bystander attitudes toward victims of violence: who's worth helping?

Abstract

1 In a eld experiment testing the impact of incentives on the likelihood of bystanders reporting a crime ( nding that incentives were ineffective), Bickman and Helwig (1979) compared experimental results with preincident survey results and report that the only factor relating consistently to actual reporting behavior was attitude or ''intention to report'' a witnessed crime.

The use of virtual reality in the study of people’s responses to violent incidents

“…This has been employed, for example, in comparing the different beliefs and cognitive biases of men who are violent or non-violent towards their spouse (Davison et al, 1983), and dating violence amongst teenagers (Rayburn et al, 2007). Other approaches that rely on people's verbal reports look at how they say they would behave when confronted with a real situation – for example (Laner et al, 2001), and a questionnaire approach to how a rape prevention program influenced prosocial behaviour in the context of bystander intervention is exemplified by (Banyard, 2008). …”

There Is Virtually No Excuse: The Frequency and Predictors of College Students’ Bystander Intervention Behaviors Directed at Online Victimization

“…However, published studies have not estimated the impact of previous victimization on the likelihood of engaging in BI behavior. Of those who have begun the discussion of this relationship, the majority have been theoretical in nature, examining respondents' likelihood of intervening in hypothetical scenarios (see, for example, Laner, Benin, & Ventrone, 2001). Drawing on this research, it can be reasoned that individuals who were previously victimized may be more likely to intervene on behalf of others to help them avoid going through similar negative experiences or to stop the perpetrator from hurting someone.…”

Neighborhood bystander intervention in intimate partner abuse: The role of social cohesion

“…Further, studies suggest that people are less likely to intervene during an incident involving a female victim when the perpetrator is perceived to be her husband or partner (Laner et al, 2001;Shotland & Straw, 1976). In summary, there are many complex factors that operate at the individual level and serve to either increase or decrease one's likelihood of intervening in instances of IPA.…”

“…According to ecological systems theory, individuals are shaped through complex and mutually reinforcing proximal (e.g., family) and distal (e.g., neighborhood) forces (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). In the case of bystander intervention, individual factors such as cognitions and attitudes (Gracia & Herrero, 2006;Laner et al, 2001) or neighborhood factors such as sense of community and cohesion (Banyard, 2008;Sapouna, 2010;Sulkowski, 2011) can impact bystander behaviors. Collective efficacy theory (Sampson, Raudenbush, & Earls, 1997) suggests that cohesive neighborhoods are more equipped to regulate crime.…”

“…The consequences of IPA are felt among individuals, families, and communities, and avenues for intervention exist in each of these spheres as well. IPA prevention and intervention strategies most often target victims and/or perpetrators, but a rapidly growing literature highlights the critical role that witnesses to violence, or bystanders, can play in reducing IPA (Bannon & Foulbert, 2017;Banyard, 2011;De La Rue, Polanin, Espelage, & Pigott, 2017;Laner, Benin, & Ventrone, 2001). IPA prevention and intervention strategies most often target victims and/or perpetrators, but a rapidly growing literature highlights the critical role that witnesses to violence, or bystanders, can play in reducing IPA (Bannon & Foulbert, 2017;Banyard, 2011;De La Rue, Polanin, Espelage, & Pigott, 2017;Laner, Benin, & Ventrone, 2001).…”