• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

相似文献

1
Bystander Intervention in Coercive Control: Do Relationship to the Victim, Bystander Gender, and Concerns Influence Willingness to Intervene?旁观者干预强制性控制:与受害者的关系、旁观者的性别和关注因素是否会影响干预意愿?
J Interpers Violence. 2024 Aug;39(15-16):3791-3815. doi: 10.1177/08862605241234350. Epub 2024 Feb 26.
2
Bystander Intervention in Coercive Control: Do Ethnic Identity and Acceptance of Coercive Control Influence Willingness to Intervene?旁观者干预强制性控制:种族身份和对强制性控制的接受度是否影响干预意愿?
J Interpers Violence. 2024 Mar;39(5-6):1082-1103. doi: 10.1177/08862605231212177. Epub 2023 Nov 18.
3
Attribution Theory, Bystander Effect and Willingness to Intervene in Intimate Partner Violence.归因理论、旁观者效应与亲密伴侣暴力干预意愿。
J Interpers Violence. 2022 Jul;37(13-14):NP12453-NP12474. doi: 10.1177/0886260521997945. Epub 2021 Mar 10.
4
Does Who You Know Affect How You Act? The Impact of Relationships on Bystander Intervention in Interpersonal Violence Situations.你认识的人会影响你的行为吗?人际关系对人际暴力情境中旁观者干预的影响。
J Interpers Violence. 2018 Sep;33(17):2623-2642. doi: 10.1177/0886260516628292. Epub 2016 Feb 8.
5
The Impact of the Bystander's Relationship With the Victim and the Perpetrator on Intent to Help in Situations Involving Sexual Violence.旁观者与受害者及施暴者的关系对性暴力情境下帮助意愿的影响
J Interpers Violence. 2017 Mar;32(5):682-702. doi: 10.1177/0886260515586373. Epub 2016 Jul 11.
6
That's What Friends Are For: Bystander Responses to Friends or Strangers at Risk for Party Rape Victimization.这就是朋友的意义所在:旁观者对面临派对强奸受害风险的朋友或陌生人的反应。
J Interpers Violence. 2015 Oct;30(16):2775-92. doi: 10.1177/0886260514554290. Epub 2014 Oct 27.
7
Who, When, How, and Why Bystanders Intervene in Physical and Psychological Teen Dating Violence.旁观者干预青少年身体和心理恋爱暴力的行为、时间、方式和原因。
Trauma Violence Abuse. 2021 Jan;22(1):54-67. doi: 10.1177/1524838018806505. Epub 2019 Jan 22.
8
Concerned friends of intimate partner violence survivors: results from the myPlan randomized controlled trial on college campuses.关注亲密伴侣暴力幸存者的朋友们:来自大学校园 myPlan 随机对照试验的结果。
BMC Public Health. 2023 May 31;23(1):1033. doi: 10.1186/s12889-023-15918-y.
9
Helping a friend: The impact of victim alcohol intoxication and perpetrator social status on bystander behaviors and responses to assault disclosure.帮助朋友:受害者酒精中毒和施害者社会地位对旁观者行为及对性侵披露反应的影响。
Psychol Trauma. 2023 Sep;15(6):988-999. doi: 10.1037/tra0001180. Epub 2022 Jan 13.
10
Deconstructing Attitudes About Intimate Partner Violence and Bystander Intervention: The Roles of Perpetrator Gender and Severity of Aggression.解构亲密伴侣暴力和旁观者干预的态度:加害者性别和攻击严重程度的作用。
J Interpers Violence. 2021 Jan;36(1-2):NP896-NP919. doi: 10.1177/0886260517737556. Epub 2017 Oct 27.

引用本文的文献

1
Juror Characteristics and Decision Making in a Developed Coercive Control Case.一起已发展到胁迫控制阶段案件中的陪审员特征与决策
Behav Sci (Basel). 2025 Jun 12;15(6):803. doi: 10.3390/bs15060803.

本文引用的文献

1
The Situational-Cognitive Model of Adolescent Bystander Behavior: Modeling Bystander Decision-Making in the Context of Bullying and Teen Dating Violence.青少年旁观者行为的情境认知模型:在欺凌和青少年约会暴力背景下对旁观者决策进行建模
Psychol Violence. 2017 Jan;7(1):33-44. doi: 10.1037/vio0000033. Epub 2016 Jan 28.
2
Two-year follow up of a cluster randomised controlled trial for women experiencing intimate partner violence: effect of screening and family doctor-delivered counselling on quality of life, mental and physical health and abuse exposure.针对遭受亲密伴侣暴力的女性的整群随机对照试验的两年随访:筛查及家庭医生提供的咨询对生活质量、身心健康及受虐待情况的影响
BMJ Open. 2020 Dec 10;10(12):e034295. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-034295.
3
Exploring action coils for bystander intervention: Modeling bystander consequences.探索旁观者干预的行动策略:模拟旁观者的后果。
J Am Coll Health. 2021 Apr;69(3):283-289. doi: 10.1080/07448481.2019.1665052. Epub 2019 Sep 30.
4
Intimate Partner Femicide: Using Foucauldian Analysis to Track an Eight Stage Progression to Homicide.亲密伴侣杀妻案:运用福柯式分析追踪走向杀人的八阶段进程。
Violence Against Women. 2020 Sep;26(11):1267-1285. doi: 10.1177/1077801219863876. Epub 2019 Aug 5.
5
Coercive Control: Update and Review.强制控制:更新与综述
Violence Against Women. 2019 Jan;25(1):81-104. doi: 10.1177/1077801218816191.
6
Coercive Control in Intimate Partner Violence: Relationship with Women's Experience of Violence, Use of Violence, and Danger.亲密伴侣暴力中的强制控制:与女性暴力经历、暴力行为及危险的关系
Psychol Violence. 2018 Sep;8(5):596-604. doi: 10.1037/vio0000158. Epub 2018 Jan 11.
7
The Psychology of Health and Illness: The Mental Health and Physiological Effects of Intimate Partner Violence on Women.《健康与疾病心理学》:亲密伴侣暴力对女性心理健康和生理影响。
J Psychol. 2018 Aug 18;152(6):373-387. doi: 10.1080/00223980.2018.1447435.
8
Violence Next Door: The Influence of Friendship With Perpetrators on Responses to Intimate Partner Violence.当邻居遭遇暴力:友谊对亲密伴侣暴力反应的影响。
J Interpers Violence. 2021 Apr;36(7-8):NP3695-NP3715. doi: 10.1177/0886260518779598. Epub 2018 Jun 17.
9
College Students' Perceptions of Barriers to Bystander Intervention.大学生对旁观者干预障碍的认知。
J Interpers Violence. 2020 Aug;35(15-16):2971-2992. doi: 10.1177/0886260517706764. Epub 2017 May 1.
10
Bystander Interventions on Behalf of Sexual Assault and Intimate Partner Violence Victims.旁观者干预性侵和亲密伴侣暴力受害者。
J Interpers Violence. 2020 Apr;35(7-8):1694-1718. doi: 10.1177/0886260517696873. Epub 2017 Mar 21.

旁观者干预强制性控制:与受害者的关系、旁观者的性别和关注因素是否会影响干预意愿?

Bystander Intervention in Coercive Control: Do Relationship to the Victim, Bystander Gender, and Concerns Influence Willingness to Intervene?

机构信息

University of Canberra, ACT, Australia.

出版信息

J Interpers Violence. 2024 Aug;39(15-16):3791-3815. doi: 10.1177/08862605241234350. Epub 2024 Feb 26.

DOI:10.1177/08862605241234350
PMID:38404191
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11283739/
Abstract

With rates of coercive control (CC) increasing, there is a need to ensure that intervention programs are underpinned by evidence-based research. Current interventions are scarce, with their efficacy rarely established. Most current interventions appear to rely on victims seeking support from formal sources/agencies, despite suggestions that victims are more likely to confide in people they know, such as their friends. Researchers suggest that a victim's friends may provide an effective source of support and intervention. The aim of this study was to fill the gap in the literature exploring whether the closeness of the relationship to the victim, bystander gender, and bystander concerns influenced attitudes toward intervening in CC situations. The study used an experimental design, whereby participants were randomly allocated to read a vignette depicting a CC scenario involving a friend, colleague, or stranger, and quantitative methods were used to examine bystanders' willingness and concerns about intervening. The sample was 340 Australian participants (229 female, 111 male), recruited from social media, namely community Facebook groups. The results indicated that friends were significantly more willing to intervene than colleagues or strangers, while strangers reported the highest concerns about intervening. Females reported significantly higher willingness to intervene than men despite also reporting higher concerns. Exploratory analysis of concerns about intervening revealed that the participants were most concerned about risk of harm and their beliefs in their ability to successfully intervene. These findings have implications for bystander intervention programs and campaigns, including offering a range of potential directions to enhance intervention program content.

摘要

随着强制性控制(CC)的发生率不断上升,需要确保干预计划有基于证据的研究支持。目前的干预措施很少,其效果也很少得到证实。大多数当前的干预措施似乎依赖于受害者向正式来源/机构寻求支持,尽管有迹象表明受害者更有可能向他们认识的人,如朋友倾诉。研究人员认为,受害者的朋友可能是提供有效支持和干预的来源。本研究旨在填补文献中的空白,探讨与受害者关系的密切程度、旁观者的性别和旁观者的担忧是否会影响对 CC 情况进行干预的态度。该研究采用了实验设计,参与者被随机分配阅读描述朋友、同事或陌生人 CC 场景的案例,并使用定量方法来检查旁观者干预的意愿和担忧。样本是 340 名澳大利亚参与者(229 名女性,111 名男性),他们是从社交媒体,即社区 Facebook 群组中招募的。结果表明,朋友比同事或陌生人更愿意干预,而陌生人则报告了最高的干预担忧。尽管女性报告的干预意愿也更高,但她们的报告高于男性。对干预担忧的探索性分析表明,参与者最担心的是伤害风险和他们成功干预的能力。这些发现对旁观者干预计划和运动具有启示意义,包括提供一系列潜在的方向来增强干预计划的内容。