Effects of Third Party Intercession on Bystander Intervention

Borges, Marilyn A.; Penta, James M.

doi:10.1080/00224545.1977.9713292

Cited by 8 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Younger children may be more likely to be both active and communicative in the experimental setting (Staub, 1970a). The degree of activity of the other bystander (e.g., Borges & Penta, 1977;Smith, Smythe, & Lein, 1972) and the extent of communication between the bystanders (e.g., Misavage & Richardson, 1974) influence helpgiving. Other investigators have suggested that when bystanders cannot see each other, various kinds of social facilitation processes can be controlled (e.g., Piliavin et al, 1981).…”

Section: Lizette Petersonmentioning

confidence: 99%

Role of donor competence, donor age, and peer presence on helping in an emergency.

Peterson

1983

Developmental Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Lizette Petersonmentioning

confidence: 99%

Role of donor competence, donor age, and peer presence on helping in an emergency.

Peterson

1983

Developmental Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The wealth of bystander literature, developed from the cornerstone study by Darley and LatanC (1 968), was reviewed to identify possible variables predictive of intervention in child abuse. Investigations have identified some important situationalfactors: the presence of other witnesses (Curtis, 1974;Morgan, 1978), bystander's relationship to other witnesses (Gottlieb & Carver, 1980;Grofman, 1974), ambiguity of the demand situation (Borges & Penta, 1977;Ellsworth & Langer, 1976;Mason & Allen, 1976;Piliavin & Piliavin, 1972;Piliavin, Piliavin, & Broll, 1976;Solomon, Solomon, & Stone, 1978;Warner, 1976;West & Brown, 1975), and the setting and type of demand situation (Harari, Harari, & White, 1985;Schreiber, 1979;Shotland & Stebbins, 1980).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Bystander Responses to Public Episodes of Child Abuse

Christy

Voigt

1994

J Applied Social Pyschol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Bystander responses to public episodes of child abuse were surveyed among 269 self reported witnesses. Respondents completed an 80‐item self‐report questionnaire which inquired into a broad range of events, experiences, and behaviors surrounding naturally occurring incidents of perceived child abuse witnessed in public places. Almost one‐half of the sample reported having witnessed at least one event of child abuse in public, but only one out of four witnesses acted to intervene. Data analyses identified 40 statistically significant variables across four categories: characteristics of the bystander, situation, victim, and perpetrator. Results were generally consistent with predictions and findings from previous research on bystander intervention, but a number of new and significant variables were identified that characterized intervention events. Direct and indirect forms of intervention were also distinguished. Implications of the findings are discussed, and educating people to intervene on behalf of abused children is proposed.

show abstract

“…For example, individuals with a positive attitude toward reporting (Frye, 2007;Gracia & Herrero, 2006), less tolerance of IPA (Chabot et al, 2009), and greater self-efficacy (Frye, 2007;Sulkowski, 2011) tend to be more likely to intervene in IPA incidents. Situational factors, such as how many people were there during the time of the incident, have also been shown to influence the likelihood of intervening (Borges & Penta, 1977). Situational factors, such as how many people were there during the time of the incident, have also been shown to influence the likelihood of intervening (Borges & Penta, 1977).…”

Section: Individual Levelmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Chabot et al (2009) found that characteristics of the perpetrator, such as sex, severity of the incident, and attribution also influence a person's willingness to intervene. Situational factors, such as how many people were there during the time of the incident, have also been shown to influence the likelihood of intervening (Borges & Penta, 1977).…”

Section: Individual Levelmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Lucero

Roark

Patton

2018

Journal Community Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examines the relationships among individual beliefs about intimate partner abuse (IPA), attitudes about IPA reporting, social cohesion, and the intention of intervening in neighborhood IPA. Data for this study come from a larger cross‐sectional, community‐based study in which participants (N = 1,626) were surveyed face to face using stratified random sampling in targeted communities in a Mountain West state (i.e., drop‐off, pick‐up method) and online using social media outreach in targeted communities. Linear regression results indicated that participants were less likely to intervene in IPA situations in their neighborhood if they held beliefs about the private nature of IPA or feared retaliation. Additionally, social cohesion was positively associated with participants’ intention of intervening in IPA situations in their neighborhood. Our findings suggest potential avenues for community intervention that attempt to build communitywide beliefs that IPA is a community‐level concern and one that demands attention from the entire community.

show abstract

Effects of Third Party Intercession on Bystander Intervention

Cited by 8 publications

References 6 publications

Role of donor competence, donor age, and peer presence on helping in an emergency.

Role of donor competence, donor age, and peer presence on helping in an emergency.

Bystander Responses to Public Episodes of Child Abuse

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About