Social marketing program for dating violence bystander intervention on university campus: analyzing its effectiveness and sociocultural feasibility

A systematic review and meta-analysis of bystander intervention programs for intimate partner violence and sexual assault.

“…In the moderator analysis, the ESs of the programs were significant regardless of the participant characteristics, such as gender and age. In terms of gender, our finding was inconsistent with the results of previous studies reporting that women have a higher intention to help victims, and greater interest in gender-based violence programs (Banyard et al, 2007; Park & Kim, 2020; Park & Ko, 2021). It is difficult to simply compare the outcomes between males and females, as it has been known that men are likely to intervene in a situation if it seems dangerous or violent, whereas women are more likely to get involved if they have a relationship with the victim (Casper et al, 2021).…”

“…In countries with strong cultural gender norms like East Asia, intervening behaviors regarding a couple’s problems are often considered rude and inappropriate, possibly triggering a feeling of shame in the victims (Park & Ko, 2020; Shen, 2011). According to the findings from bystander interventions and campaigns conducted on campuses in South Korea, a country with a long history of Confucianism but gender conflicts regarding the influence of feminism in recent years, older individuals, males, and those subject to higher patriarchal gender norms, were less likely to pay attention to the program, and most participants were females with a high interest in the topic (Park & Kim, 2021; Park & Ko, 2021). Latino participants, on the contrary, tend to show higher engagement in bystander behavior, since they have a collectivistic culture that emphasizes the goals of a group and views each member as being interdependent with the group (Sargent et al, 2017).…”

Types of Bystanders Among South Koreans Based on Their Subjective Reactions to Intimate Partner Violence

“…First, the subjective thoughts and opinions of individuals should be considered when developing bystander intervention programs. Thus far, bystander interventions have been applied uniformly to populations regardless of their existing mindset; however, a previous study demonstrated that the impact of bystander programs does not apply equally to everyone (S. Park & Ko, 2021). Therefore, programs with various goals and focuses that can be applied to a population with diverse perspectives and opinions are required.…”

“…This may be due to the strong cultural characteristic of South Korea, as not intervening in others' personal affairs is considered a virtue, particularly in a matter relating to couples or families (S. Park & Kim, 2020). Our previous research was the first bystander intervention study conducted in South Korea that examined the sociocultural feasibility of a 1-year bystander intervention for dating violence by implementing a social marketing campaign on a university campus (S. Park & Ko, 2021). However, it showed limited effects as it was neglected by a specific population that was older, male, and had a more traditional mindset (S. Park & Ko, 2021).…”

“…Our previous research was the first bystander intervention study conducted in South Korea that examined the sociocultural feasibility of a 1-year bystander intervention for dating violence by implementing a social marketing campaign on a university campus (S. Park & Ko, 2021). However, it showed limited effects as it was neglected by a specific population that was older, male, and had a more traditional mindset (S. Park & Ko, 2021). Therefore, we are speculating that not everyone can be the same type of bystander; rather, there are several types.…”