews). One officer described an arrest where ‘bystanders tried to save their friend’ by ‘Grabbing him and trying to pull him into the bar, to prevent us from arresting him’. This description is exemplary of officers’ experience that mainly acquaintances intervene with the goal of helping their friend by preventing the arrest.

In contrast to insults, physical obstruction is not experienced as a personal attack, but rather as a lack of goal alignment between police and the involved citizens:

Officer 3: I never take it so personally. At that moment I am the police officer who has to arrest that boy. And they want to prevent that. They won’t even think about my humanity, like ‘oh he also has a family at home’. But I don’t think it’s directed at me personally. And it is usually when the arrest is finished, then it is actually immediately over. Because then you walk through the city as couples again and no one touches you.

Arrests, especially in nightlife areas increase the risk of bystander conflict in the eyes of most officers. In 8, interviews officers mentioned that nightlife areas increase the risk of obstructing bystanders and in all interviews bystanders that obstructed arrests were mentioned. Police officers adjust their strategy accordingly:

Officer 15: arrest right away out of sight of the public, do your job as quickly as possible, because it attracts attention. Because if you keep arguing and you will have so many people against you a moment later, then you will have the whole nightlife area that you have to wipe clean with the baton. So that’s why we want to de-escalate and act as quickly as possible.

Physical obstruction seems to be in line with the expectations about bystanders who have a social relationship with the arrestee. As officers expect resistance in the case of an arrest and are trained to use force, they are still in control of the situation. As resistance is expected and large groups of bystanders increase the risk of escalation in the eyes of officers, they try to perform arrests in quiet locations.

Discussion

The main purpose of this study was to gain insight into how officers relate to bystanders and perceive different types of bystander actions. This was investigated through interviews with police officers and participant observations during police shifts.

The qualitative nature of the study enabled us to gain insight into the wide variety of bystander behaviours that police officers experienced, even in a relatively small sample. This contrasts the assumption of passivity in the traditional bystander research (e.g., Latané & Darley, 1969), yet aligns with more recent observational studies that argue that bystanders have an active and influential role during conflicts (Levine et al., 2011; Parks et al., 2013; Philpot et al., 2020). Police officers discussed their experiences with bystanders who watch and film them, or walk through their safe working space, but also bystanders who try to help them by giving information, de-escalating or providing medical, physical or practical help. Lastly they discussed criticism and aggression from bystanders. These findings show that bystander actions are more varied than the binary categories used in previous research (Bloch et al., 2018; Ejbye-Ernst et al., 2022; Van; Baak et al., 2023). A narrow definition of intervention could result in excluding important bystander behaviours, or could lead to an underestimation of bystander activity. It is therefore crucial that future (video observational) research includes a broader range of actions. The current study shows that methods such as interviewing and observation can inform quantitative studies in creating meaningful categories.

By combining two theoretical perspectives, the article provides insights into police officers’ experiences. Both the procedural justice framework (Tyler, 2003) and the authority maintenance theory (G. Alpert et al., 2020) help to understand the goals police officers have and the role expectations they have of themselves and bystanders during encounters with citizens. However, both theories fail to capture the complete experience on their own, consideration and dilemmas of police officers during these interactions. While the focus of authority maintenance is purely on the role of police officers (i.e., they should have authoritative power and be in control), the procedural justice perspective focuses primarily on citizens’ experience of police fairness. Combining both theories when studying police perspective on bystander actions, highlights how officers need to balance the relation with citizens. In order to perform their work properly, officers rely on bystander help and compliance, yet also need to control them. The current study combined these perspectives and shows that control and positive citizen perceptions are both important goals for police officers, and these goals are at times conflicting.

Our findings highlight the importance of investigating the perceptions of police officers, rather than solely the actual behaviour of bystanders. The general statements of officers were overall more focused on passive or negative bystanders compared to the descriptions of specific situations and the observations. It could be that negative experiences have a bigger impact on police officers, and their perceptions are therefore biased towards the possibility of negative or violent bystanders (Baumeister et al., 2001; Rosin & Royzman, 2001; Sierra‐Arévalo, 2021). Additionally, purely on the basis of observations of bystander action, a natural assumption would be that providing help would be viewed as positive by officers, while obstructing actions would be viewed as negative. However, certain obstructing behaviours are expected and seen as part of the job, while certain helping behaviours are viewed as challenging. In line with research on offender perspectives, interviewing other relevant parties, such as offenders, victims, and in this case police officers about their perception of bystanders can lead to surprising findings (Bernasco et al. 2013), which can inform both future research and practice.

Practical implications

The way that police experience bystanders and which actions are perceived as helpful or obstructing gives insight into the challenges officers face during interactions with bystanders, but also the opportunities to cooperate with bystanders. Rather than treating all bystander similar, this research highlights the importance of adjusting strategies to different types of bystander actions and settings. Rather than treating bystanders primarily as passive audience or a safety risk, the findings suggest that police training should also focus on how officers can deal with being watched and filmed, how they can best negotiate public space with bystanders, how and when they can cooperate with bystanders or refuse help in a friendly manner, in addition to dealing with criticism and aggression. As officers are concerned with both being in control and acting fair towards bystanders, training should focus on how both goals can be reached. As actions that are intended as helpful by bystanders can create challenges for officers while obstructing behaviour can be seen as expected and ‘part of the job’, it is important that police trainers are aware of these inconsistencies.

Better training on how to interact with bystanders can improve police legitimacy and can create more positive interactions with bystanders, which could in turn influence officer perceptions of bystanders. Future research should further explore when and how police officers could cooperate with bystanders.

Limitations

Although it is important to learn about officer accounts of bystanders, the results portray a police view rather than an objective description of bystanders’ actual behaviour and intentions. The choice for studying retrospective accounts of officers can show a biased picture, that highlight some actions and overlook other actions. Future research should therefore look further into what bystanders actually do, for instance through systematic observation. A limitation related to the observations is that the presence of a researcher could influence both police and bystander behaviour. Systematic video observation based on CCTV or body worn cameras could solve this issue. Additionally, little can be said about bystander perceptions and motivations on the basis of this research. To address this gap, future studies could focus on the bystander perspective.

As limited research has focused on bystanders of police work, the current study was exploratory on the basis of 15 interviews and 12 walk alongs. Quantitative studies could provide more insights about the frequency of certain bystander behaviours, and could investigate what factors influence bystander reactions, such police actions, but also personal characteristics of bystanders, and context variables such as time and location. A limitation of the current study is that the sample was too small to analyse to what extent differences between officers influenced their perceptions. With a larger sample, it would be possible to look at the effect of educational level, training and jurisdiction. Finally, an important avenue for future research could be to replicate this study in different countries, as the topic is also relevant elsewhere. Yet, bystander behaviour might differ in a different national context.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the police officers who gave an interview, who allowed the first author to join their shift, and who facilitated the research process in other ways.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Open University.

Notes on contributors

Marly van Bruchem

Marly van Bruchem is a PhD Candidate at the Open University and the Netherlands Institute for the Study of Crime and Law Enforcement (NSCR), her PhD project focuses on the dynamics of police-bystander encounters. Key questions are what bystanders of police action do and how officers experience and react to them.

Karin Proost

Karin Proost is an Associate Professor in Occupational and Organisational Psychology at the Open University. Her research focuses on factors related to employee well-being and professional development, such as fear of failure, leadership and job design.

Joris van Ruysseveldt

Joris van Ruysseveldt is a Professor in Occupational and Organisational Psychology at the Open University. His research focuses on how employees adapt to changing environments. A key question is how and under what circumstances they succeed in achieving a balance between meeting the requirements of the environment and achieving their own goals, ambitions and motivations.

Marie Rosenkrantz Lindegaard

Marie Rosenkrantz Lindegaard is a Professor of Sociology at the University of Amsterdam and a Senior Researcher at the Netherlands Institute for the Study of Crime and Law Enforcement (NSCR). Her research focuses on interactional dynamics of violence and crime, public space behaviour, and the role of law enforcement officers and bystanders in interpersonal conflicts.