The Reaction to Rape by American Male Bystanders

Harari, Herbert; Harari, Oren; White, Robert V.

doi:10.1080/00224545.1985.9712039

Cited by 64 publications

(70 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Results revealed no classic bystander effect: participants were even slightly more likely to respond to the emergency in the bystander condition in which the other participants were aware of their reactions than was the case in the solitary condition. A similar result was found in the study of Harari et al (1985): In that study, a rape situation was simulated in a naturalistic setting. While men walked to their car alone (alone condition) or in the company of other men (bystander condition) in a parking lot, a male and a female actor simulated a rape assault.…”

Section: Bystander Intervention In Dangerous Emergenciessupporting

confidence: 83%

“…Chekroun & Brauer, 2002;Moriarty, 1975) or only high (e.g. Harari et al, 1985;Schwartz & Gottlieb, 1976) dangerous emergency situations, the present study provides valuable new insights concerning this context. In addition, the present study might alter the still negative perspective and implications surrounding the bystander effect thus far: The probability of receiving help decreases with an increasing number of bystanders.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 80%

“…There are only a few studies investigating the bystander-effect by exposing participants to a dangerous, violent emergency (Harari, Harari, & White, 1985;Schwartz & Gottlieb, 1976) implying high costs for helping (danger for the bystander) but also high costs for not helping (danger for the victim). For example, a study by Schwartz and Gottlieb (1976) was conducted at night in a solitary campus building; while communicating via intercom about an embarrassing sexual topic, participants heard a conversation between the victim and a male stranger that quickly escalated into a fight.…”

Section: Bystander Intervention In Dangerous Emergenciesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The unresponsive bystander: are bystanders more responsive in dangerous emergencies?

Fischer

Greitemeyer

Pollozek

et al. 2006

Eur. J. Soc. Psychol.

246

172

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous research in bystander intervention found that the presence of other bystanders reduces helping behaviour in an emergency (bystander effect). This research was mainly conducted in the context of non-dangerous, non-violent emergencies. We hypothesize that the classic bystander effect does not occur in more dangerous situations because: a) they are faster and more clearly recognized as emergency situations; and b) higher costs for refusing help increase the accepted costs for helping. Following this line of reasoning, the present research tests whether the bystander effect is affected by the degree of the emergency's potential danger. Results supported our expectations: In situations with low potential danger, more help was given in the solitary condition than in the bystander condition. However, in situations with high potential danger, participants confronted with an emergency alone or in the presence of another bystander were similarly likely to help the victim.

show abstract

Section: Bystander Intervention In Dangerous Emergenciessupporting

confidence: 83%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 80%

Section: Bystander Intervention In Dangerous Emergenciesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The unresponsive bystander: are bystanders more responsive in dangerous emergencies?

Fischer

Greitemeyer

Pollozek

et al. 2006

Eur. J. Soc. Psychol.

246

172

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The majority of these studies featured attempts at property crime (such as theft and shoplifting), but also attempted rapes ( [1,9,17,20,22,32,38,[42][43][44]47; see also 15]). The results varied across these studies with rather low spontaneous intervention rates that ranged from 0% to 40%, and observed provoked intervention rates that were higher, occasionally reaching 100%.…”

Section: Field Testsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Guardianship for crime prevention: a critical review of the literature

Hollis-Peel

Reynald

Bavel

et al. 2011

Crime Law Soc Change

159

124

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cohen and Felson's (Cohen and Felson American Sociological Review 44 (4):588-608, 1979) routine activity theory posits that for a crime to occur three necessary elements must converge in time and space: motivated offenders, suitable targets, and the absence of capable guardianship. Capable guardians can serve as a key actor in the crime event model; one who can disrupt, either directly or indirectly, the interaction between a motivated offender and a suitable target. This article critically reviews the literature on guardianship for crime prevention. Our specific focus is two-fold: (1) to review the way guardianship has been operationalized and measured, and (2) to review experimental and quasi-experimental evaluations and field tests of guardianship. Research on routine activities has had an uneven focus resulting in the neglect of the guardianship component (Reynald Crime

show abstract

“…Researchers describe bystanders in relation to child abuse, partner violence, and peer bullying~e.g., Christy & Voigt, 1994;Harari, Harari, & White, 1985;Laner, Benin, & Ventrone, 2001;Shotland & Straw, 1976;Slaby & Stringham, 1994!. Other researchers are making efforts to link this literature to sexual violence prevention~e.g., Berkowitz, 2002;Foubert, 2000;Katz, 1994;Schwartz & DeKeseredy, 1997!. Fundamentally this literature suggests that active bystander intervention in cases of interpersonal violence is possible and often influenced by characteristics of the situation and the individual bystander, consistent with the broader literature.…”

Section: Factors That Impact Bystander Interventionmentioning

confidence: 99%