强制控制中的旁观者干预:与受害者的关系、旁观者的性别和关注点是否会影响干预意愿?

IF 2.6 3区 心理学 Q1 CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY Journal of Interpersonal Violence Pub Date : 2024-08-01 Epub Date: 2024-02-26 DOI:10.1177/08862605241234350
Jacqueline Walker, Sally Fiona Kelty, Caroline Ng Tseung-Wong
{"title":"强制控制中的旁观者干预:与受害者的关系、旁观者的性别和关注点是否会影响干预意愿?","authors":"Jacqueline Walker, Sally Fiona Kelty, Caroline Ng Tseung-Wong","doi":"10.1177/08862605241234350","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>With rates of coercive control (CC) increasing, there is a need to ensure that intervention programs are underpinned by evidence-based research. Current interventions are scarce, with their efficacy rarely established. Most current interventions appear to rely on victims seeking support from formal sources/agencies, despite suggestions that victims are more likely to confide in people they know, such as their friends. Researchers suggest that a victim's friends may provide an effective source of support and intervention. The aim of this study was to fill the gap in the literature exploring whether the closeness of the relationship to the victim, bystander gender, and bystander concerns influenced attitudes toward intervening in CC situations. The study used an experimental design, whereby participants were randomly allocated to read a vignette depicting a CC scenario involving a friend, colleague, or stranger, and quantitative methods were used to examine bystanders' willingness and concerns about intervening. The sample was 340 Australian participants (229 female, 111 male), recruited from social media, namely community Facebook groups. The results indicated that friends were significantly more willing to intervene than colleagues or strangers, while strangers reported the highest concerns about intervening. Females reported significantly higher willingness to intervene than men despite also reporting higher concerns. Exploratory analysis of concerns about intervening revealed that the participants were most concerned about risk of harm and their beliefs in their ability to successfully intervene. These findings have implications for bystander intervention programs and campaigns, including offering a range of potential directions to enhance intervention program content.</p>","PeriodicalId":16289,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Interpersonal Violence","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11283739/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Bystander Intervention in Coercive Control: Do Relationship to the Victim, Bystander Gender, and Concerns Influence Willingness to Intervene?\",\"authors\":\"Jacqueline Walker, Sally Fiona Kelty, Caroline Ng Tseung-Wong\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/08862605241234350\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>With rates of coercive control (CC) increasing, there is a need to ensure that intervention programs are underpinned by evidence-based research. Current interventions are scarce, with their efficacy rarely established. Most current interventions appear to rely on victims seeking support from formal sources/agencies, despite suggestions that victims are more likely to confide in people they know, such as their friends. Researchers suggest that a victim's friends may provide an effective source of support and intervention. The aim of this study was to fill the gap in the literature exploring whether the closeness of the relationship to the victim, bystander gender, and bystander concerns influenced attitudes toward intervening in CC situations. The study used an experimental design, whereby participants were randomly allocated to read a vignette depicting a CC scenario involving a friend, colleague, or stranger, and quantitative methods were used to examine bystanders' willingness and concerns about intervening. The sample was 340 Australian participants (229 female, 111 male), recruited from social media, namely community Facebook groups. The results indicated that friends were significantly more willing to intervene than colleagues or strangers, while strangers reported the highest concerns about intervening. Females reported significantly higher willingness to intervene than men despite also reporting higher concerns. Exploratory analysis of concerns about intervening revealed that the participants were most concerned about risk of harm and their beliefs in their ability to successfully intervene. These findings have implications for bystander intervention programs and campaigns, including offering a range of potential directions to enhance intervention program content.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16289,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Interpersonal Violence\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11283739/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Interpersonal Violence\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605241234350\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/2/26 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Interpersonal Violence","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605241234350","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/2/26 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

随着强制控制(CC)率的上升,有必要确保干预计划以循证研究为基础。目前的干预措施很少,其有效性也很少得到证实。目前的大多数干预措施似乎都依赖于受害者从正规渠道/机构寻求支持,尽管有人认为受害者更有可能向朋友等熟人倾诉。研究人员认为,受害者的朋友可以提供有效的支持和干预。本研究旨在填补文献空白,探讨与受害者关系的亲密程度、旁观者的性别以及旁观者的关注点是否会影响对CC事件进行干预的态度。研究采用了实验设计,即参与者被随机分配阅读一个描述涉及朋友、同事或陌生人的CC情景的小故事,并采用定量方法考察旁观者的干预意愿和关注点。样本为 340 名澳大利亚参与者(229 名女性,111 名男性),从社交媒体(即社区 Facebook 群组)中招募。结果表明,朋友的干预意愿明显高于同事或陌生人,而陌生人对干预的担忧程度最高。女性的干预意愿明显高于男性,尽管她们的担忧也更多。对干预顾虑的探索性分析表明,参与者最担心的是伤害风险和他们对自己成功干预能力的信念。这些发现对旁观者干预计划和活动有一定的启发意义,包括为加强干预计划内容提供了一系列潜在的方向。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Bystander Intervention in Coercive Control: Do Relationship to the Victim, Bystander Gender, and Concerns Influence Willingness to Intervene?

With rates of coercive control (CC) increasing, there is a need to ensure that intervention programs are underpinned by evidence-based research. Current interventions are scarce, with their efficacy rarely established. Most current interventions appear to rely on victims seeking support from formal sources/agencies, despite suggestions that victims are more likely to confide in people they know, such as their friends. Researchers suggest that a victim's friends may provide an effective source of support and intervention. The aim of this study was to fill the gap in the literature exploring whether the closeness of the relationship to the victim, bystander gender, and bystander concerns influenced attitudes toward intervening in CC situations. The study used an experimental design, whereby participants were randomly allocated to read a vignette depicting a CC scenario involving a friend, colleague, or stranger, and quantitative methods were used to examine bystanders' willingness and concerns about intervening. The sample was 340 Australian participants (229 female, 111 male), recruited from social media, namely community Facebook groups. The results indicated that friends were significantly more willing to intervene than colleagues or strangers, while strangers reported the highest concerns about intervening. Females reported significantly higher willingness to intervene than men despite also reporting higher concerns. Exploratory analysis of concerns about intervening revealed that the participants were most concerned about risk of harm and their beliefs in their ability to successfully intervene. These findings have implications for bystander intervention programs and campaigns, including offering a range of potential directions to enhance intervention program content.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 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
Role of Maternal Adverse Childhood Experiences on Infant Neglect: A Multi-Perspective Approach. Emerging Trends in Intimate Partner Rape and Marital/Spousal Rape During the Biennium 2020 and 2021, Including the COVID-19 Pandemic in Greece. The Spatial Scale and Spread of Child Victimization. Association Between Workplace Violence and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Among Healthcare Workers in China, 2020 to 2023. Evaluation of the Effectiveness of the CDA-Stop Program: Cyberviolence Prevention Program for Adolescent Couples.
×
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