Dear editor,

Through this article, I would like to provide further response regarding the recently published article “Experiences with health information among caregivers of people with cancer from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds: A qualitative study” (Yuen et al. Reference Yuen, Hale and Wilson2024). If analyzed further, this article provides further knowledge that explores the diverse cultural and linguistic background factors of caregivers that contribute to nursing resilience for cancer sufferers. However, this article has not discussed the problems that often arise in the work environment, which can affect a person’s resilience at work, namely the experience of bullying in the workplace. I think it is also important to discuss further about this intervention to get to the root of the problems.

Based on the results of existing research, one of the root problems that causes workers or caregivers to experience stress, mental workload, and anxiety is when they experience bullying at work. This topic is rarely discussed, so I feel the need to discuss this matter more explicitly. Bullying and aggression in the workplace often occur (Hershcovis et al. Reference Hershcovis, Reich and Niven2015; Munro and Phillips Reference Munro and Phillips2023; Wood et al. Reference Wood, Braeken and Niven2013), both verbally (Radliff Reference Radliff, Lipinski and Crothers2013), sexual harassment (Ramdeo and Singh Reference Ramdeo, Singh, Özge Gürsoy, Meltem Yilmaz and Derya2023), or via cyber (Farley et al. Reference Farley, Coyne and D’Cruz2021; Privitera and Campbell Reference Privitera and Campbell2009). This case, of course, can have an impact on the victim’s psychology (Farley et al. Reference Farley, Mokhtar and Ng2023; Fitzpatrick et al. Reference Fitzpatrick, Cotter and Bernfeld2011; Sprigg et al. Reference Sprigg, Niven and Dawson2019), work situation (Lawrence Reference Lawrence and Tehrani2001), job satisfaction (Rodríguez-Muñoz et al. Reference Rodríguez-Muñoz, Baillien and De Witte2009), and the behavior of bystanders who witnessed the event (Ng et al. Reference Ng, Niven and Notelaers2022). The decision of a bystander to be empathetic or apathetic (Hortensius and De Gelder Reference Hortensius and De Gelder2018), of course, is based on various reasons. There is a temporary suspicion that a bystander could be used to express that they empathize with the victim so that the victim does not feel ashamed and becomes more depressed, so they pretend they do not know. Or it could be because they are apathetic and do not care about what happens to other people.

Furthermore, some studies explained that empathetic personalities greatly influence a person’s behavior in their daily lives toward other people (Fredrick et al. Reference Fredrick, Jenkins and Ray2020), especially when they see bullying behavior in front of them. Apart from that, some studies explained that social closeness also determines an observer’s attitude (Passarelli and Buchanan Reference Passarelli and Buchanan2020), whether they are empathetic or vice versa, namely apathetic. There is also a temporary suspicion that someone with social closeness with the victim of bullying will defend and help the victim. On the other hand, if someone has social closeness to the victim of bullying they will tend to be apathetic. They feel that the victim is getting a joke, or they do not dare to take a stand because they are worried that the victim will get even worse criticism if they are defended. Does this have something to do with someone’s empathetic personality? (Mitsopoulou and Giovazolias Reference Mitsopoulou and Giovazolias2015). So there is a different attitude, namely being empathetic or apathetic. In recent studies, bystander’s behavior related to empathetic and empathetic is expressed in other terms, namely constructive and destructive (Paull et al. Reference Paull, Omari and Standen2012). Furthermore, these 2 behaviors are explained in more detail by Paull et al. (Reference Paull, Omari and Standen2012) and Ng et al. (Reference Ng, Niven and Hoel2020), that basically is divided into 4 typologies, namely active constructive, passive constructive, active destructive, and passive destructive. Once again, this study has not explained further about its relationship with the 2 variables previously described, namely empathic personalities and social closeness.

Related to the above analysis, I am interested in further research to find out the effectiveness of providing counseling intervention with the latest theory with music to increase the constructiveness of destructive bystanders through increase the potential of empathic personalities and awareness of social closeness, namely “rapid counseling” with single-session music therapy which is considered entirely appropriate in responding to these challenges (Situmorang Reference Situmorang2021, Reference Situmorang2022a, Reference Situmorang2022b). In its development, this intervention has been tested for its effectiveness on one of the COVID-19 patients (Situmorang Reference Situmorang2023a) and won a world record award (Situmorang Reference Situmorang2023b). In addition, this intervention is recommended to be implemented in the Metaverse in the future (Situmorang Reference Situmorang2023c). This theory uses music as one of the main elements in intervention, which has been previously studied also in the context of work by Niven (Reference Niven2015), so it is felt necessary to follow up in the context of counseling or psychotherapy in the workplace, particularly for caregivers.