Research suggests that the gender composition of conflict parties influences how bystanders perceive violence, reflecting constructions of masculinity and femininity that promote women’s protection. Relying on CCTV footage of public conflicts in the Netherlands, we ran logistic regression models at the situational level (N = 66 conflicts) and multilevel models at the individual level (N = 1,954 bystanders) to examine the relationship between conflict parties’ gender composition and bystander intervention. Further, we tested whether perceived intimate ties between conflict parties were associated with intervention. Gender composition was not linked to intervention probability, but patterns in the data point towards less bystander intervention in intimate conflicts, though not statistically clear. Understanding contextual conflict variations is crucial for effective bystander intervention strategies.
AbdiH. (2007). Bonferroni and Šidák corrections for multiple comparisons. Encyclopedia of Measurement and Statistics, 3, 103–107.
2.
AfifiW. A.JohnsonM. L. (1999). The use and interpretation of tie signs in a public setting: Relationship and sex differences. Journal of Social & Personal Relationships, 16(1), 9–38.
3.
AfifiW. A.JohnsonM. L. (2005). The nature and function of tie-signs. In ManusovV.PattersonM. L. (Eds.), The sourcebook of nonverbal measures: Going beyond words (pp. 189–198). Psychology Press.
4.
AndersenP. A.GuerreroL. K.JonesS. M. (2006). Nonverbal behavior in intimate interactions and intimate relationships. In ManusovV.PattersonM. L. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of nonverbal communication (pp. 259–277). Sage.
5.
BasowS. A.CahillK. F.PhelanJ. E.LongshoreK.McGillicuddy-DeLisiA. (2007). Perceptions of relational and physical aggression among college students: Effects of gender of perpetrator, target, and perceiver. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 31(1), 85–95.
6.
BaumeisterR. F.VohsK. D.FunderD. C. (2007). Psychology as the science of self-reports and finger movements: Whatever happened to actual behavior?Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2(4), 396–403.
7.
BlochC.LiebstL. S.PoderP.ChristiansenJ. M.HeinskouM. B. (2018). Caring collectives and other forms of bystander helping behavior in violent situations. Current Sociology, 66(7), 1049–1069.
8.
BondiL.RoseD. (2003). Constructing gender, constructing the urban: A review of Anglo-American feminist urban geography. Gender, Place and Culture: A Journal of Feminist Geography, 10(3), 229–245.
9.
CarlsonM. (2008). “I’d rather go along and be considered a man”: Masculinity and bystander intervention. The Journal of Men’s Studies, 16(1), 3–17.
10.
CialdiniR. B. (1980). Full-cycle social psychology. Applied Social Psychology Annual, 1, 21–47.
11.
CobbinaJ. E.Like-HaislipT. Z.MillerJ. (2010). Gang fights versus cat fights: Urban young men’s gendered narratives of violence. Deviant Behavior, 31(7), 596–624.
12.
DarleyJ. M.LatanéB. (1968). Bystander intervention in emergencies: Diffusion of responsibility. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 8(4–1), 377–383.
13.
DienesZ. (2014). Using Bayes to get the most out of non-significant results. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, Article 781.
14.
Diez RouxA. V. (2002). A glossary for multilevel analysis. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, 56(8), 588.
15.
DushoffJ.KainM. P.BolkerB. M. (2019). I can see clearly now: Reinterpreting statistical significance. Methods in Ecology & Evolution, 10(6), 756–759.
16.
EaglyA. H. (2009). The his and hers of prosocial behavior: An examination of the social psychology of gender. American Psychologist, 64(8), 644.
17.
EaglyA. H.CrowleyM. (1986). Gender and helping behavior: A meta-analytic review of the social psychological literature. Psychological Bulletin, 100(3), 283.
18.
Ejbye-ErnstP. (2022). Does third-party intervention matter? A video-based analysis of the effect of third-party intervention on the continuation of interpersonal conflict behaviour. The British Journal of Criminology, 63(1), 78–96.
19.
Ejbye-ErnstP.LindegaardM. R.BernascoW. (2022). A CCTV-based analysis of target selection by guardians intervening in interpersonal conflicts. European Journal of Criminology, 19(5), 1260–1279.
20.
ErmerA. E.RoachA. L.ColemanM.GanongL. (2021). Deconstructing attitudes about intimate partner violence and bystander intervention: The roles of perpetrator gender and severity of aggression. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(1–2), NP896–NP919.
21.
FelsonR. B. (2000). The normative protection of women from violence. Sociological Forum, 15, 91–116.
22.
FelsonR. B.BergM. T.RogersE. M.KrajewskiA. T. (2023). When men fight with women (versus other men): Limited offending during disputes. Criminology, 61(1), 132–156.
23.
FelsonR. B.FeldS. L. (2009). When a man hits a woman: Moral evaluations and reporting violence to the police. Aggressive Behavior, 35(6), 477–488.
24.
FischerP.KruegerJ. I.GreitemeyerT.VogrincicC.KastenmüllerA.FreyD.HeeneM.WicherM.KainbacherM. (2011). The bystander-effect: A meta-analytic review on bystander intervention in dangerous and non-dangerous emergencies. Psychological Bulletin, 137(4), 517–537.
25.
FleissJ. L.LevinB.PaikM. C. (1981). The measurement of interrater agreement. Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions, 2(212–236), 22–23.
26.
FriardO.GambaM. (2016). BORIS: A free, versatile open-source event-logging software for video/audio coding and live observations. Methods in Ecology & Evolution, 7(11), 1325–1330.
27.
GardnerC. B. (1995). Passing By: Gender and Public Harassment. University of California Press.
28.
GartnerR.JungM. (2014). Sex, gender, and homicide: Contemporary trends and patterns. In GartnerR.McCarthyB. (Eds.), The oxford handbook of gender, sex, and crime (pp. 424–447). Oxford University Press.
29.
GoffmanE. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Bantam Doubleday Dell Publishing Group.
30.
GrahamK.WellsS. (2001). The two worlds of aggression for men and women. Sex Roles, 45, 595–622.
31.
GuerreroL. K. (2013). Emotion and communication in conflict interaction. In OetzelJ. G.Ting-ToomeyS. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of conflict communication: Integrating theory, research, and practice (pp. 105–131). Sage.
32.
HambyS.JacksonA. (2010). Size does matter: The effects of gender on perceptions of dating violence. Sex Roles, 63, 324–331.
33.
HarrisM. B. (1991). Effects of sex of aggressor, sex of target, and relationship on evaluations of physical aggression. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 6(2), 174–186.
34.
HarrisR. J.CookC. A. (1994). Attributions about spouse abuse: It matters who the batterers and victims are. Sex Roles, 30(7), 553.
35.
HartT. C.MietheT. D. (2008). Exploring bystander presence and intervention in nonfatal violent victimization: When does helping really help?Violence & Victims, 23(5), 637–651.
36.
HollanderJ. A. (2001). Vulnerability and dangerousness: The construction of gender through conversation about violence. Gender & Society, 15(1), 83–109.
37.
HoxJ. J.MoerbeekM.Van de SchootR. (2017). Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications. Routledge.
38.
IvyD. K.GleasonS. A. (2022). What words don’t tell us: Non-verbal communication and turmoil in romantic relationships. In SternbergR. J.KostićA. (Eds.), Nonverbal communication in close relationships: What words don’t tell us (pp. 187–213). Springer International Publishing.
39.
JerolmackC.KhanS. (2014). Talk is cheap: Ethnography and the attitudinal fallacy. Sociological Methods & Research, 43(2), 178–209.
40.
JonesL. K.JenningsB. M.HigginsM. K.De WaalF. B. M. (2018). Ethological observations of social behavior in the operating room. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 115(29), 7575–7580.
41.
KrippendorffK. (2004). Reliability in content analysis: Some common misconceptions and recommendations. Human Communication Research, 30(3), 411–433.
42.
LatanéB.DarleyJ. M. (1969). Bystander “apathy”. American Scientist, 57(2), 244–268.
43.
LatanéB.NidaS. (1981). Ten years of research on group size and helping. Psychological Bulletin, 89(2), 308.
44.
LevineM.TaylorP. J.BestR. (2011). Third parties, violence, and conflict resolution: The role of group size and collective action in the microregulation of violence. Psychological Science, 22(3), 406–412.
45.
LiebstL. S.BaggesenL.DauselK. L.PallanteV.LindegaardM. R. (2023). Human observers are accurate in judging personal relationships in real-life settings: A methodological tool for human observational research. Field Methods, 35(4), 364–377.
46.
LiebstL. S.PhilpotR.BernascoW.DauselK. L.Ejbye-ErnstP.NicolaisenM. H.LindegaardM. R. (2019). Social relations and presence of others predict bystander intervention: Evidence from violent incidents captured on CCTV. Aggressive Behavior, 45(6), 598–609.
47.
LindegaardM. R.BernascoW. (2018). Lessons learned from crime caught on camera. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 55(1), 155–186.
48.
LindegaardM. R.LiebstL. S.BernascoW.HeinskouM. B.PhilpotR.LevineM.VerbeekP. (2017). Consolation in the aftermath of robberies resembles post-aggression consolation in chimpanzees. PLoS One, 12(5), e0177725.
49.
LindegaardM. R.LiebstL. S.PhilpotR.LevineM.BernascoW. (2022). Does danger level affect bystander intervention in real-life conflicts? Evidence from CCTV footage. Social Psychological & Personality Science, 13(4), 795–802.
50.
LuckenbillD. F. (1977). Criminal homicide as a situated transaction. Social Problems, 25(2), 176–186.
51.
MesserschmidtJ. W. (2000). Becoming “real men” adolescent masculinity challenges and sexual violence. Men & Masculinities, 2, 286–307.
52.
MillerJ. (2002). The strengths and limits of ‘doing gender’for understanding street crime. Theoretical Criminology, 6(4), 433–460.
53.
MizeT. D. (2019). Best practices for estimating, interpreting, and presenting nonlinear interaction effects. Sociological Science, 6, 81–117.
54.
MooneyJ. (2018). Violence, space and gender: The social and spatial parameters of violence against women and men. In JewsonN.MacGregorS. (Eds.), Transforming cities (pp. 100–115). Routledge.
55.
MouleR. K.Jr.PowersR. A. (2021). An experimental assessment of third parties as potential guardians: Victim gender, conflict, and individual perceptions of social situations. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(13–14), NP7740–NP7764.
56.
NassauerA.LegewieN. M. (2022). Video data analysis: How to use 21st century video in the social sciences. Sage.
57.
ParksM. J.OsgoodD. W.FelsonR. B.WellsS.GrahamK. (2013). Third party involvement in barroom conflicts. Aggressive Behavior, 39(4), 257–268.
58.
PhilpotR.LiebstL. S.LevineM.BernascoW.LindegaardM. R. (2020). Would I be helped? Cross-national CCTV footage shows that intervention is the norm in public conflicts. American Psychologist, 75(1), 66–75.
59.
RaderN. E. (2023). Teaching fear: How we learn to fear crime and why it matters. Temple University Press.
60.
RavnS. (2018). “I would never start a fight but. . .” Young masculinities, perceptions of violence, and symbolic boundary work in focus groups. Men & Masculinities, 21(2), 291–309.
61.
RogersE. M.FelsonR. B.BergM. T.KrajewskiA. (2019). Taking sides: Gender and third-party partisanship in disputes. Criminology, 57(4), 579–602.
62.
RussellB.ChapleauK. M.KrausS. W. (2015). When is it abuse? How assailant gender, sexual orientation, and protection orders influence perceptions of intimate partner abuse. Partner Abuse, 6(1), 47–64.
63.
SeelauS. M.SeelauE. P. (2005). Gender-role stereotypes and perceptions of heterosexual, gay and lesbian domestic violence. Journal of Family Violence, 20, 363–371.
64.
ShotlandR. L.StrawM. K. (1976). Bystander response to an assault: When a man attacks a woman. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 34(5), 990.
65.
SluzkiC. E. (2016). Proxemics in couple interactions: Rekindling an old optic. Family Process, 55(1), 7–15.
66.
SorensonS. B.TaylorC. A. (2005). Female aggression toward male intimate partners: An examination of social norms in a community-based sample. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 29(1), 78–96.
67.
StalderD. R. (2008). Revisiting the issue of safety in numbers: The likelihood of receiving help from a group. Social Influence, 3(1), 24–33.
68.
SundaramV. (2013). Violence as understandable, deserved or unacceptable? Listening for gender in teenagers’ talk about violence. Gender & Education, 25(7), 889–906.
69.
TrumanJ. L.MorganR. E. (2014). Nonfatal domestic violence. US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
70.
van BaakC.HoebenE. M.LiebstL. S.WeeninkD.LindegaardM. R. (2024). Bystander action beyond intervention: Video-observing the bystander behavior of men and women in real-life public conflicts. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605241270051
71.
van DoornJ.van den BerghD.BöhmU.DablanderF.DerksK.DrawsT.EtzA.EvansN. J.GronauQ. F.HaafJ. M. (2021). The JASP guidelines for conducting and reporting a Bayesian analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 28, 813–826.
72.
VenäläinenS. (2020). “What about men?” Ideological dilemmas in online discussions about intimate partner violence committed by women. Feminism & Psychology, 30(4), 469–488.
73.
WagenmakersE.-J. (2007). A practical solution to the pervasive problems of p values. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14(5), 779–804.
74.
WalbyS.TowersJ.FrancisB. (2014). Mainstreaming domestic and gender-based violence into sociology and the criminology of violence. The Sociological Review, 62, 187–214.
75.
WellsS.GrahamK. (1999). The frequency of third-party involvement in incidents of barroom aggression. Contemporary Drug Problems, 26(3), 457–480.
76.
WestC.ZimmermanD. H. (1987). Doing gender. Gender & Society, 1(2), 125–151.
