Marcantonio Tiffany L, Leone Ruschelle M, O'Neil Andrew M, Jozkowski Kristen N
University of Alabama, Department of Health Science.
Georgia State University, Department of Public Health.
Psychol Violence. 2023 Jul;13(4):319-328. doi: 10.1037/vio0000475. Epub 2023 May 11.
Sexual and gender minority (SGM) men experience sexual assault victimization. Encouraging people to become involved when they witness high-risk sexual situations as a prosocial bystander is one preventative mechanism to address sexual assault victimization. However, research assessing the extent that SGM men will intervene when they witness a concerning male-to-male sexual situation and barriers that prevent intervention is lacking. We sought to address these gaps.
SGM men ( = 323, = 39.4, range 18-77) completed a web-administered survey. Participants were asked if they had witnessed a high-risk sexual situation and, if so, to describe how they intervened; if they did not intervene, they were asked to explain why not. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis.
Nearly 50% ( = 157) of participants reported witnessing a situation that may require intervention, of those men 40% reported involvement. When SGM men intervened, their behaviors included direct and indirect verbal and nonverbal strategies. Reasons for not intervening included not appraising the situation as risky, not viewing it as their responsibility to intervene, or lacking the self-efficacy to act.
SGM men reported similar barriers to intervention that heterosexual young adults encounter. Participants also provided a variety of intervention tactics that could be included in bystander intervention initiatives to increase their effectiveness and inclusivity. Additional efforts are needed to modify intervention initiatives at both the individual and community level.
性取向和性别少数群体(SGM)男性会遭受性侵犯。鼓励人们在目睹高风险性行为时作为亲社会旁观者参与其中是应对性侵犯的一种预防机制。然而,缺乏评估SGM男性在目睹令人担忧的男男性行为时进行干预的程度以及阻碍干预的因素的研究。我们试图填补这些空白。
SGM男性(n = 323,M = 39.4,年龄范围18 - 77岁)完成了一项网络问卷调查。参与者被问及是否目睹过高风险性行为情况,如果是,描述他们如何进行干预;如果没有干预,要求他们解释原因。使用主题分析法对数据进行分析。
近50%(n = 157)的参与者报告目睹了可能需要干预的情况,其中40%的男性报告参与了干预。当SGM男性进行干预时,他们的行为包括直接和间接的言语及非言语策略。不干预的原因包括未将情况评估为有风险、不认为干预是自己的责任或缺乏行动的自我效能感。
SGM男性报告的干预障碍与异性恋年轻人所遇到的类似。参与者还提供了各种干预策略,可纳入旁观者干预倡议中以提高其有效性和包容性。需要在个人和社区层面做出更多努力来改进干预倡议。