» Articles » PMID: 29294613

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

Overview
Publisher Sage Publications
Date 2018 Jan 4
PMID 29294613
Citations 11
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

It is often said that intimate partner violence (IPV) happens "behind closed doors"; however, research on IPV and other crimes suggests that witnesses are sometimes present. This suggests that bystanders may be in a position to help victims or potential victims of violence. Bystander behavior has been studied primarily in school settings, and consequently, little is known about how often it occurs or what its effects may be in the broader community. This study examined IPV incidents in a rural sample to assess the presence and potential impact of bystanders on victim-reported outcomes. One thousand nine hundred seventy-seven adult participants completed a questionnaire that asked about five violent behaviors (my partner threatened to hurt me; pushed, grabbed, or shook me; hit me; beat me up; sexually assaulted me), bystander characteristics, and victim outcomes (fear; injury; disruption of daily routines; mental health). Adult or teen bystanders were present for each IPV approximately one third of the time, except in the case of sexual assault (14.3%). When a bystander was present, victims reported higher rates of injury, greater disruption in their routines, and poorer mental health. When a bystander's safety was threatened, victims reported more physical injury and more routine disruption. A considerable number of IPV incidents do not happen behind closed doors, and the presence of a bystander was associated with worse outcomes for victims. Prevention efforts for adult IPV may need to take a more cautious or nuanced approach to encouraging bystander action, especially when confronted with more severe incidents. Bystander safety should be a priority for violence prevention.

Citing Articles

Cybervictimization and Online Sexual Harassment: Prevalence, Association, and Predictors.

Franceschi A, De Luca L, Nocentini A, Menesini E Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2025; 21(12.

PMID: 39767397 PMC: 11675129. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph21121555.


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

Walker J, Kelty S, Tseung-Wong C J Interpers Violence. 2024; 39(15-16):3791-3815.

PMID: 38404191 PMC: 11283739. DOI: 10.1177/08862605241234350.


Bystander Intervention in Intimate Partner Violence: A Scoping Review of Experiences and Outcomes.

Kuskoff E, Parsell C Trauma Violence Abuse. 2023; 25(3):1799-1813.

PMID: 37650242 PMC: 11155209. DOI: 10.1177/15248380231195886.


Experiences of Street Harassment and the Active Engagement of Bystanders: Insights From a Swiss Sample of Respondents.

Milani R, Carbajal M J Interpers Violence. 2023; 38(19-20):10640-10663.

PMID: 37272029 PMC: 10466993. DOI: 10.1177/08862605231175912.


A systematic review of informal supporters of intimate partner violence survivors: the intimate partner violence model of informal supporter readiness.

Davies R, Rice K, Rock A PeerJ. 2023; 11:e15160.

PMID: 37187522 PMC: 10178208. DOI: 10.7717/peerj.15160.