What Will People Think? How College Students Evaluate Bystander Intervention Behavior.

IF 2.6 3区 心理学 Q1 CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY Journal of Interpersonal Violence Pub Date : 2025-03-01 Epub Date: 2024-06-24 DOI:10.1177/08862605241259008
Jody Clay-Warner, Justine Tinkler, Sarah M Groh, Kylie M Smith, Sharyn Potter
{"title":"What Will People Think? How College Students Evaluate Bystander Intervention Behavior.","authors":"Jody Clay-Warner, Justine Tinkler, Sarah M Groh, Kylie M Smith, Sharyn Potter","doi":"10.1177/08862605241259008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Many colleges utilize bystander intervention programs to address gender-based violence. The goal of these programs is to help students overcome barriers to intervention, including evaluation inhibition, which occurs when bystanders expect to be viewed negatively for intervening. We have limited information, though, on how college students evaluate bystanders who intervene. Specifically, we do not know whether evaluations of bystanders who engage in different levels of intervention vary across situations or how men and women who intervene similarly are evaluated. Without this information, it is difficult to design prevention programs that help bystanders overcome evaluation inhibition. To gather this information, we conducted a vignette experiment with college student participants (<i>n</i> = 82). We specifically examined how students evaluated the reasonableness of male and female bystanders who engaged in different behaviors (direct intervention and threatening to tell an authority, direct intervention only, indirect intervention, doing nothing) across four situations (assault at a party, workplace harassment, harassment by a teaching assistant, and intimate partner violence). Analyses of variance found that there was situational variability in how the bystander is evaluated for different intervention tactics, though bystanders who did nothing were always evaluated the most negatively. Bystander's gender, however, did not affect evaluations, suggesting that intervention expectations for men and women are similar. These results indicate that while there is an underlying norm supportive of intervention behavior, situational characteristics influence whether college students think it is reasonable to call authorities, confront the perpetrator, or engage in indirect intervention. The central implication of this study is that bystander intervention training should provide opportunities for students to practice intervention behaviors across a wide variety of situations of gender-based violence in order build up their store of intervention tactics, thus increasing their ability to overcome evaluation inhibition.</p>","PeriodicalId":16289,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Interpersonal Violence","volume":" ","pages":"1271-1295"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Interpersonal Violence","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605241259008","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/6/24 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Many colleges utilize bystander intervention programs to address gender-based violence. The goal of these programs is to help students overcome barriers to intervention, including evaluation inhibition, which occurs when bystanders expect to be viewed negatively for intervening. We have limited information, though, on how college students evaluate bystanders who intervene. Specifically, we do not know whether evaluations of bystanders who engage in different levels of intervention vary across situations or how men and women who intervene similarly are evaluated. Without this information, it is difficult to design prevention programs that help bystanders overcome evaluation inhibition. To gather this information, we conducted a vignette experiment with college student participants (n = 82). We specifically examined how students evaluated the reasonableness of male and female bystanders who engaged in different behaviors (direct intervention and threatening to tell an authority, direct intervention only, indirect intervention, doing nothing) across four situations (assault at a party, workplace harassment, harassment by a teaching assistant, and intimate partner violence). Analyses of variance found that there was situational variability in how the bystander is evaluated for different intervention tactics, though bystanders who did nothing were always evaluated the most negatively. Bystander's gender, however, did not affect evaluations, suggesting that intervention expectations for men and women are similar. These results indicate that while there is an underlying norm supportive of intervention behavior, situational characteristics influence whether college students think it is reasonable to call authorities, confront the perpetrator, or engage in indirect intervention. The central implication of this study is that bystander intervention training should provide opportunities for students to practice intervention behaviors across a wide variety of situations of gender-based violence in order build up their store of intervention tactics, thus increasing their ability to overcome evaluation inhibition.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
人们会怎么想?大学生如何评价旁观者干预行为。
许多高校利用旁观者干预计划来解决性别暴力问题。这些计划的目标是帮助学生克服干预障碍,包括评价抑制,当旁观者预期干预会受到负面评价时,就会产生评价抑制。不过,关于大学生如何评价干预的旁观者,我们掌握的信息很有限。具体来说,我们不知道对不同干预程度的旁观者的评价在不同情况下是否会有所不同,也不知道对进行类似干预的男性和女性是如何评价的。没有这些信息,就很难设计出帮助旁观者克服评价抑制的预防计划。为了收集这些信息,我们对大学生参与者(n = 82)进行了小故事实验。我们特别考察了学生如何评价在四种情况下(聚会上的攻击、工作场所的骚扰、助教的骚扰和亲密伴侣的暴力)采取不同行为(直接干预并威胁告诉权威人士、仅直接干预、间接干预、袖手旁观)的男性和女性旁观者的合理性。方差分析发现,对不同干预策略的旁观者的评价存在情境差异,尽管袖手旁观的旁观者总是受到最负面的评价。然而,旁观者的性别并不影响评价,这表明对男性和女性的干预期望是相似的。这些结果表明,虽然存在支持干预行为的潜在规范,但情境特征会影响大学生是否认为报警、与施暴者对峙或进行间接干预是合理的。本研究的核心意义在于,旁观者干预培训应为学生提供机会,让他们在各种性别暴力情境中练习干预行为,以积累干预策略,从而提高他们克服评价抑制的能力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
12.00%
发文量
375
期刊介绍: The Journal of Interpersonal Violence is devoted to the study and treatment of victims and perpetrators of interpersonal violence. It provides a forum of discussion of the concerns and activities of professionals and researchers working in domestic violence, child sexual abuse, rape and sexual assault, physical child abuse, and violent crime. With its dual focus on victims and victimizers, the journal will publish material that addresses the causes, effects, treatment, and prevention of all types of violence. JIV only publishes reports on individual studies in which the scientific method is applied to the study of some aspect of interpersonal violence. Research may use qualitative or quantitative methods. JIV does not publish reviews of research, individual case studies, or the conceptual analysis of some aspect of interpersonal violence. Outcome data for program or intervention evaluations must include a comparison or control group.
期刊最新文献
Predicting Intimate Partner Violence Perpetration Among Young Adults Experiencing Homelessness in Seven U.S. Cities Using Interpretable Machine Learning. Trauma, PTSD, and Self-Efficacy: Predictors of Cervical Cancer Screening in Sexual Violence Survivors. Antecedents and Consequences of Violence in Homeless Shelters: Perspectives and Experiences of Service Users and Shelter Staff. Violence Risk or Writing Quality? Predicting Relief Outcomes from Protective Order Narratives. Concordance of Mother and Father Reports of Intimate Partner Violence and Observed Interactions in Unmarried Black Coparents Expecting Their First Child.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1