Modifiers of Neighbors' Bystander Intervention in Intimate Partner Violence: A Concept Mapping Study

Abstract

Encouraging bystander intervention in intimate partner violence (IPV) against women is potentially an important method of reducing the prevalence of such violence in urban communities. Most existing research has been conducted on campuses and in relation to sexual violence among teens or young adults. Our understanding of which bystander behaviors are feasible is nascent, and our knowledge of which situational factors influence neighbors' self-reported willingness to intervene is underdeveloped. We conducted a concept mapping study to identify potential bystander intervention behaviors in IPV among neighbors in urban settings; we also assessed whether perceived feasibility and effectiveness of those behaviors varied by situational characteristics. Using data collected from 41 residents of a low-income New York City neighborhood in late 2011, concept mapping was used to create a conceptual map of the 74 behaviors identified by participants. We examined participant differences in mean feasibility (i.e., that the participants "could" or "would" enact a behavior), feasibility given two situational characteristics (if the couple was perceived to have a history of IPV, and if children were believed to be involved or present), and perceived effectiveness of bystander behaviors. Differences across select sociodemographic factors of participants were also analyzed. A 13-cluster solution emerged, with clusters of bystander behaviors grouped into four larger cluster areas: victim focused, parenting/education focused, perpetrator focused, and community involvement focused. Bivariate analyses revealed that participants rated the four cluster areas as more feasible when a child was believed to be involved. Male participants rated intervention as less feasible when the couple was believed to have a history of IPV. Participants who reported a history of IPV victimization rated all four cluster areas as less effective on average, as compared with participants without a history of IPV. This study explored bystander intervention into IPV outside of a college context and among urban adults living in high-poverty areas. Results suggest that the presence of children and perceived history of IPV may affect bystander intervention. Specific recommendations to build the research base on bystander intervention in adult IPV as well as what situational, sociodemographic, and other factors mitigate against intervention among potential responders are offered.

Exploring the Immediate Effects of COVID-19 Containment Policies on Crime: an Empirical Analysis of the Short-Term Aftermath in Los Angeles

“…In this regard, studies have demonstrated that neighbors can play a role in reporting abuses (Paquin, 1994 ). In addition, scholars have shown that informal actors (e.g., family, friends, and neighbors) are often approached by the victims of intimate partner violence because they are proximal and may be able to intervene before, during, and after the violent event (McCart, Smith, & Sawyer, 2010 ; Wee, Todd, Oshiro, Greene, & Frye, 2016 ). Related to this, the police attention to urban crimes may have diminished due to the need to enforce social distancing measures, thus partially countering the crime mitigating effect driven by looser social interactions.…”

Not All Behind Closed Doors: Examining Bystander Involvement in Intimate Partner Violence

“…Few studies have researched bystander action in community samples or from the viewpoint of victims (see Edwards et al, 2014; Wee et al, 2016; for exceptions). One exception (Frye et al, 2012) utilized concept mapping to determine how bystanders in urban neighborhoods prevented IPV and how effective residents perceived them to be.…”

“…Frye and colleagues (2012) documented bystander actions that participants in urban areas consider to be feasible and helpful in response to IPV, which includes calling the authorities, communicating with and engaging with neighbors, and offering help. Few studies have been conducted in rural areas, which may have different bystander patterns due to lower population density or less access to services (Edwards, Mattingly, Dixon, & Banyard, 2014; Wee, Todd, Oshiro, Greene, & Frye, 2016). There remains a broader lack of research on IPV in rural communities as well (DeKeseredy & Schwartz, 2009; Edwards, 2015).…”

The Willingness to Intervene in Cases of Intimate Partner Violence Against Women (WI-IPVAW) Scale: Development and Validation of the Long and Short Versions

“…Willingness to intervene among those who are aware of IPVAW incidents is also relevant because victims tend to seek help among informal sources of help (friends, family, neighbors, coworkers, etc.) rather than formal sources such as the police ( Liang et al, 2005 ; Ansara and Hindin, 2010 ; McCart et al, 2010 ; McDonnell et al, 2011 ; Wee et al, 2016 ). Moreover, pro-intervention attitudes among these potential informal sources of help, when shared collectively, can contribute to shape local social norms that help deter this type of violence ( Wee et al, 2016 ; Voith, 2017 ; Powell and Webster, 2018 ).…”

“…rather than formal sources such as the police ( Liang et al, 2005 ; Ansara and Hindin, 2010 ; McCart et al, 2010 ; McDonnell et al, 2011 ; Wee et al, 2016 ). Moreover, pro-intervention attitudes among these potential informal sources of help, when shared collectively, can contribute to shape local social norms that help deter this type of violence ( Wee et al, 2016 ; Voith, 2017 ; Powell and Webster, 2018 ). As Voith (2017 , p. 4) noted in her review, “the protective effects of pro-IPV-intervention norms in a community are twofold, in that community members will directly intervene if they witness IPV and perpetrators are less likely to continue the use of violence against their partners as a result of social pressure”.…”