干预之外的旁观者行动:视频观察现实公共冲突中男女旁观者的行为。

IF 2.6 3区 心理学 Q1 CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY Journal of Interpersonal Violence Pub Date : 2024-08-24 DOI:10.1177/08862605241270051
Carlijn van Baak, Evelien M Hoeben, Lasse Suonperä Liebst, Don Weenink, Marie Rosenkrantz Lindegaard
{"title":"干预之外的旁观者行动:视频观察现实公共冲突中男女旁观者的行为。","authors":"Carlijn van Baak, Evelien M Hoeben, Lasse Suonperä Liebst, Don Weenink, Marie Rosenkrantz Lindegaard","doi":"10.1177/08862605241270051","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Previous research suggests that bystanders of conflicts use a range of intervention strategies. Yet, much less is known about other actions-beyond intervention-that bystanders might engage in during conflicts. Further, while prior studies reveal that gender differences emerge in bystander behavior, few studies have assessed the ecological validity of such potential differences in bystander actions during real-life conflicts. Addressing this concern, we systematically observed the diverse bystander behaviors of individuals presenting as men and women in real-life public conflicts captured on CCTV. We observed 67 public conflicts in the inner city of Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Using a qualitative approach, we first identified the broad spectrum of actions that bystanders engaged in. We then ran linear probability models to examine the relationship between bystander's gender presentation and bystanders' engagement in seven bystander actions (<i>N</i> = 1,959), followed by a multimodel analysis to test the robustness of these findings. Results indicate that bystanders engaged in a diversity of actions, ranging from inattentive (i.e., glancing while moving) and reactive actions (e.g., laughing) to physical forms of intervention. Unexpectedly, women were <i>not</i> more likely to engage in affiliative forms of intervention (e.g., calming hand gestures, non-forceful touching, and practical help). In addition to physical intervention, men were more likely to react to conflicts by laughing, filming, or cheering. The only type of action that was more typical among women than men was inattention (i.e., glancing while moving). Our results show that bystander behavior in public space is carried out in gendered ways, albeit in a less clear-cut manner than expected.</p>","PeriodicalId":16289,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Interpersonal Violence","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Bystander Action Beyond Intervention: Video-Observing the Bystander Behavior of Men and Women in Real-Life Public Conflicts.\",\"authors\":\"Carlijn van Baak, Evelien M Hoeben, Lasse Suonperä Liebst, Don Weenink, Marie Rosenkrantz Lindegaard\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/08862605241270051\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Previous research suggests that bystanders of conflicts use a range of intervention strategies. Yet, much less is known about other actions-beyond intervention-that bystanders might engage in during conflicts. Further, while prior studies reveal that gender differences emerge in bystander behavior, few studies have assessed the ecological validity of such potential differences in bystander actions during real-life conflicts. Addressing this concern, we systematically observed the diverse bystander behaviors of individuals presenting as men and women in real-life public conflicts captured on CCTV. We observed 67 public conflicts in the inner city of Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Using a qualitative approach, we first identified the broad spectrum of actions that bystanders engaged in. We then ran linear probability models to examine the relationship between bystander's gender presentation and bystanders' engagement in seven bystander actions (<i>N</i> = 1,959), followed by a multimodel analysis to test the robustness of these findings. Results indicate that bystanders engaged in a diversity of actions, ranging from inattentive (i.e., glancing while moving) and reactive actions (e.g., laughing) to physical forms of intervention. Unexpectedly, women were <i>not</i> more likely to engage in affiliative forms of intervention (e.g., calming hand gestures, non-forceful touching, and practical help). In addition to physical intervention, men were more likely to react to conflicts by laughing, filming, or cheering. The only type of action that was more typical among women than men was inattention (i.e., glancing while moving). Our results show that bystander behavior in public space is carried out in gendered ways, albeit in a less clear-cut manner than expected.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16289,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Interpersonal Violence\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-24\",\"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/10.1177/08862605241270051\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Interpersonal Violence","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605241270051","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

以往的研究表明,冲突的旁观者会使用一系列干预策略。然而,人们对旁观者在冲突中可能采取的干预以外的其他行为却知之甚少。此外,虽然之前的研究显示旁观者行为中存在性别差异,但很少有研究对现实冲突中旁观者行为的这种潜在差异的生态有效性进行评估。为了解决这一问题,我们系统地观察了在中央电视台拍摄的真实公共冲突中,以男性和女性身份出现的不同旁观者行为。我们观察了荷兰阿姆斯特丹市内的 67 起公共冲突。通过定性方法,我们首先确定了旁观者参与的广泛行为。然后,我们运行线性概率模型来检验旁观者的性别表现与旁观者参与七种旁观行为(N = 1,959)之间的关系,随后进行多模型分析来检验这些发现的稳健性。结果表明,旁观者参与的行动多种多样,从漫不经心的行动(即边走边瞥)、反应性行动(如大笑)到身体形式的干预。出乎意料的是,女性并不更倾向于参与附属形式的干预(如安抚手势、非武力抚摸和实际帮助)。除了身体干预外,男性更倾向于通过大笑、拍摄或欢呼来应对冲突。唯一一种女性比男性更典型的行为是注意力不集中(即移动时瞥一眼)。我们的研究结果表明,旁观者在公共场所的行为是以性别方式进行的,尽管其方式没有预期的那么明确。
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 Action Beyond Intervention: Video-Observing the Bystander Behavior of Men and Women in Real-Life Public Conflicts.

Previous research suggests that bystanders of conflicts use a range of intervention strategies. Yet, much less is known about other actions-beyond intervention-that bystanders might engage in during conflicts. Further, while prior studies reveal that gender differences emerge in bystander behavior, few studies have assessed the ecological validity of such potential differences in bystander actions during real-life conflicts. Addressing this concern, we systematically observed the diverse bystander behaviors of individuals presenting as men and women in real-life public conflicts captured on CCTV. We observed 67 public conflicts in the inner city of Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Using a qualitative approach, we first identified the broad spectrum of actions that bystanders engaged in. We then ran linear probability models to examine the relationship between bystander's gender presentation and bystanders' engagement in seven bystander actions (N = 1,959), followed by a multimodel analysis to test the robustness of these findings. Results indicate that bystanders engaged in a diversity of actions, ranging from inattentive (i.e., glancing while moving) and reactive actions (e.g., laughing) to physical forms of intervention. Unexpectedly, women were not more likely to engage in affiliative forms of intervention (e.g., calming hand gestures, non-forceful touching, and practical help). In addition to physical intervention, men were more likely to react to conflicts by laughing, filming, or cheering. The only type of action that was more typical among women than men was inattention (i.e., glancing while moving). Our results show that bystander behavior in public space is carried out in gendered ways, albeit in a less clear-cut manner than expected.

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
Lifetime Abuse: Theoretical and Empirical Research. Interpersonal Violence Against Indigenous Sámi and Non-Sámi Populations in Arctic Sweden and the Mediating Effect of Historical Losses and Discrimination. Rethinking Lifetime Abuse in Old Age. Childhood Maltreatment, Revictimization, and Partner Violence Victimization Through Midlife: A Prospective Longitudinal Investigation. Trauma Theory and Abuse, Neglect and Violence Across the Life Course.
×
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