Research Proposal Idea: Video Recording ICE and the Role of Cognitive Dissonance in the Bystander Effect
Title: Witnessing Through the Lens: Filming Immigration Enforcement and the Role of Cognitive Dissonance in the Bystander Effect
Note: This is a research proposal we do not currently have the resources to carry out. If this topic interests you, please feel free to pursue it further. All we ask is that you cite this blog as the source of inspiration.
We’ve been noticing a powerful pattern in videos of U.S. immigration enforcement: crowds of people filming as ICE agents confront unarmed individuals, often without anyone stepping in directly. Why do so many choose to record instead of intervene? Could filming be a way of easing the moral discomfort of standing by, a kind of digital bystander effect? Below, we’ve drafted a research proposal exploring this question. While we don’t have the time or resources to pursue it ourselves, we hope others will take it up. If you do, please cite us—we’d love to see where it goes.
1. Background and Rationale
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) encounters in the United States are frequently filmed and circulated online, often showing agents confronting or using force against unarmed individuals. These videos routinely feature crowds of bystanders who do not intervene physically but instead record the events with their phones.
This phenomenon raises important psychological and sociological questions:
Is smartphone recording a new manifestation of the bystander effect?
Does it function as a coping mechanism for the cognitive dissonance that arises when moral obligation clashes with perceived danger?
How does the act of filming both resist and normalize state violence in public spaces?
Understanding this dynamic can shed light on broader questions about civic responsibility, media, and collective responses to authority.
2. Research Questions
How do bystanders justify filming instead of physically intervening during ICE enforcement encounters?
To what extent does smartphone recording alleviate cognitive dissonance associated with inaction?
How do bystanders perceive their recordings—as resistance, documentation, or passive coping?
Do demographic factors (e.g., gender, ethnicity, immigration status, perceived social power) influence whether bystanders film, intervene, or disengage?
How do audiences who later view these recordings interpret the morality and adequacy of bystander behavior?
3. Hypotheses
H1: Filming functions as a coping mechanism, reducing cognitive dissonance by reframing inaction as action.
H2: The prevalence of cameras diffuses responsibility further, reinforcing the bystander effect.
H3: Bystanders are more likely to film when the target is a vulnerable figure (e.g., young women, children), but physical intervention rates do not increase proportionally.
H4: Audiences retrospectively view filming as both necessary (for accountability) and insufficient (for immediate protection).
4. Theoretical Framework
Bystander Effect (Darley & Latané, 1968): Explains diffusion of responsibility in groups.
Cognitive Dissonance Theory (Festinger, 1957): Explains psychological discomfort when behavior (inaction) conflicts with beliefs (moral obligation).
Mediated Witnessing (Frosh, Pinchevski, 2009): Frames smartphone filming as a practice of bearing witness in a digital society.
Spectacle and Surveillance (Debord, Foucault): Situates the filming within broader dynamics of power, visibility, and social control.
5. Methodology
Phase 1: Content Analysis
Sample: 200 publicly available videos of ICE encounters (2015–2025).
Coding categories: Number of bystanders present, number filming, presence of intervention, demographics of target, presence of verbal protest, outcome of event.
Goal: Establish empirical patterns of filming vs. intervention.
Phase 2: Survey and Interviews
Participants:
General public (N=500) surveyed about hypothetical scenarios.
Subsample of individuals who have personally filmed ICE or police encounters (N=30) for in-depth interviews.
Measures:
Self-reported moral obligation.
Perceived risk of intervention.
Cognitive dissonance (using adapted scales).
Perceived legitimacy of filming as a response.
Goal: Identify psychological mechanisms that underlie filming as an alternative to intervention.
Phase 3: Audience Reception Study
Design: Participants (N=200) watch selected videos and evaluate bystander actions.
Measures: Perceived adequacy of filming, moral evaluation of bystanders, emotional responses.
Goal: Understand how broader publics interpret and normalize (or critique) bystander filming.
6. Ethical Considerations
Protection of bystander and subject identities when using video data.
Sensitivity to participants with precarious immigration status.
Avoiding retraumatization during interviews (trauma-informed approach).
Clear communication that research does not put participants at legal risk.
7. Expected Contributions
A new model of the “digital bystander effect” where recording mediates between action and inaction.
Insight into how cognitive dissonance shapes civic engagement in high-risk encounters.
Empirical evidence on whether smartphone documentation is resistance, coping, or both.
Practical implications for activist training, bystander intervention programs, and media literacy.
8. Timeline
Months 1–3: Literature review, instrument design.
Months 4–6: Content analysis of videos.
Months 7–12: Surveys and interviews.
Months 13–15: Audience reception study.
Months 16–18: Data analysis and write-up.
9. References
Darley, J. M., & Latané, B. (1968). Bystander intervention in emergencies: Diffusion of responsibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
Festinger, L. (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford University Press.
Frosh, P., & Pinchevski, A. (2009). Media witnessing: Testimony in the age of mass communication.
Debord, G. (1967). Society of the Spectacle.
Foucault, M. (1975). Discipline and Punish.
Table of Contents
