Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > Rethinking the Bystander Effect in Violence Red...

Links

Text available via DOI:

View graph of relations

Rethinking the Bystander Effect in Violence Reduction Training Programs

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

Published

Standard

Rethinking the Bystander Effect in Violence Reduction Training Programs. / Levine, M.; Philpot, R.; Kovalenko, A.G.
In: Social Issues and Policy Review, Vol. 14, No. 1, 16.01.2020, p. 273-296.

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

Harvard

Levine, M, Philpot, R & Kovalenko, AG 2020, 'Rethinking the Bystander Effect in Violence Reduction Training Programs', Social Issues and Policy Review, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 273-296. https://doi.org/10.1111/sipr.12063

APA

Vancouver

Levine M, Philpot R, Kovalenko AG. Rethinking the Bystander Effect in Violence Reduction Training Programs. Social Issues and Policy Review. 2020 Jan 16;14(1):273-296. Epub 2019 Dec 25. doi: 10.1111/sipr.12063

Author

Levine, M. ; Philpot, R. ; Kovalenko, A.G. / Rethinking the Bystander Effect in Violence Reduction Training Programs. In: Social Issues and Policy Review. 2020 ; Vol. 14, No. 1. pp. 273-296.

Bibtex

@article{99897861c2994ccfa7ea032db9abd3b0,
title = "Rethinking the Bystander Effect in Violence Reduction Training Programs",
abstract = "Many violence prevention programs include a focus on the role of bystanders and third parties in violence prevention training. Central to this work has been the classic social psychological research on the “bystander effect”. However, recent research on bystander behavior shows that the bystander effect does not hold in violent or dangerous emergencies. Meta‐analyses of the literature show that the presence of others can facilitate as well as inhibit intervention in emergencies. Studies of real‐life bystander behavior captured on CCTV cameras shows that some bystander intervention is the norm and that the likelihood of bystanders being victimized is low. One reason for the limited effectiveness of violence reduction programs may be their approach to bystanders. We argue that violence reduction programs should: recognize that some intervention is likely (although it may not always be successful); see the group as a route to successful intervention rather than a threat to the likelihood of any single individual becoming an intervener; inform bystanders of the real risks of victimization; utilize the power of social relations between bystanders, victims, and perpetrators to enhance successful intervention; seek to deliver bystander intervention training in situ, rather than away from the context of the aggression or violence.",
author = "M. Levine and R. Philpot and A.G. Kovalenko",
year = "2020",
month = jan,
day = "16",
doi = "10.1111/sipr.12063",
language = "English",
volume = "14",
pages = "273--296",
journal = "Social Issues and Policy Review",
number = "1",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Rethinking the Bystander Effect in Violence Reduction Training Programs

AU - Levine, M.

AU - Philpot, R.

AU - Kovalenko, A.G.

PY - 2020/1/16

Y1 - 2020/1/16

N2 - Many violence prevention programs include a focus on the role of bystanders and third parties in violence prevention training. Central to this work has been the classic social psychological research on the “bystander effect”. However, recent research on bystander behavior shows that the bystander effect does not hold in violent or dangerous emergencies. Meta‐analyses of the literature show that the presence of others can facilitate as well as inhibit intervention in emergencies. Studies of real‐life bystander behavior captured on CCTV cameras shows that some bystander intervention is the norm and that the likelihood of bystanders being victimized is low. One reason for the limited effectiveness of violence reduction programs may be their approach to bystanders. We argue that violence reduction programs should: recognize that some intervention is likely (although it may not always be successful); see the group as a route to successful intervention rather than a threat to the likelihood of any single individual becoming an intervener; inform bystanders of the real risks of victimization; utilize the power of social relations between bystanders, victims, and perpetrators to enhance successful intervention; seek to deliver bystander intervention training in situ, rather than away from the context of the aggression or violence.

AB - Many violence prevention programs include a focus on the role of bystanders and third parties in violence prevention training. Central to this work has been the classic social psychological research on the “bystander effect”. However, recent research on bystander behavior shows that the bystander effect does not hold in violent or dangerous emergencies. Meta‐analyses of the literature show that the presence of others can facilitate as well as inhibit intervention in emergencies. Studies of real‐life bystander behavior captured on CCTV cameras shows that some bystander intervention is the norm and that the likelihood of bystanders being victimized is low. One reason for the limited effectiveness of violence reduction programs may be their approach to bystanders. We argue that violence reduction programs should: recognize that some intervention is likely (although it may not always be successful); see the group as a route to successful intervention rather than a threat to the likelihood of any single individual becoming an intervener; inform bystanders of the real risks of victimization; utilize the power of social relations between bystanders, victims, and perpetrators to enhance successful intervention; seek to deliver bystander intervention training in situ, rather than away from the context of the aggression or violence.

U2 - 10.1111/sipr.12063

DO - 10.1111/sipr.12063

M3 - Journal article

VL - 14

SP - 273

EP - 296

JO - Social Issues and Policy Review

JF - Social Issues and Policy Review

IS - 1

ER -