Summary: This study explores why some people rush into danger to help others while others hesitate, even when risking harm is part of their job.
Source: The Conversation
After an 18-year-old gunman killed 19 elementary school children and two teachers in Uvalde, Texas, distraught parents directed their anger at the multiple police officers who did not enter the classroom where children were being shot. A wounded teacher who survived criticized those officers as “cowards.”
Some reports suggest that a broken chain of command may have been more decisive than a lack of courage. Still, the decisions made by those officers stand in stark contrast to the immediate bravery shown by others in similarly dangerous situations.
By contrast, in August 2015 three young American men on a crowded train from Paris to Amsterdam confronted a heavily armed attacker and subdued him, risking their own safety to protect fellow passengers. These men are widely praised as heroes.
Why do only some people act with split-second physical bravery while others do not? Psychological researchers, including those working in evolutionary and personality psychology, have investigated this question. Across many studies, men are generally more willing than women to take physical risks to help others.
Understanding why some men rise to the occasion while others hesitate has proven more difficult.
A ‘guy thing’?
The Carnegie Medal recognizes citizens in the United States and Canada who risk their lives trying to save others. In 2022, 15 of the 16 Carnegie Medal recipients were men. That pattern is consistent with broader observations about gender and physically risky heroism.
Heroism and courage come in many forms, and both men and women display moral courage, whistleblowing, and acts that risk reputation or social standing. But when the danger is physical—such as confronting an active shooter or an armed attacker—people often expect men to take the lead. Evolutionary explanations help account for this expectation.
One influential idea is that in many societies men have historically gained status—and therefore greater access to mates—by proving their courage and strength. Failing to display bravery can damage a man’s reputation in ways that it typically does not for women. This social pressure helps explain why some men are particularly motivated to show physical courage.
That said, men who perform heroic acts rarely report carefully weighing future benefits. Interviews with male Carnegie Medal winners indicate that heroic responses are often intuitive and impulsive rather than calculated attempts to impress others. The impulse to act, and to survive the danger, functions as a visible signal of desirable qualities and may have been favored by evolutionary pressures.
Bravery as a mating strategy
The connection between bravery and mating motives has long been observed. Historical accounts, such as those describing warriors competing for attention in the presence of women, echo contemporary psychological findings: altruistic behavior that displays physical courage tends to be especially admired.
Laboratory research supports the idea that men become more willing to endure pain or take risks when attractive women are present and when other men serve as potential competitors. Other studies have found that men’s generosity and risky helping behavior can increase in the presence of an attractive member of the opposite sex; this pattern does not appear to apply to women in the same way.
Analyses of historical data suggest that men who received high honors for bravery have, on average, had more children than comparable men who did not receive such recognition, consistent with the hypothesis that conspicuous heroism can be linked to reproductive advantages. Women also rated combat heroism as sexually attractive more than similar success in sports or business. Notably, when women displayed heroism in combat, it did not produce the same increase in perceived attractiveness among men.
The hero and the … psychopath?
Not everyone will step forward when someone needs help. Is there a distinct “heroic” personality type? People often imagine heroes as conscientious, open, extroverted, agreeable and emotionally stable. But research on real-life heroes and first responders paints a more complex picture.
Some studies report that individuals who perform heroic acts, and certain emergency responders such as firefighters, score high on traits that overlap with characteristics often linked to psychopathy: a tolerance for risk, sensation seeking, calmness under pressure, and a tendency to take charge in tense situations. These traits can facilitate decisive action in emergencies, but they do not mean that heroes are psychopaths. The study of personality and heroism is still developing, and psychologists cannot yet predict reliably who will act heroically in a crisis.
Frequently, heroes are ordinary people thrust into extraordinary circumstances who respond instinctively. Conversely, trained individuals can sometimes hesitate in critical moments—examples include officers who failed to act during school shootings.
There will unfortunately be more crises that demand true heroism. Understanding how situational factors, social expectations, and personality traits interact may help encourage courageous action when it matters most.
About this psychology research news
Author: Frank T. McAndrew
Source: The Conversation
Contact: Frank T. McAndrew – The Conversation
Image: The image is in the public domain