Reactions to Actions: Exploring How Types of Bystander Action Are Linked to Positive and Negative Consequences.

IF 2.2 4区 医学 Q2 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Journal of Primary Prevention Pub Date : 2020-12-01 Epub Date: 2020-11-20 DOI:10.1007/s10935-020-00618-9
Elizabeth A Moschella, Victoria L Banyard
{"title":"Reactions to Actions: Exploring How Types of Bystander Action Are Linked to Positive and Negative Consequences.","authors":"Elizabeth A Moschella,&nbsp;Victoria L Banyard","doi":"10.1007/s10935-020-00618-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Sexual and dating violence (SDV) are growing public health problems in the United States. Prevention programs have sought to engage potential bystanders so they can safely and effectively intervene in situations involving SDV. However, the ability of these programs to prepare bystanders may be limited if they do not address the possible outcomes of their actions. Few studies have examined positive and negative consequences of bystander action, and only one has examined how various types of action impact these consequences. The purpose of our study was to explore how specific types of bystander actions and their number of actions were related to positive and negative consequences. We recruited participants (N = 615) through Amazon's Mechanical Turk and a university subject pool, all of whom were between the ages of 18 and 24. Participants described the type of action they took in response to risk for SDV (i.e., harassing comments, dating violence, unwanted sexual advances, and controlling behavior). We performed a content analysis on participants' written responses about the type of action taken. New measures of bystander consequences were used to examine bystander feelings and reactions of others (e.g., the victim, perpetrator). A range of action types were identified (i.e., direct, distract, distance, delegate, and physical action). Of note, direct action toward the perpetrator was related to more negative feelings and responses, whereas distract and distance action were associated with more positive feelings and responses from others. Further, taking multiple actions (as opposed to a single one) was related to more positive feelings and responses from others. Implications for research and practice are discussed, with a specific focus on prevention programming.</p>","PeriodicalId":47644,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Primary Prevention","volume":"41 6","pages":"585-602"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1007/s10935-020-00618-9","citationCount":"11","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Primary Prevention","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10935-020-00618-9","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2020/11/20 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 11

Abstract

Sexual and dating violence (SDV) are growing public health problems in the United States. Prevention programs have sought to engage potential bystanders so they can safely and effectively intervene in situations involving SDV. However, the ability of these programs to prepare bystanders may be limited if they do not address the possible outcomes of their actions. Few studies have examined positive and negative consequences of bystander action, and only one has examined how various types of action impact these consequences. The purpose of our study was to explore how specific types of bystander actions and their number of actions were related to positive and negative consequences. We recruited participants (N = 615) through Amazon's Mechanical Turk and a university subject pool, all of whom were between the ages of 18 and 24. Participants described the type of action they took in response to risk for SDV (i.e., harassing comments, dating violence, unwanted sexual advances, and controlling behavior). We performed a content analysis on participants' written responses about the type of action taken. New measures of bystander consequences were used to examine bystander feelings and reactions of others (e.g., the victim, perpetrator). A range of action types were identified (i.e., direct, distract, distance, delegate, and physical action). Of note, direct action toward the perpetrator was related to more negative feelings and responses, whereas distract and distance action were associated with more positive feelings and responses from others. Further, taking multiple actions (as opposed to a single one) was related to more positive feelings and responses from others. Implications for research and practice are discussed, with a specific focus on prevention programming.

对行为的反应:探索旁观者行为的类型是如何与积极和消极的后果联系在一起的。
性暴力和约会暴力(SDV)是美国日益严重的公共卫生问题。预防项目试图让潜在的旁观者参与进来,这样他们就可以安全有效地干预涉及SDV的情况。然而,如果这些计划不解决他们的行为可能产生的后果,那么这些计划让旁观者做好准备的能力可能是有限的。很少有研究考察了旁观者行为的积极和消极后果,只有一项研究考察了不同类型的行为如何影响这些后果。本研究的目的是探讨旁观者行为的具体类型及其数量与积极和消极后果之间的关系。我们通过亚马逊的土耳其机器人和一个大学学科库招募了参与者(N = 615),他们的年龄都在18到24岁之间。参与者描述了他们为应对SDV风险所采取的行动类型(即骚扰评论、约会暴力、不受欢迎的性侵犯和控制行为)。我们对参与者关于所采取行动类型的书面答复进行了内容分析。旁观者后果的新措施被用来检查旁观者的感受和其他人的反应(例如,受害者,肇事者)。一系列的行动类型被确定(即,直接,分散,距离,委托和身体行动)。值得注意的是,对加害者的直接行动与更多的负面情绪和反应有关,而分散注意力和保持距离的行动与更多的积极情绪和他人的反应有关。此外,采取多种行动(而不是单一行动)与他人更积极的感受和反应有关。讨论了对研究和实践的影响,特别侧重于预防规划。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Primary Prevention
Journal of Primary Prevention PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
1
期刊介绍: The Journal of Prevention is a multidisciplinary journal that publishes manuscripts aimed at reducing negative social and health outcomes and promoting human health and well-being. It publishes high-quality research that discusses evidence-based interventions, policies, and practices. The editions cover a wide range of prevention science themes and value diverse populations, age groups, and methodologies. Our target audiences are prevention scientists, practitioners, and policymakers from diverse geographic locations. Specific types of papers published in the journal include Original Research, Research Methods, Practitioner Narrative, Debate, Brief Reports, Letter to the Editor, Policy, and Reviews. The selection of articles for publication is based on their innovation, contribution to the field of prevention, and quality. The Journal of Prevention differs from other similar journals in the field by offering a more culturally and geographically diverse team of editors, a broader range of subjects and methodologies, and the intention to attract the readership of prevention practitioners and other stakeholders (alongside scientists).
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信