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

Abstract

Intimate partner violence (IPV) can occur when bystanders are present, and these bystanders may intervene to prevent the situation from worsening and assist the victims. Despite the importance of bystanders’ roles and behaviors in relation to IPV incidents, as well as extensive research to understand and promote it, there have been relatively few studies aimed at understanding their reactions in non-Western populations. Moreover, bystanders’ subjective opinions and thoughts have largely been neglected when predicting their intention to intervene. Therefore, the current study identified the types of bystanders in South Korea based on their subjective reactions when witnessing IPV incidents. Q-methodology was utilized. A Q-set comprising 31 statements describing the possible range of bystander reactions was constructed using a systematic review method. The 42 participants were asked to sort the Q-set based on their agreement and provide qualitative responses regarding the reasons behind their sorting. The data were analyzed using the PQMethod software. Consequently, three types of bystander groups were extracted based on the participants’ sorting statement patterns: (1) hesitant helpers needing justification, (2) outsiders denouncing the couple, and (3) active interveners opposing the violence. Each type of bystander expressed different opinions and thoughts about bystander reactions and behaviors in IPV situations. However, participants frequently showed a willingness to intervene when they knew the victim personally and when the victim directly requested help. With our findings as a reference, we expect that various bystander programs with specified purposes will be developed to effectively increase the competency of diverse bystanders to maximize their roles in relation to IPV.

Keywords

bystander intervention culture intimate partner violence prevention Q-methodology

Intimate partner violence (IPV), classified into physical, psychological, and sexual violence, is often considered a serious threat to an individual’s health and safety. Moreover, it is known to lead to negative physical and psychological health consequences (Broughton & Ford-Gilboe, 2017; Goldin et al., 2016) and even to result in homicide (S. Kim et al., 2021). Despite its seriousness, it is a common occurrence—specifically, in the United States, one in four women and one in ten men have reported experiencing some form of IPV during their lifetime (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 2021). Although it is commonly assumed that IPV is not disclosed because it is more likely to occur in private places, recent studies have revealed that incidents can occur in public places where other people may be present (Hamby et al., 2016; Taylor et al., 2019). Thus, the importance of the reactions and roles of these witnesses (so-called “bystanders”) concerning IPV situations has been focused on and stressed through active research to facilitate helping IPV victims in a timely manner and minimizing the harmful consequences (Jouriles et al., 2018).

According to Banyard et al. (2020), bystanders are those who witness acts of violence, including IPV, dating violence, and sexual assault, and have the opportunity to intervene to improve the situation. Latane and Darley (1969) proposed five steps for the process by which a bystander can intervene in such a situation. They specifically asserted that bystanders should notice the event and interpret it as an emergency (Latane & Darley, 1969). They should take responsibility, decide how to help, and ultimately take action (Latane & Darley, 1969). However, not all bystanders react quickly and efficiently and follow these steps. Understanding bystanders’ reactions and decisions in relation to intervening are challenging because their understanding and awareness of the situation vary, and their willingness to intervene is highly contextual (Weitzman et al., 2017). Burn (2009) listed possible barriers for each bystander intervention step suggested by Latane and Darley (1969); for instance, they presented various influences that may result in bystanders failing to notice the situation or to identify it as an emergency. In addition, bystanders’ intention to intervene is known to be affected by various factors, including their age, education status (Wijaya et al., 2021), gender (Casper et al., 2021), emotions toward victims or perpetrators (Moschella & Banyard, 2020), and relationship with victims or perpetrators (Katz et al., 2015) as well as their own victimization history (Woods et al., 2020) and the severity of the violence (Bennett et al., 2017).

Ryan and Wessel (2012) used a cost-benefit model to understand bystanders’ helping intention, claiming that bystanders are more likely to help in an IPV situation if the benefits outweigh the costs. Bystanders intervene in a situation if they believe that the perceived benefit to themselves, such as social recognition and approval, outweighs the cost incurred by their feelings of fear. In a cost-benefit model approach, unhelpful responses toward friends who need help may be viewed as a potential cost; thus, it is believed that bystanders show a higher willingness to intervene when the victim is their friend (Bennett & Banyard, 2016; Moschella et al., 2018). Banyard et al. (2021) used the term “actionist” to describe those who more readily see the benefits of intervening in a situation and thus show a higher willingness to assist and can do so skillfully and confidently. Banyard et al. (2021) attempted to predict actionists’ future helping behaviors using the consequences of prior bystander behaviors during IPV incidents.

Despite such extensive research findings and models on bystanders, gaps in the field remain. First, most bystander studies have been conducted in educational institution-based contexts such as universities, colleges, or, in a smaller number of cases, high schools, whereas community-based understanding has been limited (Yoshihama et al., 2021). Second, an understanding of diverse bystanders is lacking in that there has been little research on bystander reactions among people of color. Most bystander studies have been conducted in Western contexts (primarily in the United States). The studies that have been carried out on people of color have been conducted among minority populations residing in Western contexts to reveal bystanders’ roles in terms of identity, perceived power, and oppression (McMahon et al., 2020). Thus, more studies targeting various ethnic groups living in a wide range of geopolitical areas need to be added to the literature. Third, a bystander’s decision to intervene is subjective; however, most bystander studies focus on the characteristics of bystanders or the context of violent situations (Banyard et al., 2020; Woods et al., 2020). Therefore, the current study investigated bystander reactions among a community-based population in South Korea. Specifically, we aimed to analyze the types of IPV bystanders among South Koreans based on their subjectivity.

Sociocultural Background of South Korea Regarding IPV Issues

IPV is a serious public concern in South Korea. The most recent national survey in South Korea identified that 28.9% of women and 26.0% of men had experienced IPV victimization in the last year as of the time of the survey (Ministry of Gender Equality and Family, 2019). In addition, crime statistics show that 7.5% of all murder incidents in 2019 were committed by those who had intimate relationships with the victims (Prosecution Service, 2020).

IPV in South Korea has often been understood as “patriarchal terrorism,” as sociocultural norms regarding gender (e.g., traditional gender thoughts and related virtues) shape IPV phenomena and the experiences of IPV parties (S. Kim et al., 2021). This may be because Korea has long been influenced by Confucianism, which stresses “men’s dominance over women” and emphasizes the traditional gender roles of male and female accordingly (M. Park & Chesla, 2007).

Female South Korean victims of dating violence were likely to refuse to disclose their victimization and attempted to solve the problem by themselves as they were afraid that their premarital sexual relations with their partners would become known to their parents and family (S. Park & Ko, 2020). Implicitly, the cultural virtue of chastity before marriage still exists, and female victims feared disappointing their parents with their sexual experiences. This is similar to findings regarding female victims in other Asian countries influenced by Confucianism (Shen, 2011). On the other hand, female victims of domestic violence demonstrate economic vulnerability and financial dependence on male partners, which can lead to low help-seeking behaviors, repeated victimization, and femicide (S. Kim et al., 2021). In this context, IPV perpetrated against men has not been understood and supported by society. In a previous qualitative study, male Korean IPV victims were reportedly ignored by society and the police because of their gender (S. Park et al., 2020).

The South Korean community has low sensitivity to violence-related issues. It views IPV as a private matter, and such sociocultural characteristics have been identified as risk factors for intimate-partner femicide in South Korea (S. Kim et al., 2021). Moreover, the lack of social and legal protection systems for victims and the passive reactions of police officers have been reported regarding IPV issues in Korean society (S. Kim et al., 2021; S. Park & Ko, 2020).

Korean society has, however, been undergoing a major transition in recent years under the influence of feminism. Feminism emerged in South Korea in the 1970s and has played an important role in advocating for women, including during military sexual slavery in the Japanese colonial era and in the case of vulnerable female workers, as well as in speaking out against the problems and discrimination caused by the patriarchal system (H. Kim, 2011). Along with several incidents related to the “MeToo” movement directed toward male celebrities and politicians, as well as several femicide incidents, the voice of feminism calling for “women’s safety and human rights” has recently become even louder. Various policies for women’s safety and gender equality have been adopted in Korean society. However, in response, anti-feminists began to claim that many policies favor women and are biased against men. On March 9, 2022, a presidential candidate who pledged to abolish the Ministry of Gender Equality and Family was elected (Rich et al., 2022).

Aim of the Study

Research on bystanders of IPV in South Korea is lacking. 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). Therefore, we are speculating that not everyone can be the same type of bystander; rather, there are several types. The types should be considered when designing a bystander intervention program to improve its effectiveness. Hence, in this study, we attempted to identify and describe the types of bystanders in South Korea. The research question of this study is as follows: “What are the types of bystanders in South Korea based on their subjective opinions and thoughts when witnessing IPV incidents?”

Method

Study Design

Q-methodology, one of the qualitative methodologies, is a systematic study of individuals’ subjectivity that integrates the strengths of both qualitative and quantitative research methods (Brown, 1996). It reveals the population’s range of opinions on a specific topic and presents the results as clusters of participants with similar opinions and perspectives (Coogan & Herrington, 2011). Q-methodology is suitable for this study as it can identify different types of participants based on their responses to bystander reactions if they witnessed an IPV situation. Q-methodology is performed in five steps: (1) constructing a Q-population (concourse), (2) developing a Q-sample (Q-set), (3) recruiting a P-sample (P-set), (4) sorting the Q-set, and (5) analyzing and interpreting the data (Yeun, 2020). After developing the Q-set and before recruiting the P-sample, we obtained ethical approval for the current research from C University’s Institutional Review Board (IRB #: 1041078-202112-HR-341-01).

Data Collection and Procedure

Development of the Q-Set

The first step of Q-methodology is constructing the concourse and using it to develop a Q-set (Yeun, 2020). For this study, we developed a set of statements describing possible bystander reactions to an IPV situation using a systematic review strategy. To find relevant literature that reports possible bystander reactions, we searched three global databases (PubMed, CINAHL, and Web of Sciences) using combinations of search terms, including IPV, dating violence, sexual assault (violence), bystander, help, intervene, response, and help-seeking. Initially, 371 studies were found; however, 87 remained after removing the duplicates. Then, 33 studies were selected via screening of their titles and abstracts. After reading those 33 studies in detail, we excluded three, as they did not present possible bystander reactions, while three other studies were added following a review of references. Through this process, ultimately, 33 studies were included in the review.

Various bystander reactions and behaviors, as well as diverse situations influencing their reactions, were highlighted in the 33 selected studies. From this Q-population, two authors of this study independently drew representative statements (the Q-sample) regarding bystander reactions through a reduction process, and their Q-samples were later compared. The authors discussed any disagreements and checked for the consistency of the statements. Furthermore, news media reporting of South Korean bystanders intervening and assisting in IPV incidents over the previous 5 years was reviewed and compared with the formulated statements to confirm that the Q-set encompassed possible bystander reactions common among Koreans. The formulated statements were then translated from English to Korean. One colleague, who is a psychiatric nurse specialist as well as a writing therapist, participated in an expert review process. She checked whether each sentence was well translated into Korean and reviewed whether it was simple enough to be understood by the participants, who were in their 20s to 60s. Statements were revised and confirmed through discussion. Finally, 31 statements were confirmed as the final agreed-upon Q-set of this study; these are listed in Table 1. All statements were numbered.

Table 1.

The Q-Set.

Scenario. A and B, who appear to be a couple, are quarreling on the street. A, unable to contain his/her rage, pushes B roughly, causing B to fall. B attempts to flee, but A refuses and threatens to hit B while cursing at B. How would you react, think, and act if you witnessed this situation?
No.	Q-samples
1	Just observe, and if A actually hits B, I will intervene.
2	My interpretation of this situation will differ greatly depending on the genders of A and B.
3	If B is a woman, I will help her, but if he is a man, he does not need to be helped.
4	If B commits an act such as cheating, s/he deserves to be treated as such.
5	B, who is in a relationship with a violent person like A, also has a problem.
6	It is difficult for me to directly intervene because it is someone else’s business.
7	I’m not sure what’s going on, but I’ll go straight to A, calm him/her down, and ask what’s going on.
8	It is difficult for me to directly intervene in this situation for fear of being assaulted by A.
9	This kind of problem can happen to me as well (it can happen to anyone).
10	As I am unsure of the situation, I will observe it.
11	I will seek assistance from those in my immediate vicinity.
12	Violence is bad but there must be a reason for A’s behavior.
13	It seems that B did something wrong to his/her partner.
14	I’m afraid that by interfering, I’ll end up in legal trouble.
15	I want to help, but I don’t know what to do.
16	If B is someone I know (e.g., friend, acquaintance, or family member), I will intervene more actively.
17	If A is someone I know (e.g., friend, acquaintance, or family member), I will intervene more actively.
18	I don’t want to help B if s/he’s drunk.
19	I will not intervene in the situation if there are enough people around me who can help.
20	If I were busy at the time, I wouldn’t intervene.
21	I cannot leave the situation until I make sure that B’s safety is ensured.
22	If the situation seems to be over and A leaves, I can help B.
23	If B were a man, it would be embarrassing, as he would lose his masculine pride.
24	I will protect B and fight with him/her against A.
25	If I have a group of people around me, I can be a little more courageous and intervene.
26	If B calls out for help, I will help B.
27	Once witnessed, I cannot ignore this situation.
28	I will immediately report it to the police (112).
29	In the end, problems between couples must be resolved between them.
30	I’ll take a cellphone photo or video of the situation.
31	B may be embarrassed, so I’ll ignore the situation.

Sorting Q-Sets by P-Samples

In terms of sample size for P-samples in Q-methodology, half of the statements were considered as a minimum (Yeun, 2020). As we had 31 statements, we needed at least 15 to 16 participants as P-samples. Ideally, H. G. Kim (2008) recommended approximately 50 participants; however, having more than 100 participants is inappropriate as such large samples may limit the number of factors. Based on the literature, we aimed to recruit about 40 to 50 samples with diverse demographic backgrounds, such as age, sex, marital status, and occupation. Specifically, we attempted to recruit eight to ten participants from each of the following age groups: 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s, and 60s.

Two authors of this study and two research assistants were involved in P-sample recruitment and the data collection procedure. The snowball sampling method was used. After collecting data from each participant, we asked the person to introduce someone of a certain age and sex among their acquaintances. As we aimed to recruit participants with various characteristics, we shared the participant demographics in real time during the recruitment process through a Google spreadsheet. Ultimately, 45 P-samples were recruited, including 22 males and 26 females.

To collect the data, we visited each participant in person by appointment. After completing the informed consent form, participants were asked to participate in Q-sorting. We provided an IPV scenario to the participants (shown in Table 1), asked them to read the scenario and the 31 Q-set statements carefully, and rank the Q-set statements according to their viewpoints and opinions. Specifically, they were instructed to sort the statements into nine response categories ranging from −4 (strongly disagree) to +4 (strongly agree; Table 2). In addition, we asked them to provide the reasons for selecting the most-agreed statement and the most-disagreed statement, rated +4 and −4, respectively. They then completed the demographic questionnaire, which included items collecting information on age, sex, occupation, marital status, prior experiences receiving education regarding IPV, knowing anyone who was an IPV victim among acquaintances, and previous experiences witnessing IPV situations. Before data analysis, Q-sorts from three female participants were discarded due to missing answers. Therefore, 42 Q-sorts from 22 males and 23 females were analyzed.

Table 2.

Distribution of Q-Set.

Items	Strongly Disagree	Neutral							Strongly Agree
Scores	−4	−3	−2	−1	0	+1	+2	+3	+4
Numbers of sorted statements	1	2	4	5	7	5	4	2	1

Data Analysis

Q-methodology produces a set of factors based on item configurations of Q-sorts by employing a by-person correlation and factor analysis (Watts & Stenner, 2005). The PQMethod software (version 2.35) was used for data analysis (Schmolck, 2014). The 31 statements, as well as 42 Q-sorts, were entered into the program. The range of viewpoints from our participants was then obtained via principal component analysis with a varimax rotation.

In the next step, factors were selected for interpretation by the researchers. Eigenvalues (>1.00) and the percentages of the variance explained by the factors were the primary considerations when extracting the factors. Among the eight factors showing eigenvalues exceeding 1.0 in this study, three factors were extracted by considering the factors’ coherence, distinguishing statements found regarding factors, the number of participants loading on each factor, and qualitative responses written by the participants (Coogan & Herrington, 2011).

Each factor was then interpreted and named based on ideal statements with higher Z-scores and distinguishing statements found for the factors. In this study, we presented the most agreed-with and most disagreed-with statements found for each factor; the statements distinguished between any pair of factors at the p < .01 significance level. Finally, consensus statements—which the participants commonly agreed or disagreed with, regardless of the factors—were presented.

Results

Three types of bystander groups (Factors I, II, and III) were extracted based on the participants’ patterns in sorting the statements. The eigenvalues of the factors were 14.85, 4.21, and 2.88, respectively. Regarding the number of participants, 12, 11, and 19 participants loaded on each factor, respectively. The demographic information of the participants by factor is shown in Table 3. The three factors explained 52% of the total variance: Factor I has the greatest explanatory power (35%), followed by Factor II (10%) and Factor III (7%). The correlations between the factors were weak to moderate. Factors I and II had a correlation of .48, while the correlation was .65 between Factors I and III, and .32 between Factors II and III (Table 4). Representative Q-samples for the three factors are given in Table 5.

Table 3.

Demographics of the P Samples Based on Bystander Reaction Factors.

Type	ID	Age (years)	Sex	Marital Status/Number of Children	Occupation	Experiences of Being Educated on IPV Issues	Knowing IPV Victims Among Acquaintances	Experiences Witnessing IPV	Factor Weight
Factor I. (n = 12)	P28	50	Male	Single^C	Private employee	None	None	None	2.79
	P40	62	Female	Married/2	Housewife	None	Yes	None	2.17
	P7	23	Female	Single^C	Actor musician	None	Yes	Yes	1.30
	P31	51	Female	Married/1	Private employee	None	Yes	Yes	1.23
	P26	49	Female	Single^N	Private employee	None	None	None	1.12
	P2	23	Female	Single^P	University student	None	Yes	Yes	1.08
	P17	47	Male	Married/2	Medical doctor	None	None	None	0.99
	P25	57	Female	Married/2	Housewife	Yes	Yes	None	0.99
	P34	64	Male	Married/2	Professor	None	None	Yes	0.91
	P3	24	Female	Single^C	Private tutor	None	None	None	0.83
	P27	53	Male	Married/2	Manufacturer	None	Yes	None	0.57
	P35	63	Female	Married/3	University lecturer	Yes	Yes	Yes	0.45
Factor II. (n = 11)	P23	41	Male	Single^P	Personal trainer	None	None	None	1.79
	P15	31	Male	Single^P	Chef	Yes	None	None	0.99
	P10	31	Male	Single^C	Manufacturing employee	Yes	Yes	Yes	0.90
	P1	23	Male	Single^N	Unemployed	None	None	Yes	0.89
	P18	45	Male	Single^P	Private employee	None	Yes	None	0.87
	P39	64	Male	Married/2	Chairman of the labor union	None	Yes	None	0.80
	P5	24	Male	Single^C	Graduate student	Yes	Yes	Yes	0.75
	P21	49	Male	Married/ 2	Business manager	None	Yes	None	0.68
	P4	26	Male	Single^C	Unemployed	Yes	Yes	Yes	0.54
	P9	30	Female	Single^C	Artist	Yes	Yes	Yes	0.50
	P13	38	Male	Married/0	Education business	None	None	None	0.48
Factor III. (n = 19)	P14	36	Male	Single^P	IT programmer	None	None	Yes	2.23
	P20	47	Female	Married/2	Nursing assistant	None	None	None	1.81
	P19	42	Female	Single^P	Private tutor	None	Yes	None	1.49
	P11	30	Male	Single^C	Bank clerk	None	Yes	None	1.41
	P8	24	Male	Single^P	Manufacturer	None	None	None	1.32
	P37	62	Male	Married/2	Private employee	Yes	Yes	Yes	1.14
	P41	57	Female	Married/1	Registered nurse	None	None	None	1.14
	P32	53	Female	Married/2	Professor	Yes	Yes	None	1.09
	P22	44	Male	Married/2	Professor	Yes	None	None	1.01
	P33	62	Female	Married/1	Housewife	None	Yes	Yes	0.95
	P12	36	Female	Married/3	Social worker	None	Yes	Yes	0.91
	P36	64	Female	Married/3	Housewife	None	None	None	0.81
	P24	43	Male	Married/2	Public official	Yes	None	None	0.80
	P30	50	Male	Single^P	Executive in a company	Yes	None	None	0.75
	P38	64	Male	Married/2	Professor	None	None	None	0.72
	P6	28	Female	Single^N	Architecture	Yes	Yes	None	0.72
	P29	53	Male	Married/2	Designer	None	Yes	Yes	0.61
	P16	30	Female	Single^P	Private employee	None	None	None	0.57
	P42	54	Female	Single^N	Registered nurse	Yes	None	None	0.39

Note. IPV = Intimate partner violence.

No current intimate relationship but had one earlier; ^CCurrently in an intimate relationship; ^NNever been in an intimate relation.

Table 4.

Eigenvalues, Variances, and Correlations Among the Factors.

	Factor I.	Factor II.	Factor III.
Eigenvalue	14.85	4.21	2.88
Variance	.35	.10	.07
Cumulative variance	.35	.45	.52
Correlations
Factor I	1.00
Factor II	.48	1.00
Factor III	.65	.32	1.00

Table 5.

Representative Q-samples on Each Factor Based on the Z-Scores.

Types	Categories	No.	Q-samples	Z-score
Factor I. Hesitant helpers needing justification	Agreed statements	16	If B is someone I know (e.g., friend, acquaintance, or family member), I will intervene more actively.	2.21
		17	If A is someone I know (e.g., friend, acquaintance, or family member), I will intervene more actively.	1.76
		10	As I am unsure of the situation, I will observe it.	1.36*
		26	If B calls out for help, I will help B.	1.30
		2	My interpretation of this situation will differ greatly depending on the genders of A and B.	1.16*
		25	If I have a group of people around me, I can be a little more courageous and intervene.	1.12
		19	I will not intervene in the situation if there are enough people around me who can help.	0.40*
		15	I want to help, but I don’t know what to do.	0.39*
	Disagreed statements	13	It seems that B did something wrong to his/her partner.	−1.00*
		4	If B commits an act such as cheating, s/he deserves to be treated as such.	−1.78*
		5	B, who is in a relationship with a violent person like A, also has a problem.	−2.19*
Factor II. Outsiders denouncing the couple	Agreed statements	16	If B is someone I know (e.g., friend, acquaintance, or family member), I will intervene more actively.	2.15
		17	If A is someone I know (e.g., friend, acquaintance, or family member), I will intervene more actively.	2.07
		29	In the end, problems between couples must be resolved between them.	1.64*
		26	If B calls out for help, I will help B.	1.28
		5	B, who is in a relationship with a violent person like A, also has a problem.	1.11*
		19	I will not intervene in the situation if there are enough people around me who can help.	1.03*
		12	Violence is bad but there must be a reason for A’s behavior.	0.30*
		4	If B commits an act such as cheating, s/he deserves to be treated as such.	0.29*
	Disagreed statements	21	I cannot leave the situation until I make sure that B’s safety is ensured.	−1.11*
		24	I will protect B and fight with him/her against A.	−1.61*
		23	If B were a man, it would be embarrassing, as he would lose his masculine pride.	−1.84
Factor III. Active interveners opposing the violence	Agreed statements	16	If B is someone I know (e.g., friend, acquaintance, or family member), I will intervene more actively.	1.78
		26	If B calls out for help, I will help B.	1.75*
		1	Just observe, and if A actually hits B, I will intervene.	1.62*
		17	If A is someone I know (e.g., friend, acquaintance, or family member), I will intervene more actively.	1.35*
		27	Once witnessed, I cannot ignore this situation.	1.00*
		28	I will immediately report it to the police (112).	0.96*
		21	I cannot leave the situation until I make sure that B’s safety is ensured.	0.84*
		22	If the situation seems to be over and A leaves, I can help B.	0.49*
	Disagreed statements	4	If B commits an act such as cheating, s/he deserves to be treated as such.	−1.22*
		31	B may be embarrassed, so I’ll ignore the situation.	−1.41*
		3	If B is a woman, I will help her, but if he is a man, he does not need to be helped.	−1.47*

Distinguished statements (p < .01).

Factor I: Hesitant Helpers Needing Justification

In total, 12 participants loaded on Factor I. This group comprised four males and eight females, with a mean age of 47.3. Five participants were single, and seven were married. The majority of participants (n = 10, 83.3%) reported no prior educational experience regarding IPV issues, seven (58.3%) reported knowing IPV victims among their acquaintances, and five (41.7%) had witnessed IPV. They strongly agreed with statements 16 and 17 but strongly disagreed with statements 4 and 5. Their notable statements included 10, 2, 19, 15, 13, 4, and 5.

The participants seemed hesitant to intervene in others’ IPV situations. They expressed that they would intervene only if they had an accurate understanding of the situation; otherwise, they would observe the situation first. Thus, justification for intervening in the situation seemed to be important for them. They listed various conditions that help them decide whether to intervene in the situation, such as when the victim directly requests help (P26), when the victim is a woman (P40) or acquaintance (P7), or when there is an obvious violent action toward the victim or an obvious dangerous situation that may be considered illegal (P35). Many, including P27, wrote that they feared the disadvantages they could incur due to misunderstanding the situation.

I believe what I observe is not what it really is, but when it comes to the moment B [the victim] asks for help, at least it becomes clear that he or she needs help. I don’t know the specific way, but I want to help somehow. (P26)

I think it’s wise to get help from a police officer, whom we can trust, in situations where I can’t help because I don’t know what is going on. (P31)

Factor II: Outsiders Denouncing the Couple

In total, 11 participants loaded on Factor II. The majority (n = 10) were male, and the mean age of this group was 36.5. Eight were single, and the remaining three were married. Almost half (45.5%) reported that they received education related to IPV issues, seven (63.6%) reported that they knew an IPV victim among their acquaintances, and four (36.4%) had witnessed IPV. The statements with which they strongly agreed were 16 and 17, and those with which they strongly disagreed were 24 and 23. Notable statements for this group were 29, 5, 19, 12, 4, 21, and 24.

Participants in this group showed a tendency to blame the couple involved in the IPV. In particular, the blame-driven attitudes toward the victim indicated that they thought victims who were with partners with violent tendencies were also in the wrong. They commonly agreed with statements justifying the violence, especially if the victim did something wrong. Unless they knew either the perpetrator or the victim personally, they were less likely to intervene in an IPV situation. Many, including P1, P5, and P9, expressed that helping the victim is pointless because IPV often reoccurs regardless of support and help from outsiders. Furthermore, they felt that IPV should be resolved between the two parties.

Even if a third party intervenes in the situation, the two will continue to meet anyway. If they could break up, they would have already broken up before this (violent) situation occurred. . . Advice to victims is useless. The violence never ends without the victim making his or her own decision to end the relationship. (P9)

The perpetrator of violence is undoubtedly problematic. However, even in the case of B, there is a problem of not being able to face reality. There must be signs of violence, but B would have overlooked them. The people around B must have offered help, but the victim would have ignored the help from those people. . . Perhaps B wanted to defend A [the perpetrator] or thought that he or she could change A? I have seen such cases. (P10)

They meet and fight because they like each other. Even if others help, they will eventually fight again due to the same problem. In the end, solving their problems by themselves will be helpful for their relationship. (P1)

Factor III: Active Interveners Opposing the Violence

In total, 19 participants loaded on Factor III. The proportions of males and females were similar: nine males and ten females. The mean age of this group was 46.3. Eight participants (42.1%) were single, and the remaining 11 (57.9%) were married. Seven (36.8%) reported being educated regarding IPV issues, and eight (42.1%) reported that they knew someone around them who was an IPV victim. Five (26.3%) reported that they had witnessed an IPV situation previously. They strongly agreed with statements 16 and 26 and disagreed with 31 and 3. Notable statements for this group included 26, 1, 17, 27, 28, 21, 22, 4, 31, and 3.

Participants in this group appeared to be more confident in intervening in the situation by either assisting the victim or immediately reporting it to the police. They commonly stated that violence could not be justified regardless of the situation (e.g., cause of the violence) or the context (e.g., gender of victim and perpetrator). This group widely believed that legal sanctions should be imposed in response to violent acts and that bystanders could not simply stand by because anyone could experience such an incident and become a victim.

I will report it to 112 [number for police emergency services in South Korea]. Those who commit violence should be legally sanctioned and educated if necessary. (P33)

This situation can happen not only to me but also to acquaintances around me. It should not be considered someone else’s business. Even one person’s attention can prevent further damage. (P6)

If he or she doesn’t like the partner, they can just break up. Violence cannot be considered justified for any reason. (P37)

Consensus Statements

Several statements were rated the same by the participants regardless of loaded factors. The two common statements with which participants agreed were “If B (the victim) is someone I know (e.g., friend, acquaintance, or family member), I will intervene more actively (#16)” and “If B calls out for help, I will help B (#26).” By contrast, “It is difficult for me to directly intervene in this situation for fear of being assaulted by A (the perpetrator; #8)” and “I’ll take a cellphone photo or video of the situation (#30)” were the two common statements with which participants disagreed.

Discussion

The current study investigated the different types of IPV bystanders in South Korea by examining their subjective opinions in the context of an IPV incident. Three types of participant clusters emerged based on their responses: (1) hesitant helpers needing justification, (2) outsiders denouncing the couple, and (3) active interveners opposing the violence. The characteristics of each type were described based on the statements with which they agreed or disagreed as well as distinguished statements and qualitative responses.

The hesitant helper was the first type of South Korean bystander; such bystanders were unsure whether their intervention was necessary. There were relatively more women in this group, and a large portion of these participants stated that they had not been educated regarding IPV. They needed solid evidence from which they could infer that the situation was urgent and constituted an emergency, such as obvious violent behaviors or direct requests for help from the victim, both of which were identified in a previous study as factors that trigger bystanders’ helping behaviors (Bennett et al., 2017). Uncertainty about the situation is known to be a barrier to bystander intervention (Burn, 2009). People who feel more ambiguous are more likely to rely on the responses of others; however, if others hesitate or turn away, there is a high possibility that the general public will also turn away (Latane & Darley, 1969). In particular, in South Korea, not interfering in matters of intimate couples or families is regarded as a cultural virtue due to the influence of familism, which emphasizes the importance of family over individuals (S. Park & Kim, 2020). As a result, such a community’s reluctance to intervene in IPV issues may be even greater. Thus, bystander education to increase knowledge of the signs of IPV as well as to teach the role of bystanders is required to reduce such barriers. If such education is implemented, this group of bystanders is more likely to confidently intervene in an IPV incident and help improve the situation. Several interventions have been developed to improve bystanders’ ability to recognize the situation and determine whether intervening is necessary (Banyard et al., 2007; Sargent et al., 2016). For instance, participants in the TakeCARE program, developed by Sargent et al. (2016), showed a higher incidence of encountering risky situations after participating in the program, suggesting the value of increasing awareness of risky situations.

The second type of participants was the outsiders denouncing the couple. They showed a relatively higher tendency to blame the couples involved in IPV, particularly the victims. They did not seem to care about the gender of the victim or the perpetrator, the severity of violence, or other contextual factors in their understanding of the IPV situation; rather, they tended to perceive IPV as a quarrel between the couple. They were relatively young and had more educational experiences regarding IPV, and interestingly, most in the group were male. This finding was somewhat consistent with the findings of Katz et al. (2015), who reported that men showed a greater tendency to blame and a lesser tendency to empathize with the potential victim, regardless of whether they actually helped. Furthermore, in this study, some reported having personal experiences, criticizing victims they knew who could not leave an IPV perpetrator. We discovered that their personal experiences were similar to the findings of previous South Korean studies that reported negative reactions of Korean bystanders toward victims (S. Park & Ko, 2020; Son & Cho, 2016). Son and Cho (2016) reported that 90.4% of IPV victims in South Korea asked their friends for help; however, 51% of those friends said that the victims had a problem of failing to leave the perpetrators. Another study conducted in South Korea also reported that friends of dating violence victims felt frustrated and angry toward the victims because the victims did not leave the perpetrators (S. Park & Kim, 2021). This second group should be educated to improve their understanding of victims, including why victims may be unable to leave the relationship, and to teach them how to intervene appropriately in such situations. A bystander education program named “With-You” can be effective for this group (S. Park & Kim, 2021). With-You targets college students in South Korea and aims to enhance their helping competence as well as their understanding of dating violence victims. After completing the program, the participants of With-You showed regret for blaming victims in the past (S. Park & Kim, 2021).

The final type of participants was the actionist group. For them, stopping the violence seemed more important than understanding the context. They were particularly adamant about the violence and expected the case to be resolved through the legal system. Various models have been established to understand these actionists by referring to their characteristics and contextual settings (Banyard et al., 2020). However, these participants did not seem to show specific common characteristics in terms of their demographics, such as occupation, age, marital status, sex, or even IPV education experiences. This population should be studied further in terms of their strong perception and awareness of violence, which could lead to an active intention to intervene and help.

Two implications can be suggested based on the findings of this study. 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. For example, those who want to intervene but are hesitant because they are unsure about the situation should be educated about IPV and the signs of high-risk situations, whereas those who tend to blame the couples involved in IPV incidents should be educated to increase their understanding of victims.

Second, the current findings may contribute to the diversity of bystander-related literature. There has been a lack of bystander research on non-Western populations, even though bystander behaviors and reactions are greatly influenced by the sociocultural atmosphere and cultural virtues (Yoshihama et al., 2021). This study is significant because we targeted a South Korean population with a distinct cultural background. The findings can be used to support bystander education programs and the national effort to address IPV issues in South Korean society. Perceiving IPV as a crime should be promoted through national campaigns. In addition to blame and punishment for the perpetrators, IPV issues should be recognized as the responsibility of the community and society.

Despite the significance of this study, some limitations should be addressed. When collecting data, we only presented participants with one scenario that described physical and psychological IPV. In particular, the scenarios did not include sexual violence; however, bystander reactions to sexually violent incidents may differ. Therefore, further studies are needed to examine the diverse situations concerning IPV—for instance, sexual assault situations or domestic violence situations involving children—and the results should be compared with the current findings. In addition, as bystanders’ intervening behaviors are often considered a moral issue, the participants in this study might have provided the researchers with what they considered a moral answer.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interests with respect to the authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research and/or authorship of this article: This research was supported by the Chung-Ang University Research Scholarship Grants in 2022.

ORCID iD

Sihyun Park

Author Biographies

Sihyun Park, PhD, is an associate professor in the Department of Nursing at Chung-Ang University, Seoul, South Korea. She earned her PhD from the University of Washington School of Nursing in 2015. Her research interests involve interpersonal violence, especially intimate partner violence and violence against women. She is particularly interested in investigating such violence issues from a cultural standpoint.

Hyunji Woo, BSN and RN, is a graduate student in the Graduate School at Chung-Ang University (major: Nursing Science). She is currently working as a research assistant with Dr. Sihyun Park. Her interests lie in gender health education for teenagers, with a focus on preventing dating violence and sexually transmitted diseases, as well as health issues in relation to sexual minorities.

References

Banyard

Mitchell

K. J.

Waterman

E. A. J.

Rizzo

Edwards

K. M.

(2020). Context matters: Reactive and proactive bystander action to prevent sexual and dating violence in high schools. Journal of School Violence, 19(4), 499–511. https://doi.org/10.1080/15388220.2020.1752221

Banyard

Moschella

Jouriles

Grych

(2021). Exploring action coils for bystander intervention: Modeling bystander consequences. Journal of American College Health, 69(3), 283–289. https://doi.org/10.1080/07448481.2019.1665052

Banyard

V. L.

Moynihan

M. M.

Plante

E. G.

(2007). Sexual violence prevention through bystander education: An experimental evaluation. Journal of Community Psychology, 35(4), 463–481. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.20159

Bennett

Banyard

V. L

. (2016). Do friends really help friends? The effect of relational factors and perceived severity on bystander perception of sexual violence. Psychology of Violence, 6(1), 64–72. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037708

Bennett

Banyard

V. L.

Edwards

K. M.

(2017). The impact of the bystander’s relationship with the victim and the perpetrator on intent to help in situations involving sexual violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 32(5), 682–702. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260515586373

Broughton

Ford-Gilboe

(2017). Predicting family health and well-being after separation from an abusive partner: Role of coercive control, mother’s depression and social support. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 26(15–16), 2468–2481. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.13458

Brown

S. R.

(1996). Q methodology and qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research, 6(4), 561–567. https://doi.org/10.1177/104973239600600408

Burn

S. M.

(2009). A situational model of sexual assault prevention through bystander intervention. Sex Roles, 60(11–12), 779–792. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-008-9581-5

Casper

D. M.

Witte

Stanfield

M. H.

(2021). “A person I cared about was involved”: Exploring bystander motivation to help in incidents of potential sexual assault and dating violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(9–10), 4406–4430. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260518791232

10.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2021). Preventing intimate partner violence. National Center for Injury Prevention and Control.

11.

Coogan

Herrington

(2011). Q methodology. Research in Secondary Teacher Education, 1(2), 24–28.

12.

Goldin

Haag

H. L.

Trott

C. T.

(2016). Screening for history of traumatic brain injury among women exposed to intimate partner violence. PM&R, 8(11), 1104–1110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmrj.2016.05.006

13.

Hamby

Weber

M. C.

Grych

Banyard

(2016). What difference do bystanders make? The association of bystander involvement with victim outcomes in a community sample. Psychology of Violence, 6(1), 91–102. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039073

14.

Jouriles

E. N.

Krauss

N. L.

Banyard

V. L.

McDonald

(2018). Bystander programs addressing sexual violence on college campuses: A systematic review and meta-analysis of program outcomes and delivery methods. Journal of American College Health, 66(6), 457–466. https://doi.org/10.1080/07448481.2018.1431906

15.

Katz

Pazienza

Olin

Rich

(2015). That’s what friends are for: Bystander responses to friends or strangers at risk for party rape victimization. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 30(16), 2775–2792. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260514554290

16.

Kim

(2011). Korean feminism: From utopia to heterotopia. The Review of Korean and Asian Political Thoughts, 10(2), 69–100.

17.

Kim

H. G.

(2008). The concept of Q-methodology and data collection. In Park

Y. R.

(Ed.), Q-methodology: Scientifical philosophy, theory, analysis, and application (1st ed., pp. 78–129). Communication Books.

18.

Kim

Park

Champion

J. D.

(2021). Intimate partner femicide in South Korea: An integrative review of the literature. Journal of Forensic Nursing, 18(2), 117–123. https://doi.org/10.1097/jfn.0000000000000353

19.

Latane

Darley

J. M.

(1969). Bystanders “apathy.” American Scientist, 57(2), 244–268.

20.

McMahon

Burnham

Banyard

V. L.

(2020). Bystander intervention as a prevention strategy for campus sexual violence: Perceptions of historically minoritized college students. Prevention Science, 21(6), 795–806. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-020-01134-2

21.

Ministry of Gender Equality and Family. (2019). Survey on domestic violence in 2019. http://www.mogef.go.kr/mp/pcd/mp_pcd_s001d.do?mid=plc504&bbtSn=83

22.

Moschella

E. A.

Banyard

V. L.

(2020). Reactions to actions: Exploring how types of bystander action are linked to positive and negative consequences. Journal of Primary Prevention, 41(6), 585–602. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10935-020-00618-9

23.

Moschella

E. A.

Bennett

Banyard

V. L.

(2018). Beyond the situational model: Bystander action consequences to intervening in situations involving sexual violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 33(20), 3211–3231. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260516635319

24.

Park

Chesla

(2007). Revisiting confucianism as a conceptual framework for Asian family study. Journal of Family Nursing, 13(3), 293–311. https://doi.org/10.1177/1074840707304400

25.

Park

Bang

S. H.

Jeon

(2020). “This society ignores our victimization”: Understanding the experiences of Korean male victims of intimate partner violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(23–24), 11658–11680. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260519900966

26.

Park

Kim

S. H.

(2020). Intention to formally report family violence in South Korea: Based on Black’s theory of law. Asia Pacific Journal of Public Health, 32(2–3), 96–102. https://doi.org/10.1177/1010539520909941

27.

Park

Kim

S. H.

(2021). A mixed-method pilot study to test a program for friend-supporters of victims of dating violence. Journal of Community Psychology, 49(5), 1153–1168. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.22568

28.

Park

(2020). Victims of intimate partner violence in South Korea: Experiences in seeking help based on support selection. Violence Against Women, 27(3–4), 320–338. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801220905638

29.

Park

(2021). Social marketing program for dating violence bystander intervention on university campus: analyzing its effectiveness and sociocultural feasibility. Journal of American College Health, Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/07448481.2021.1967361

30.

Prosecution Service. (2020, October 5). The crime analysis in 2019. https://www.spo.go.kr/site/spo/crimeAnalysis.do

31.

Rich

T. S.

Puhakka

Coyle

Mayne

(2022, March 10). Anti-feminism and South Korea’s presidential election. The Diplomat.

32.

Ryan

A. M.

Wessel

J. L.

(2012). Sexual orientation harassment in the workplace: When do observers intervene? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(4), 488–509. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.765

33.

Sargent

K. S.

Jouriles

E. N.

Rosenfield

McDonald

(2016). A high school-based evaluation of TakeCARE, a video bystander program to prevent adolescent relationship violence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 46(3), 633–643. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-016-0622-z

34.

Schmolck

(2014). PQMethod Q methodology analysis program 2.35. http://schmolck.org/qmethod/downpqwin.htm

35.

Shen

A. C.-T.

(2011). Cultural barriers to help-seeking among Taiwanese female victims of dating violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26(7), 1343–1365. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260510369130

36.

Son

M. S.

Cho

J. Y.

(2016). Survey of dating violence victimization. In Korean Women’s Hot Line. http://hotline.or.kr/board_statistics/28328

37.

Taylor

Banyard

Grych

Hamby

(2019). Not all behind closed doors: Examining bystander involvement in intimate partner violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 34(18), 3915–3935. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260516673629

38.

Watts

Stenner

(2005). Doing Q methodology: Theory, method and interpretation. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 2(1), 67–91. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088705qp022oa

39.

Weitzman

Cowan

Walsh

(2017). Bystander interventions on behalf of sexual assault and intimate partner violence victims. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 35(7–8), 1694–1718. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260517696873

40.

Wijaya

C. N.

Roberts

L. D.

Kane

R. T.

(2021). Attribution theory, bystander effect and willingness to intervene in intimate partner violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 37(13–14), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260521997945

41.

Woods

W. C.

Kistler

T. A.

Stuart

G. L.

Cornelius

T. L.

(2020). Bystander intervention behavior as function of victimization history, opportunity, and situational context. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 37(9–10), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260520975838

42.

Yeun

E. J.

(2020). Q-methodology: Understanding and applying it to nursing and health research. Nursing and Health Sciences, 23(4), 777–781. https://doi.org/10.1111/nhs.12744

43.

Yoshihama

Hammock

A. C.

Baidoun

(2021). Analysis of bystander behavior towards intimate partner violence via performance. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 37(11–12), NP10196–NP10219. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260520985482