如果我不能再责怪受害者,我还必须责怪施暴者吗?接触性暴力情景中的旁观者责任

IF 1.8 4区 社会学 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy Pub Date : 2024-08-30 DOI:10.1111/asap.12422
Adam J. Beam, Lauren N. Jordan, Katherine E. Purdom, C. Veronica Smith
{"title":"如果我不能再责怪受害者,我还必须责怪施暴者吗?接触性暴力情景中的旁观者责任","authors":"Adam J. Beam, Lauren N. Jordan, Katherine E. Purdom, C. Veronica Smith","doi":"10.1111/asap.12422","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Sexual violence is far too common in the U.S. and across the world (Center for Disease Control and Prevention, 2014). Bystander interventions are one type of intervention that aim to reduce contact sexual violence incidence as well as other problematic features of sexual violence like victim blame. Despite bystander intervention popularity, research has yet to address what people think about bystanders themselves and if people blame them in sexual violence scenarios. Across three sets of studies (<jats:italic>N</jats:italic> = 887), participants read a simple vignette that explicitly stated a man had raped/sexually assaulted a woman and participants were then asked to allocate blame to the perpetrator, victim, and bystanders. In some studies, bystanders were not explicitly mentioned, and participants had to self‐nominate others who they thought could be responsible. In other studies, possible bystanders were listed by the researchers. Our results replicated across all sets of studies and indicated that people rarely thought to allocate blame to bystanders when they were not explicitly mentioned. When bystanders were explicitly mentioned, participants gave some blame to the bystanders and consequently reduced blame to the perpetrator. Our results have important implications for both legal settings and sexual assault prevention.","PeriodicalId":46799,"journal":{"name":"Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy","volume":"26 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Do I have to blame the perpetrator if I can't blame the victim anymore? Bystander responsibility in contact sexual violence scenarios\",\"authors\":\"Adam J. Beam, Lauren N. Jordan, Katherine E. Purdom, C. Veronica Smith\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/asap.12422\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Sexual violence is far too common in the U.S. and across the world (Center for Disease Control and Prevention, 2014). Bystander interventions are one type of intervention that aim to reduce contact sexual violence incidence as well as other problematic features of sexual violence like victim blame. Despite bystander intervention popularity, research has yet to address what people think about bystanders themselves and if people blame them in sexual violence scenarios. Across three sets of studies (<jats:italic>N</jats:italic> = 887), participants read a simple vignette that explicitly stated a man had raped/sexually assaulted a woman and participants were then asked to allocate blame to the perpetrator, victim, and bystanders. In some studies, bystanders were not explicitly mentioned, and participants had to self‐nominate others who they thought could be responsible. In other studies, possible bystanders were listed by the researchers. Our results replicated across all sets of studies and indicated that people rarely thought to allocate blame to bystanders when they were not explicitly mentioned. When bystanders were explicitly mentioned, participants gave some blame to the bystanders and consequently reduced blame to the perpetrator. Our results have important implications for both legal settings and sexual assault prevention.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46799,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy\",\"volume\":\"26 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/asap.12422\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/asap.12422","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

性暴力在美国和全世界都太常见了(美国疾病控制和预防中心,2014 年)。旁观者干预是一种干预方式,旨在减少接触性暴力的发生率以及性暴力的其他问题特征,如指责受害者。尽管旁观者干预很受欢迎,但研究尚未涉及人们对旁观者本身的看法,以及人们在性暴力场景中是否会指责旁观者。在三组研究中(N = 887),参与者阅读了一个简单的小故事,其中明确指出一名男子强奸/性侵犯了一名妇女,然后参与者被要求将责任分配给施暴者、受害者和旁观者。在一些研究中,没有明确提及旁观者,参与者必须自荐他们认为可能负有责任的其他人。在其他研究中,研究人员列出了可能的旁观者。我们的研究结果在所有研究中都得到了验证,结果表明,当旁观者没有被明确提及时,人们很少会想到将责任归咎于旁观者。当旁观者被明确提及时,参与者会将一些责任归咎于旁观者,从而减少了对肇事者的指责。我们的研究结果对法律环境和性侵犯预防都有重要意义。
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
Do I have to blame the perpetrator if I can't blame the victim anymore? Bystander responsibility in contact sexual violence scenarios
Sexual violence is far too common in the U.S. and across the world (Center for Disease Control and Prevention, 2014). Bystander interventions are one type of intervention that aim to reduce contact sexual violence incidence as well as other problematic features of sexual violence like victim blame. Despite bystander intervention popularity, research has yet to address what people think about bystanders themselves and if people blame them in sexual violence scenarios. Across three sets of studies (N = 887), participants read a simple vignette that explicitly stated a man had raped/sexually assaulted a woman and participants were then asked to allocate blame to the perpetrator, victim, and bystanders. In some studies, bystanders were not explicitly mentioned, and participants had to self‐nominate others who they thought could be responsible. In other studies, possible bystanders were listed by the researchers. Our results replicated across all sets of studies and indicated that people rarely thought to allocate blame to bystanders when they were not explicitly mentioned. When bystanders were explicitly mentioned, participants gave some blame to the bystanders and consequently reduced blame to the perpetrator. Our results have important implications for both legal settings and sexual assault prevention.
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
2.80
自引率
6.70%
发文量
42
期刊介绍: Recent articles in ASAP have examined social psychological methods in the study of economic and social justice including ageism, heterosexism, racism, sexism, status quo bias and other forms of discrimination, social problems such as climate change, extremism, homelessness, inter-group conflict, natural disasters, poverty, and terrorism, and social ideals such as democracy, empowerment, equality, health, and trust.
期刊最新文献
Associations between negative sexual messaging in childhood and sex guilt in adulthood Anti‐egalitarianism motivates denial of male privilege Do I have to blame the perpetrator if I can't blame the victim anymore? Bystander responsibility in contact sexual violence scenarios Dehumanization in the United States carceral system: Pathways to policy reform Expectancy violations after moral transgressions: Exploring the role of moral disengagement on online vindictive word of mouth
×
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