Sexual and Gender Minority Men's Bystander Behaviors and Barriers in Response to Witnessing Minor Sexual Aggression.

IF 2.4 2区 心理学 Q1 CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY Psychology of Violence Pub Date : 2023-07-01 Epub Date: 2023-05-11 DOI:10.1037/vio0000475
Tiffany L Marcantonio, Ruschelle M Leone, Andrew M O'Neil, Kristen N Jozkowski
{"title":"Sexual and Gender Minority Men's Bystander Behaviors and Barriers in Response to Witnessing Minor Sexual Aggression.","authors":"Tiffany L Marcantonio, Ruschelle M Leone, Andrew M O'Neil, Kristen N Jozkowski","doi":"10.1037/vio0000475","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Sexual and gender minority (SGM) men experience sexual assault victimization. Encouraging people to become involved when they witness high-risk sexual situations as a prosocial bystander is one preventative mechanism to address sexual assault victimization. However, research assessing the extent that SGM men will intervene when they witness a concerning male-to-male sexual situation and barriers that prevent intervention is lacking. We sought to address these gaps.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>SGM men (<i>n</i> = 323, <i>M</i><sub>age</sub> = 39.4, range 18-77) completed a web-administered survey. Participants were asked if they had witnessed a high-risk sexual situation and, if so, to describe how they intervened; if they did not intervene, they were asked to explain why not. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Nearly 50% (<i>n</i> = 157) of participants reported witnessing a situation that may require intervention, of those men 40% reported involvement. When SGM men intervened, their behaviors included direct and indirect verbal and nonverbal strategies. Reasons for not intervening included not appraising the situation as risky, not viewing it as their responsibility to intervene, or lacking the self-efficacy to act.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>SGM men reported similar barriers to intervention that heterosexual young adults encounter. Participants also provided a variety of intervention tactics that could be included in bystander intervention initiatives to increase their effectiveness and inclusivity. Additional efforts are needed to modify intervention initiatives at both the individual and community level.</p>","PeriodicalId":47876,"journal":{"name":"Psychology of Violence","volume":"13 4","pages":"319-328"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10358722/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychology of Violence","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/vio0000475","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/5/11 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Sexual and gender minority (SGM) men experience sexual assault victimization. Encouraging people to become involved when they witness high-risk sexual situations as a prosocial bystander is one preventative mechanism to address sexual assault victimization. However, research assessing the extent that SGM men will intervene when they witness a concerning male-to-male sexual situation and barriers that prevent intervention is lacking. We sought to address these gaps.

Method: SGM men (n = 323, Mage = 39.4, range 18-77) completed a web-administered survey. Participants were asked if they had witnessed a high-risk sexual situation and, if so, to describe how they intervened; if they did not intervene, they were asked to explain why not. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis.

Results: Nearly 50% (n = 157) of participants reported witnessing a situation that may require intervention, of those men 40% reported involvement. When SGM men intervened, their behaviors included direct and indirect verbal and nonverbal strategies. Reasons for not intervening included not appraising the situation as risky, not viewing it as their responsibility to intervene, or lacking the self-efficacy to act.

Conclusion: SGM men reported similar barriers to intervention that heterosexual young adults encounter. Participants also provided a variety of intervention tactics that could be included in bystander intervention initiatives to increase their effectiveness and inclusivity. Additional efforts are needed to modify intervention initiatives at both the individual and community level.

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
性与性别少数群体男性在目睹未成年人性侵犯时的旁观行为与障碍。
目的:性与性别少数群体(SGM)男性会遭受性侵犯。鼓励人们在目睹高风险的性状况时以亲社会旁观者的身份参与其中,是解决性侵犯受害问题的一种预防机制。然而,目前还缺乏研究来评估 SGM 男性在目睹令人担忧的男男性行为时会在多大程度上进行干预,以及阻碍干预的障碍。我们试图填补这些空白:SGM 男性(n = 323,年龄 = 39.4,18-77 岁之间)完成了一项网络调查。调查询问参与者是否目睹过高风险的性状况,如果目睹过,请描述他们是如何干预的;如果没有干预,请解释原因。数据采用主题分析法进行分析:近 50%(n = 157)的参与者报告说目睹了可能需要干预的情况,其中 40% 的男性报告说参与了干预。当 SGM 男性进行干预时,他们的行为包括直接和间接的语言和非语言策略。不干预的原因包括不认为情况有风险、不认为干预是自己的责任或缺乏采取行动的自我效能感:结论:SGM 男性报告的干预障碍与异性恋青年遇到的障碍相似。参与者还提供了各种干预策略,可将其纳入旁观者干预措施,以提高其有效性和包容性。还需要做出更多努力,在个人和社区层面修改干预措施。
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
4.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
68
期刊最新文献
The association between dating violence victimization and the well-being of young people: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Supplemental Material for Multiple Group Identities and Support for Violent Radicalization Among College and University Students: Challenge or Opportunity? Supplemental Material for Estimating the Association Between Spanking and Early Childhood Development Using Between- and Within-Child Analyses Attitudes justifying partner violence against women in Latin-American and Caribbean countries: A measurement invariance study. Making the world a more hostile place: Honor endorsement and the hostile attribution bias.
×
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