Interpersonal harm remains a pervasive challenge in both higher education and corporate life. Across contexts, individuals must interpret ambiguous social cues, regulate emotional reactions, and decide whether, how, and when to intervene as bystanders of these adversities. Institutions, in turn, structure the opportunities and constraints that shape these judgments. The articles in this Research Topic collectively enrich contemporary scholarship by illustrating how psychological processes and institutional systems jointly influence responses to interpersonal harm, and by demonstrating that these responses cannot be understood through individual psychology alone. Rather than approaching these studies as isolated empirical contributions, this editorial synthesizes the overarching themes that emerge across them. Their convergence provides a coherent picture of the intrapersonal, interpersonal, and structural forces that govern human behavior in the presence of harm.
A central insight across the issue is that observers do not evaluate harmful acts neutrally. Instead, judgments are filtered through personal resources, value systems, and gendered ideologies (e.g., Shi and Zheng, 2021). Following their evaluation, observers' reactions to harmful behavior, whether sexual harassment, exclusion, or informal workplace gossip, were shaped more by the observer's moral orientation and identity than by the objective features of the event. This pattern reflects longstanding empirical evidence that moral judgments arise from intuitive, value-driven processes rather than detached reasoning (Brüggemann et al., 2019) and that gender norms contribute significantly to how observers interpret harassment and aggression (Shi and Zheng, 2021).
Another cross-cutting theme is that empathy, often understood as the foundation of moral responding, is contextually fragile. Individuals reduced their empathic engagement when witnessing social or interpersonal harm. This aligns with contemporary theories of motivated empathy (Zaki, 2014), suggesting that individuals may intentionally down-regulate empathy to avoid personal distress, social cost, or moral conflict. Electroencephalography evidence, showing reduced neural markers of empathy during exposure to social exclusion, strengthens this argument and demonstrates that empathic withdrawal occurs at both the psychological and neurobiological levels. Similar to previous contributions (Itzkovich and Dolev, 2021), the Research Topic, therefore, underscores that empathy is not simply a trait but a resource, influenced by perceived consequences and social context.
While this collective evidence shapes one facet of the overall picture, A unifying insight that emerges from the topic is that interpersonal harm cannot be meaningfully understood through individual psychology alone. Institutional features, hierarchical structures, norms of silence, reporting procedures, cultural expectations, and leadership strongly influence whether individuals recognize harm and take action.
Frameworks adapted within the topic highlight how power asymmetries inhibit intervention, especially in academic contexts where career advancement is contingent on relationships with supervisors. These insights echo research on institutional betrayal (Smith and Freyd, 2014), demonstrating that organizational inaction or complicity can exacerbate harm, suppress reporting, and reinforce cycles of abuse. Across contributions, it became clear that institutional context is not a backdrop but an active mediator of human behavior, shaping the moral calculus that individuals perform when deciding how to respond to harm.
Collectively, the research presented in this issue advocates for a multilevel intervention framework that integrates and aligns individual empowerment, group norm-shaping, and institutional accountability mechanisms. Yet despite this comprehensive approach, empirical evidence reveals a persistent challenge: bystander intervention remains unreliable. While many individuals possess the motivation to intervene, their actions are frequently constrained by emotional self-preservation, ambiguity about appropriate responses, institutional barriers, and concerns about personal or professional repercussions. These limitations suggest that dependence on voluntary human intervention alone is no longer adequate.
This reality underscores the contribution of incorporating artificial intelligence systematically into the detection, prevention, and remediation of interpersonal harm. AI-enabled systems, including automated detection algorithms, behavioral risk assessment tools, and immersive simulation-based training, provide scalable, consistent capabilities for identifying harmful interactions, facilitating timely reporting, and enhancing bystander decision-making in situations where human responses are typically inhibited. Rather than supplanting human discretion, AI functions as a complementary resource that mitigates documented psychological barriers, improves real-time awareness of emerging risks, and establishes clear intervention protocols when individuals are reluctant or unable to act independently.
As workplace harm increasingly manifests through digital channels and complex interpersonal dynamics, AI-augmented frameworks for prevention and intervention constitute an essential evolution in organizational safety infrastructure. We hope these reflections catalyze further research and practical applications toward creating work environments that are both safer and more inclusive.
Figure 1 shows embedding AI at the institutional level. While substantial evidence demonstrates strong interdependencies among the three pillars, each reinforcing and sustaining the others, the integration of AI at the institutional level introduces a novel and promising dimension for both research and theory development.
Figure 1
Statements
Author contributions
YI: Writing – original draft. MH: Methodology, Validation, Visualization, Writing – review & editing. PM-M: Conceptualization, Project administration, Validation, Visualization, Writing – review & editing.
Conflict of interest
The author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declared that generative AI was used in the creation of this manuscript. Generative AI was used for editing.
Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
1
BrüggemannA. J.ForsbergC.ColnerudG.WijmaB.ThornbergR. (2019). Bystander passivity in health care and school settings: moral disengagement, moral distress, and opportunities for moral education. J. Moral Educ.48, 199–213. doi: 10.1080/03057240.2018.1471391
2
ItzkovichY.DolevN. (2021). Rudeness is not only a kids' problem: incivility against preschool teachers and its impacts. Curr. Psychol.40, 2002–2016. doi: 10.1007/s12144-018-0117-z
3
ShiX.ZhengY. (2021). Feminist active commitment and sexual harassment perception among chinese women: the moderating roles of targets' gender stereotypicality and type of harassment. Sex Roles84, 477–490. doi: 10.1007/s11199-020-01180-8
4
SmithC. P.FreydJ. J. (2014). Institutional betrayal. Am. Psychol.69, 575–587. doi: 10.1037/a0037564
5
ZakiJ. (2014). Empathy: a motivated account. Psychol. Bull.140, 1608–1647. doi: 10.1037/a0037679
Summary
Keywords
artificial intelligence, bystanders, interventions, observers, workplace bullying
Citation
Itzkovich Y, Hodgins M and Mannix-McNamara P (2026) Editorial: Bystanders' roles in workplace bullying: impacts and interventions. Front. Psychol. 17:1763120. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1763120
Received
08 December 2025
Accepted
03 February 2026
Published
05 March 2026
Volume
17 - 2026
Edited and reviewed by
Darren C. Treadway, Niagara University, United States
Updates
Copyright
© 2026 Itzkovich, Hodgins and Mannix-McNamara.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Yariv Itzkovich, yarivi@ariel.ac.il
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.