To stay silent or to blow the whistle? Bystander’s intervening acts when witnessing intimate partner violence (IPV)

IF 0.7 Q4 CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY Journal of Aggression Conflict and Peace Research Pub Date : 2023-08-14 DOI:10.1108/jacpr-03-2023-0788
A. Griffin, R. Worthington
{"title":"To stay silent or to blow the whistle? Bystander’s intervening acts when witnessing intimate partner violence (IPV)","authors":"A. Griffin, R. Worthington","doi":"10.1108/jacpr-03-2023-0788","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nPurpose\nSocial psychology has focused on an individual’s reaction to emergencies and witnessing a crime, which has developed theories of bystander intervention and bystander apathy. The purpose of this study is to explore why people choose to intervene when they are a bystander to intimate partner violence (IPV) and the psychological processes that underpin this. Decision-making was explored drawing on literature from the whistleblowing field.\n\n\nDesign/methodology/approach\nThrough a mixed methods epistemology, this study explored factors that explained intervening behaviour concerning IPV. In total, 212 participants who had known someone who was a victim of IPV were recruited from the general population.\n\n\nFindings\nA logistic regression model indicated that conscientiousness and fairness were found to predict intervening behaviour. Being a child witness was found to predict non-intervening behaviour. Qualitative analysis revealed three types of bystander apathy: those who lacked capability as they were children; those who were indifferent and did not see it as their place to intervene; and those who wanted to intervene but did not as they were frightened of exacerbating the situation.\n\n\nPractical implications\nIPV has significant physical and psychological effects on victims. However, the choice to intervene is complex, and bystander intervention in this study was also associated in some cases with not only a continuation of the IPV behaviour towards the victim but also aggression and physical violence towards the bystander (whistleblower retaliation). Based on the findings of this study, recommendations are made for how to support bystanders and victims of IPV.\n\n\nOriginality/value\nThis study involved participants with real-life experience of being a bystander to IPV. The mixed methodology provided an insight into the psychological processes, which underpin bystander experiences of IPV and maps onto the literature in relation to whistleblowing.\n","PeriodicalId":45499,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Aggression Conflict and Peace Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Aggression Conflict and Peace Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/jacpr-03-2023-0788","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose Social psychology has focused on an individual’s reaction to emergencies and witnessing a crime, which has developed theories of bystander intervention and bystander apathy. The purpose of this study is to explore why people choose to intervene when they are a bystander to intimate partner violence (IPV) and the psychological processes that underpin this. Decision-making was explored drawing on literature from the whistleblowing field. Design/methodology/approach Through a mixed methods epistemology, this study explored factors that explained intervening behaviour concerning IPV. In total, 212 participants who had known someone who was a victim of IPV were recruited from the general population. Findings A logistic regression model indicated that conscientiousness and fairness were found to predict intervening behaviour. Being a child witness was found to predict non-intervening behaviour. Qualitative analysis revealed three types of bystander apathy: those who lacked capability as they were children; those who were indifferent and did not see it as their place to intervene; and those who wanted to intervene but did not as they were frightened of exacerbating the situation. Practical implications IPV has significant physical and psychological effects on victims. However, the choice to intervene is complex, and bystander intervention in this study was also associated in some cases with not only a continuation of the IPV behaviour towards the victim but also aggression and physical violence towards the bystander (whistleblower retaliation). Based on the findings of this study, recommendations are made for how to support bystanders and victims of IPV. Originality/value This study involved participants with real-life experience of being a bystander to IPV. The mixed methodology provided an insight into the psychological processes, which underpin bystander experiences of IPV and maps onto the literature in relation to whistleblowing.
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
保持沉默还是告密?旁观者在目睹亲密伴侣暴力(IPV)时的干预行为
目的社会心理学关注个人对突发事件和目击犯罪的反应,发展了旁观者干预和旁观者冷漠理论。本研究的目的是探讨为什么当人们是亲密伴侣暴力(IPV)的旁观者时,他们会选择干预,以及支撑这一行为的心理过程。借鉴检举领域的文献对决策进行了探讨。设计/方法/方法通过混合方法认识论,本研究探讨了解释IPV干预行为的因素。总共有212名参与者从普通人群中招募,他们知道有人是IPV的受害者。结果logistic回归模型显示严谨性和公平性对干预行为有预测作用。作为儿童证人被发现预示着不干预行为。定性分析揭示了旁观者冷漠的三种类型:儿童时期缺乏能力者;那些漠不关心,不认为自己应该干预的人;还有那些想要干预但没有干预的人,因为他们害怕使局势恶化。sipv对受害者有显著的生理和心理影响。然而,干预的选择是复杂的,在本研究中,旁观者干预在某些情况下不仅与对受害者的IPV行为的延续有关,还与对旁观者的攻击和身体暴力(举报人报复)有关。根据本研究的结果,对如何支持IPV的旁观者和受害者提出了建议。原创性/价值本研究的参与者在现实生活中是IPV的旁观者。这种混合的方法提供了对心理过程的洞察,它支撑了旁观者的IPV经验,并映射到与举报有关的文献。
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
1.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
32
期刊最新文献
Why do they decide to stay? Experience of Indian women surviving intimate partner violence Invited commentary on using music intervention and imagined interaction to deal with aggression and conflict The appreciation of the collaboration agreements used to prevent intrafamilial homicides State responses to herder–farmers conflict and peace-building in rural grazing areas of Nigeria To stay silent or to blow the whistle? Bystander’s intervening acts when witnessing intimate partner violence (IPV)
×
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