How do we protect our children and the most vulnerable in our community from abuse? Over the past few decades there has been much more awareness of safeguarding both for children and adults.

We have become better at having important conversations with our children about body autonomy and consent. Safeguarding processes are clearer and more accessible. Improved training across job sectors reinforce the message that safeguarding is everyone’s responsibility and encourage further awareness and reporting.

Progress has been made, but there is still a good way to go. Every time there is a disturbing scandal or disclosure it is an opportunity to look again at the lessons learned, so we can improve further.

Whether it’s our doctors, financial advisers or our children’s school teachers, we interact with people in positions of authority all the time. Even today, when our social hierarchy is weak, you might think that you feel confident to question those in powerful positions. But you’ll be surprised at how much people’s social status impacts your decision making.

In the 1920s American psychologist Edward Thorndike noticed a consistent discrepancy when he asked commanding officers to evaluate their soldiers.

The officers consistently evaluated the more attractive officers as having better personal qualities, such as being more intelligent, dependable and trustworthy. Thorndike coined the phrase “the halo effect” to refer to this cognitive bias that people naturally assume that prettier people must be better people too.

Think about it: if you saw a person dressed in a suit and tie taking something off the shelf in Sainsbury’s and walking out of the shop you might assume that they were doing something legitimate; perhaps they worked there. Whereas if you saw someone scruffy and unkempt doing the same thing, you would probably assume that they were shoplifting.

The opposite is true too, referred to as “the horns effect”. If you see something that you immediately dislike about another person, you automatically assume that they are negative in lots of other ways too.

But “the halo effect” is one of the several cognitive biases that commonly prevent people from responding immediately to suspected manipulation or abuse, particularly by those in positions of authority.

Abusers often use their positions of authority not only to have access to vulnerable people but also to construct their trustworthy reputation so that their victims will not be believed.

Take Jimmy Savile, for example: the more famous he became as a charity supporter, the more people overlooked his suspicious behaviour.

This meant that he could use his power to bully and silence his victims while gaining indiscriminate access to hundreds of others. His authority, charisma and virtuous reputation became a lethal mix, enabling others to dismiss rumours about him with ease.

It is true that when there is no evidence of abuse or when allegations are made but not proven it is difficult to make any conclusive public statements about the suspected perpetrator.

But by keeping in mind how people’s status blinds us, we can be more aware if we are dismissing our concerns early on. We can notice if we justify or explain away our uncomfortable reaction that we would challenge if we observed that same behaviour in a colleague or friend.

By “checking in”, being aware of and discussing our biases, we can nurture an environment in which abuse victims can feel less intimidated to come forward.

And we can feel more confident that people will receive the support that they need if they do make a disclosure.

In faith communities we have an added layer of authority figures in our rabbis, rebbetzins and community leaders. Their authority can be even more powerful as, to some of us, it represents an ancient heritage and a divine tradition.

Because of the meaning of these positions, the damage and pain caused when they abuse is much deeper and more extensive.

But also, abuse allegations are more likely to be dismissed when a faith leader is accused compared to those in other non-religious positions of authority. The stronger and more multi-layered deference we afford people, the more unlikely we are able to judge their behaviour objectively and the more blinded we become.

This is not a call to become more cynical about rabbis and authority figures or to play down the importance of role models whom we can learn from and admire.

But rather, to constantly keep in mind the influence others’ authority has on our capacity to judge. To keep emphasising the clear line at which authority ends and accountability begins so that we can act quickly to protect those who need our support.