Why Do Bystanders Report Intimate Partner Violence? Insights into Real-Life Reasoning from Those Who Actually Intervened

Abstract

As intimate partner violence (IPV) often remains unknown to police, bystanders can play a crucial role in prevention and further escalation of IPV. However, little is known about what brings them into action by reporting incidents of IPV to authorities. As such, we use statements of bystanders who filed reports about IPV incidents to an official domestic violence agency in the Netherlands (N = 78), to investigate the reasoning and motivations for reporting their suspicions. Results show that the reasons for bystanders to report IPV differ depending on the relational dynamics between partners. In situations perceived as intimate terrorism, involving a hierarchical abusive relationship between a man offender and a woman victim, bystanders primarily reported when previous helping initiatives proved inefficient, and they did so to prevent further harm, often particularly in relation to the woman victim. In situations perceived as situational couple violence, involving a symmetrical abusive relationship, bystanders primarily reported when escalation appeared, and they did so to prevent further harm to involved children. We conclude that bystanders report IPV incidents when the need for help is clear, and their motivation for acting concerns the well-being of victims. Our findings add to the growing body of evidence about real-life bystander intervention in emergencies and highlight the need for understanding intervention as context-specific in order to design effective intervention initiatives.

Keywords

intimate partner violence bystander intervention third parties gender

Intimate partner violence (IPV) often remains undetected by authorities, meaning authorities may need bystanders, such as family members, friends, acquaintances, and neighbors, to become aware and to provide help (McMahon, 2024; Paquin, 1994; Taylor et al., 2019; Wolf et al., 2003). There is an abundance of research suggesting that bystanders tend to intervene in violent encounters in public (Ejbye-Ernst, 2023; Lindegaard et al., 2022; Philpot et al., 2020), and even though IPV tends to occur in “private” settings, there are often bystanders who witness it at some point or otherwise become aware, allowing them to intervene in various ways (Kruttschnitt et al., 2018; Taylor et al., 2019; Wilkinson & Hamerschlag, 2005).

Previous research suggests that the approval or disapproval of violence is context-specific, as individuals construct violence by men against women as more unacceptable compared to other gender compositions due to women’s perceived vulnerability and men’s perceived dangerousness, and subsequently, perceived ability to cause harm to women (Carlson, 2008; Hollander, 2001; Ravn, 2018; Sundaram, 2013). In IPV that is perceived as severe and that involves physical violence as opposed to emotional violence, bystanders tend to report a greater willingness to intervene (Ermer et al., 2021; Gracia et al., 2009; Leon et al., 2022; Taylor & Sorenson, 2005). In addition to more general perceptions of vulnerability and danger—which are associated with perceptions of femininity and masculinity (Hollander, 2001)—the dynamics of the violence between partners may elicit different bystander responses.

According to Johnson (1995, 2011), a distinction can be made between intimate terrorism, consisting of the most severe form of violence (Ansara & Hindin, 2010; Ten Boom & Wittebrood, 2019) typically perpetrated by men against women involving a pattern of control and coercion, and situational couple violence, which consists of two-sided violence that is situationally provoked.¹ It is possible that bystander intervention and the reasons for doing so may differ across these types. Indeed, it is known that IPV involving women as victims—as is typically the case in intimate terrorism—is perceived as more serious and urgent, increasing bystanders’ willingness to intervene (Hamby & Jackson, 2010; Harris & Cook, 1994; Kuijpers et al., 2021; Seelau & Seelau, 2005). In contrast, ambiguity or overlap of victim and offender roles—which is typically the case in situational couple violence—may inhibit bystander intervention (Nicksa, 2014). Further, help-seeking behavior tends to differ across these types, with victims² of intimate terrorism being more likely to seek formal help and victims of situational couple violence to rely on their informal network (Leone et al., 2007; Leone et al., 2014). In addition, intimate terrorism is typically more covert due to the perpetrator’s pattern of control and isolation, whereas situational couple violence is likely more visible, which may influence bystanders’ awareness and, subsequently, intervention.

Bystander intervention may additionally be influenced by bystanders’ own gender and social relationship, with women and individuals with close relationships to the victim showing greater empathy and proactivity in the context of IPV (Casper et al., 2021; Hamby & Jackson, 2010; Harris & Cook, 1994; Kuijpers et al., 2021; Kuskoff & Parsell, 2024; Sylaska & Walters, 2014; West & Wandrei, 2002). Due to the perceived need to protect women from men’s violence, men may be more compelled to intervene in intimate terrorism as opposed to situational couple violence, as violence involving mutual aggression may not fit the expectations of women’s perceived vulnerability and men’s dangerousness (Hollander, 2001). Yet, as women tend to recognize risky IPV situations earlier (Casper et al., 2021; Hamby & Jackson, 2010; Harris & Cook, 1994; Kuijpers et al., 2021), it is possible that they might be more perceptive of situational couple violence compared to men.

While previous studies on bystander intervention in IPV provide information regarding the characteristics surrounding intervention, these studies are predominantly based on scenario-based assessments of potential bystanders, and, as such, hypothetical in nature rather than centered on real-life situations (e.g., Kuijpers et al., 2021; Sylaska & Walters, 2014). Importantly, Sánchez-Prada and colleagues (2022) found that a substantial gap exists between bystanders’ reported hypothetical actions in IPV and their actual behavior, with bystanders vastly overestimating their hypothetical involvement. As argued by Kuskoff and Parsell (2023), it is necessary to use other rich data sources that allow for a nuanced and comprehensive overview of bystander intervention in IPV (e.g., administrative data). This highlights the need to understand the motivations and reasons that bring bystanders into action by reporting incidents of IPV in real-life situations, including potential differences between intimate terrorism and situational couple violence.

To fill this gap, we analyze the statements of bystanders who reported incidents of IPV (N = 78) to Safe at Home [Veilig Thuis], a national authority for domestic violence in the Netherlands. Safe at Home provides a helpline where individuals can seek help or report domestic violence and is responsible for assessing individuals’ safety and taking precautions (e.g., arranging emergency shelter). By examining these real-life accounts of bystander intervention, we gain valuable insights into their motivations and reasons for reporting. These bystander perspectives on helping behavior are rare and potentially valuable for designing better intervention programs targeting bystanders (Latta & Goodman, 2011). Our findings add to existing video-observational studies that capture actual bystander behavior in real-life emergencies but do not delve into their underlying motivations (e.g., Ejbye-Ernst, 2023; Philpot et al., 2020). We first present an overview of the literature, in which we discuss (a) who intervenes in IPV and (b) why they do so.

Who Intervenes in IPV?

Previous research indicates that if and how individuals intervene depends on the context, with some differences in intervention behavior between women. Studies have found that men tend to be more likely to engage in strength-intensive and direct forms of helping, such as physical intervention in public violence (Liebst et al., 2019; van Baak et al., under review), while women are more likely to engage in communal and indirect forms of helping behavior, including consolation of victims in the aftermath of robberies (Lindegaard et al., 2017) and reporting child abuse to a hotline (Hoefnagel & Zwikker, 2007). Previous vignette and survey studies suggest that women report a greater inclination to intervene in IPV compared to men, in particular when considering indirect forms of intervention (e.g., calling the police rather than confronting a perpetrator) (Banyard et al., 2020; Bennett et al., 2017; Berkowitz et al., 2022; Casper et al., 2021; Harris & Cook, 1994; Katz & Nguyen, 2016; Sylaska & Walters, 2014; West & Wandrei, 2002). In addition, women tend to perceive IPV as more severe, attribute greater responsibility to the perpetrator, and recognize risky situations earlier compared to men (Casper et al., 2021; Hamby & Jackson, 2010; Harris & Cook, 1994; Gracia et al., 2009; Kuijpers et al., 2021). In sum, women may detect abusive relationships earlier than men and empathize more readily with the victims.

Further, studies suggest that bystanders are more likely to intervene in IPV when they have a personal connection or social bond with the individuals involved (Casper et al., 2021; Ermer et al., 2021; Palmer et al., 2018), such as friends and family (Kuskoff & Parsell, 2024; Weitzman et al., 2020). When bystanders feel a close connection with the victim, they tend to experience a sense of similarity and responsibility for their well-being (Levine et al., 2005; Nicksa, 2014), including the responsibility to protect them from IPV (Kuskoff & Parsell, 2024). Further, it has been found that friends and family are more likely to be aware of IPV compared to acquaintances or strangers (Kuskoff & Parsell, 2024). Friends and family typically become aware of IPV through personal disclosure from the victims (Edwards et al., 2012), while neighbors may be aware due to their physical proximity (Nardi-Rodríguez et al., 2022; Paquin, 1994).

While these characteristics may explain some of the variations in bystanders’ willingness to report, the decision to report IPV additionally appears to be influenced by situational aspects, including perceived severity, relationship dynamics, the form of violence, and the responsibility that bystanders attribute to the perpetrator (Leon et al., 2022). For example, bystanders indicate they would be more likely to report abuse that is perceived as more severe (Ermer et al., 2021; Gracia et al., 2009) and that entails physical or sexual violence as opposed to emotional violence (Taylor & Sorenson, 2005). Importantly, these factors may also be related to the dynamics of the abuse. While intimate terrorism is typically more severe, it also tends to be a more covert form of IPV and, as such, may be less visible to bystanders compared to situational couple violence. Although previous vignette and survey studies suggest that women and those with a close relationship with the victim indicate the greatest willingness to intervene in IPV, less is known about bystanders who report real-life cases of IPV, why they might do so, and whether this depends on whether the situation is perceived as intimate terrorism or situational couple violence.

Why Do Bystanders Intervene in IPV?

Previous studies suggest that intervention in IPV is driven by bystanders’ concern for the victim (Casper et al., 2021; Walker et al., 2021). Survey research among intervening bystanders indicates that they felt responsible, recognized the behavior as problematic, and empathized with the victim (Walker et al., 2021). Casper and colleagues (2021) similarly found that general concern and universal ethical principles were important motivations to intervene in IPV. As such, the primary motivation for reporting IPV is likely related to the protection of those who are physically and/or emotionally harmed by IPV (i.e., the victim and children present in the home). Bystanders may also have specific individual or situational reasons to intervene, such as personal experience with IPV that makes them recognize the need for help more easily (Casper et al., 2021; Walker et al., 2021) or perceived escalation of abuse (Fraga Dominguez et al., 2021). Yet, the motivation (e.g., general concern) and the specific situational reasons to intervene (e.g., escalation) may differ between situations perceived as intimate terrorism and situational couple violence.

Previous scenario-based studies found that bystanders indicated variation in their reasons to intervene in IPV depending on the nature of the relationship between partners. In IPV perpetrated asymmetrically by a man offender against a woman victim, bystanders expressed more willingness to intervene compared to situations involving mutual violence in symmetrical abusive relationships (Berkowitz et al., 2022; Walker et al., 2021). Importantly, the extent to which violence is perceived as legitimate or illegitimate depends on its context (Rayn, 2018). Previous studies have found that individuals constructed violence by men against women as unacceptable and depicted women as vulnerable and “worthy” of protection, which was attributed to the perceived danger of men’s physical bodies and the perceived ability to cause harm to women (Carlson, 2008; Hollander, 2001; Ravn, 2018; Sundaram, 2013). As such, associations of femininity with perceived vulnerability and masculinity with perceived dangerousness (Hollander, 2001) may affect how individuals perceive and act upon IPV. Yet, violence between men and women, in the context of IPV, is not only perceived differently due to perceptions of femininity and masculinity but also appears to underlie different relationship dynamics. Whereas intimate terrorism, predominantly perpetrated by men against women, involves control and coercion, in which misogyny and gender traditionalism play a role (Johnson, 1995, 2011), situational couple violence includes two-sided violence that is situationally provoked as a result of poor conflict management. In addition to strong disapproval of men’s violence against women due to perceptions of femininity and masculinity, bystanders might be more willing to act when witnessing intimate terrorism compared to situational couple violence because the violence tends to be more severe, more often repeated and involves a classical “innocent” victim that bystanders may want to protect from harm. As such, the need for help might be clearer to bystanders. Yet, while victims of intimate terrorism are attacked more frequently and are more likely to be injured, this form of IPV also tends to be more covert due to the perpetrator’s pattern of control and isolation of the victim (Johnson & Leone, 2005; Leone et al., 2014). As victim and offender roles are much more ambiguous in situational couple violence, this could result in a more nebulous perception of whom bystanders empathize with and whom they need to protect from harm. On the other hand, victims of situational couple violence, which stems from the way partners manage conflict and is influenced by interpersonal dynamics and conflict management skills (Johnson, 2008; Love et al., 2020), are more likely to rely on informal help (e.g., contacting family or friends; Leone et al., 2007, 2014), and this form of IPV tends to be more overt, which could alternatively result in greater awareness among bystanders compared to intimate terrorism.

In this paper, we examine why bystanders report IPV in general, as well as their reasons for reporting intimate terrorism and situational couple violence. We expect that in situations perceived as intimate terrorism, victimization may be less visible to bystanders due to the perpetrator’s control of the victim, there may be more severe escalations, and formal help might be more often involved. In situations perceived as situational couple violence, we expect that bystanders may be more likely to be aware of the violence due to its overtness. However, due to the reciprocal nature of this form of IPV, they may only report when they receive clear signs that one or both of the partners are harmed or in danger (e.g., recent disclosure, escalated abuse).

Data

We used data from Safe at Home [Veilig Thuis], the official domestic violence agency in the Netherlands, consisting of 25 regional agencies. Safe at Home offers a free national helpline available 24 hr a day for individuals seeking advice or help regarding domestic violence. In addition, individuals, such as victims, professionals, and bystanders, can use the helpline to report suspicions of domestic violence.³ Safe at Home uses a structured and validated assessment procedure to evaluate the safety of all individuals involved, including victims and perpetrators, as well as individuals exposed to domestic violence (e.g., children, other family members). Based on this assessment, Safe at Home may refer the case to specialized care (e.g., social work), arrange emergency shelter, or start an in-depth investigation (e.g., contact the parties involved, request information from other agencies). Depending on this investigation, Safe at Home may also decide to alert child protection agencies or the police. All reported situations, regardless of the outcome, are registered as case files. Bystanders who report their suspicions also have the option to report anonymously, meaning that their information—or any other information that might be traceable to the individual—will not be disclosed.⁴

Sample Selection

Data were collected from case files in one Safe at Home region from April to October 2021. The region, consisting of one of the 12 provinces of the Netherlands, comprises both urban and rural areas, with an overall population density similar to the national average.

The data collection was part of a larger project looking at the prevalence, severity, and type of domestic violence during the COVID-19 pandemic (see Coomans et al., 2023). For the purpose of the current study, we included all reports that Safe at Home categorized as “intimate partner violence”⁵, that were reported between January 2019 and December 2020, and that were reported by bystanders. A bystander was defined as a non-professional individual who called Safe at Home to report a suspicion of IPV. Reports from professionals who have a legal duty to report suspicions of domestic violence to Safe at Home (e.g., police) and reports made by individuals directly involved in the situation (i.e., perpetrator, victim, or child) were not included in the sample.⁶

In total, there were 126 cases categorized as IPV, in which at least one report had been made by a bystander. These 126 cases included 259 reports. Of these cases, 41 cases, involving 168 reports, were excluded from the sample because they were reported by an involved individual (i.e., perpetrator, victim, or child) or by a professional, the case was deleted at the request of the family, and/or the specific report was not categorized as IPV by Safe at Home.⁷ Six reports were later excluded because Safe at Home concluded that these were the result of false accusations resulting from ongoing conflicts between the bystander and the involved family (e.g., neighborhood quarrel). Reports without evidence of unsafety or violence were not excluded if there was no evidence that these reports were intentionally false. Further, we decided to exclude reports in which bystanders suspected the violence was perpetrated by a woman partner (n = 7 reports). The nature of abuse was unclear from these descriptions, and given the small subsample of these reports, we were unable to conduct a thorough analysis of these cases. This resulted in a final sample of N = 78 reports within 72 cases, including six cases with multiple individual bystander reports. An overview of this process can be found in Appendix A in the Supplemental Material.

Methods

Data were accessible through the organizational system of Safe at Home and were transcribed and/or copied into Excel by the first author and two researchers. Extensive information from the case files was included, including the full report as filed by the bystander, which entailed information about the type, duration, and severity according to the bystander. Bystanders were also asked how they became aware of the incident or suspicion, why they chose to report, and their expectations from Safe at Home. Other coded information included demographic details, statements by victims, offenders, and involved parties, investigation-related information, and data from other agencies. Any identifying information was removed to protect confidentiality. The coded data were then imported into Atlas.ti version 9 (registered trademark of ATLAS.ti Scientific Software Development GmbH) for analysis.

Analytical Strategy

We conducted a qualitative thematic analysis to examine the motivations and reasons bystanders provide for reporting their suspicions of IPV to a national domestic violence agency. Specifically, we analyzed this across situations that were perceived by bystanders as intimate terrorism or situational couple violence. For the thematic analysis, we used a combination of a deductive and inductive approach (Clarke & Braun, 2017), drawing on anticipated themes from previous literature and the first author’s extensive coding process at Safe at Home. An overview of our qualitative process can be found in Appendix B in the Supplemental material.

The deductive approach was based on the first author’s familiarity with the case files and relevant literature on bystander reporting and bystander intervention in IPV. We identified potential themes previously associated with motivating bystanders or serving as specific reasons for intervention, including “benevolence,” “safety,” “personal experience,” and “escalation” (Casper et al., 2021; Fraga Dominguez et al., 2021; Walker et al., 2021), and used this to establish an initial coding scheme. The coding scheme also included categories—previously categorized by Safe at Home—for “type of bystander” (i.e., family member, social network, neighbor) and “gender of bystander” (i.e., man or woman).⁸ Additionally, we established descriptive codes to provide context, such as how the bystander became aware (i.e., direct signs of IPV, disclosure from victim/perpetrator, or informed by others) and the form of violence (i.e., emotional, physical, sexual, financial) as reported by the bystander.

For the type of IPV, we made a distinction between intimate terrorism and situational couple violence (Johnson, 1995, 2011) based on the interpretation of bystanders’ descriptions. Instances of suspected one-sided violence perpetrated by a man partner against a woman victim were coded as intimate terrorism. An example of intimate terrorism, as cited by the employee who summarized the bystander’s observations, includes:

There is structural domestic violence, which is witnessed by their children. [Man] is making death threats against [woman] and threatens to throw acid in her face and to beat her on her recently operated chest/arm until she bleeds. [. . .] [Man] wakes up [woman] in the night by yelling/screaming, then nothing happens (sounds like a form of intimate terrorism). Whenever [man] wants to have sex, she has to obey, if she says no, he threatens her.

In these situations, bystanders sometimes explicitly mentioned the victim’s vulnerability or the power imbalance within the relationship, such as: “[b]ystanders are worried because [woman] is insufficiently resilient to her ex-partner.” Cases where bystanders perceived two-sided abuse were coded as situational couple violence. In these reports, bystanders sometimes explicitly mentioned they perceived both partners as perpetrators, but oftentimes, bystanders reported that they had heard or seen both partners engage in emotionally or physically abusive behavior without labeling a perpetrator. An example includes: “[Bystander] says she hears the neighbors frequently yelling, cursing and threatening each other. [. . .] [Bystander] says she has seen the neighbors throwing things at each other, such as crockery.” It is important to emphasize that this indicates bystanders’ perceptions of IPV, while the detailed dynamics between the partners remain unknown. As such, it could be possible that violence is perceived as two-sided by bystanders but, in fact, considers violent response to intimate terrorism, or that IPV by a man against a woman does not include coercion and control consistent with intimate terrorism. Note that, with the exception of one case, all bystanders suspected a pattern of violence based on the signs they received (e.g., seeing or hearing it) (98.7%) and rarely reported suspicions based on an isolated incident. Further, because we are interested in bystanders’ perspectives, we believe focusing on their statements, based on the signs they receive, is crucial.

After creating the coding scheme, the first author independently coded 20 reports, using the initial coding scheme as a basis but also considering any other relevant information (i.e., information that was not anticipated but nevertheless provided further context, such as bystanders’ earlier intervention actions). Simultaneously, another researcher, who was involved in the coding process at Safe at Home, independently coded 20 reports without access to the initial coding scheme. This researcher was aware of the research questions but was not given the coding scheme to allow them to work as independently as possible. The coded reports were then compared, and both coders discussed their codes in greater detail. As both coders participated in the initial coding process, and many of the codes were descriptive, there was substantial overlap in the codes. Any discrepancies were thoroughly discussed until a consensus was reached. All information was combined into one coding scheme, serving as the starting point for coding in Atlas.ti.

The first author conducted multiple cycles of coding, with a focus on bystanders’ reports and their reasons for reporting. During the first cycle, relevant sentences of bystanders’ reports were coded using the coding scheme, and extensive analytic memos were written. These memos included general impressions and reflections on individual reports, serving as an important tool for data analysis throughout the coding process. An example of an insight resulting from the memos was that bystanders often found it difficult to report and experienced a range of conflicting emotions. Such insights were valuable because they provided a greater understanding of bystanders’ experiences. Once all case files were coded, a detailed analysis was conducted, and the codes were reviewed and refined. In the second cycle of coding, all case files were coded again with the refined codes. Any additional themes that emerged and were not covered by the coding scheme were coded as open codes, capturing as many themes and patterns as possible (Braun & Clarke, 2006). These inductively derived open codes consisted of relevant information that contextualized the themes related to reporting. The coding process continued until we reached saturation (i.e., no new themes or codes emerged from the data), and the themes were then defined and named. In the section below, we present these themes by discussing who reported IPV and their reasoning and motivation for reporting across types of IPV. We present numbers and percentages when they are useful in describing and understanding our sample, but refer to Appendix C in the Supplemental material for further detail about the sample.

Results

In slightly over half of the reports (n = 44; 56.4%), the bystander suspected that the violence was perpetrated by a man partner against a woman victim, which was consistent with the concept of intimate terrorism. In over 40% of the reports (n = 34), bystanders suspected that both partners engaged in violence, which was perceived as situational couple violence. Since we do not have data about the prevalence of each type within the Netherlands and how often bystanders are aware but do not report, potential reporting differences remain unknown. Yet, while situations involving women as victims have been found to increase bystanders’ willingness to intervene (Hamby & Jackson, 2010; Kuijpers et al., 2021), and ambiguity of victim and offender roles—as might be the case in situational couple violence—could inhibit intervention, both types of IPV were reported.

Who Reported IPV?

The majority of all reports were filed by women (64.1%). Slightly over a quarter of all reports were filed by men, whereas the remaining reports were either filed by both a man and a woman (e.g., a couple) or bystander’s gender was not reported. Contrary to what was expected, the types of IPV that were reported were roughly equally distributed among men and women, suggesting that both types of IPV are perceived by men and women as severe enough to be reported. Across both types of IPV, most bystanders suspected emotional violence, followed by physical violence, which was often reported simultaneously but rarely mentioned that they suspected financial abuse or sexual violence. Further, with the exception of one report, bystanders mentioned that their suspicions referred to a pattern of IPV as opposed to an isolated incident. Bystanders who reported were most often neighbors who, likely as a result of their close proximity, received direct signs of IPV (i.e., hearing or seeing), suggesting that neighbors have an important role in signaling IPV. An overview of all reports is presented in Appendix C in the Supplemental material.

We identified specific themes within each type of IPV, as visualized in Figures 1 and 2. Reports in which intimate terrorism was suspected were made at relatively equal rates by men (57.1%) and women (56.0%), who often suspected both physical and emotional IPV in intimate terrorism. However, women more often reported their suspicions if they only suspected emotional IPV, which was less often reported by men. In addition, while neighbors were the most frequent reporters in both types of IPV, reports were also made by family members—mostly women—who received disclosure from the victim.

Figure 1.

Overview of identified themes in reports perceived as intimate terrorism. Boxes in gray color reflect themes that were prevalent across both types, whereas boxes without color refer to themes that were especially common in reports of perceived intimate terrorism. Dashed lines (see “man bystanders” and “woman bystanders”) indicate that while these codes were identified, they were less common (i.e., man bystanders suspected emotional intimate partner violence (IPV) but less often compared to women, woman bystanders suspected physical IPV but less often compared to men).

Figure 2.

Overview of identified themes in reports perceived as situational couple violence. Boxes in gray color reflect themes that were prevalent across both types, whereas boxes without color refer to themes that were especially common in reports of perceived situational couple violence. Dashed lines (see “woman bystanders”) indicate that while these codes were identified, they were less common (i.e., woman bystanders suspected physical intimate partner violence but less often compared to men).

Situational couple violence was reported at relatively equal rates by men (42.9%) as by women (44.0%), who often reported both physical and emotional IPV, though women suspected physical IPV less often. Neighbors were by far the most common bystanders to report situational couple violence, who often also mentioned experiencing nuisance, such as noise disturbance. This may not only be the result of their close proximity but potentially also due to the co-occurrence of IPV with other problems, which we elaborate later on. While family members were common bystanders to report intimate terrorism, this was substantially less common among reports involving situational couple violence. Although previous research suggests that victims of situational couple violence are more likely to rely on their informal network (Leone et al., 2007, 2014), bystanders who reported this type of IPV rarely received disclosure from partners.

What Were the Motivations for Reporting?

In all reports, it became clear that bystanders reported out of concern for others. These concerns are related to the well-being of the family as a whole or of the victim or the children specifically. While bystanders often explicitly mentioned they wanted to prevent further harm, the perceptions of whom they believed should be protected differed.

In reports perceived as intimate terrorism, bystanders often mentioned concerns regarding the well-being of the woman victim, sometimes in combination with concerns about children in the household. As visualized in Figure 1, these concerns are sometimes related specifically to perceptions of women’s vulnerability, which may not only have to do with the association of femininity with perceived vulnerability in the context of violence (Hollander, 2001) but also with the dynamics of intimate terrorism consisting of severe, repeated abuse co-occurring with coercion and control against the victim (Johnson, 2011). For example, in one report, it was stated that “[b]ystanders are worried because [woman] is insufficiently resilient to her ex-partner.” Importantly, the concerns about the well-being of the woman as a victim sometimes included the fear that the abuse could potentially result in the woman’s severe injury or death. An example includes: “[Bystander] is afraid that it will escalate. That he will actually throw boiling water on her or hurt her physically. In addition, [bystander] is afraid that the child will become victimized if the conflict escalates.” These concerns not only had to do with suspicions of intimate terrorism as a pattern of severe abuse, of which injury or harm could be a potential outcome but were sometimes also specifically based on having seen the woman’s injuries. For some bystanders, these concerns resulted in feelings of stress and/or guilt related to feeling responsible for the woman’s, and sometimes the children’s, well-being.

In reports reflecting situational couple violence, the primary motivation to report was often related to concerns about the well-being of children. As visualized in Figure 2, bystanders often reported that they suspected other problems in addition to IPV, such as substance use, mental health problems, financial issues, or dilapidation of the house, which sometimes (additionally) resulted in bystanders experiencing nuisance (e.g., noise disturbance). In addition, it was not uncommon for bystanders to mention suspicions of child maltreatment or neglect. In many cases, it seemed to be a combination of IPV—which may have been witnessed by children—potential child maltreatment or neglect, and other issues within the household that led to bystanders’ concern about the children being exposed to an unsafe environment. While bystanders also reported concerns regarding children’s immediate safety, there was a particular fear related to long-term consequences as a result of children growing up in this environment. An example of a report in which the children’s well-being is centered is illustrated here:

[Bystander’s] biggest concern if nothing is being done is that the children grow up in an unsafe environment and that they will not grow up as well-balanced adults. [Bystander] is also concerned that the children witness violence between their parents, and, as a result, are being neglected. Based on what [bystander] hears, the situation is very intense, and the exposure to the screaming and escalation is not good for the children. [Bystander] wants the children to grow up in a pleasant environment.

To summarize, all reports reflected concerns about others’ well-being, but in intimate terrorism, bystanders were—in addition to concerns about children’s well-being—afraid that the woman victim would be (severely) harmed, who was identified as a clear victim that they believed should be protected. In situational couple violence, these concerns often primarily related to the children.

What Were the Reasons to Report?

In addition, we analyzed the reasons that served as a turning point for bystanders to report their suspicions. Bystanders often had multiple reasons, meaning these reasons were not mutually exclusive. In total, we identified and categorized eight reasons. An overview of these reasons and how they emerged across cases of intimate terrorism and situational couple violence is presented in Table 1. Further, we present a visualization of overlapping reasons for each type in Figure 3 and Figure 4.

Table 1.

Reasons to Report and Perceived Type of Intimate Partner Violence (IPV).

Reason	N	Intimate Terrorism (n = 44)	Situational Couple Violence (n = 34)
Ineffectiveness of previous help	37	26	11
Recent escalation	32	18	14
Continued unsafety	15	8	7
Disturbance	12	2	10
Lack of sight	7	4	3
“No one does anything”	5	5	0
Advised to report	4	2	2
Personal experience	2	0	2

Note. Multiple reasons may co-exist, meaning these numbers are not mutually exclusive.

Figure 3.

Overview of bystanders’ reasons to report suspicions of intimate terrorism.

Figure 4.

Overview of bystanders’ reasons to report suspicions of situational couple violence.

Ineffectiveness of Previous Help

The most common reason for bystanders to report, for both men and women, was feeling it was their last resort to intervene and provide help. Bystanders were often aware of the violence for quite some time and had sometimes engaged in previous acts of intervention (e.g., calling the police). Instead of an isolated action, bystander intervention often appeared to be a continuous effort. In other instances, bystanders had not engaged in previous actions but were aware that other bystanders or professionals had previously been involved. The turning point to report often came when bystanders realized previous efforts to break the patterns of abuse were ineffective, seeing reporting as their last chance to help. This is exemplified in the following statement: “[Bystander] reports that the situation has been going on for three months. [Bystander] has repeatedly called the police. [Bystander] has approached her neighbor and her partner, but the situation does not change.” This reason was particularly prevalent in reports of intimate terrorism.

Recent Escalation

The second most common reason to report, for both men and women, was a recent escalation. These bystanders witnessed or became aware of a violent incident that was perceived as one of increased severity. Although bystanders were often aware of a pattern of IPV, it was this recent escalation that served as a turning point. In the following example, the bystander, the victim’s mother, decided to report after her daughter got severely injured as a result of physical violence:

“[Bystander] believes the violence is getting worse. [. . .] [Bystander] reports that they had to cancel their vacation to return home. [Her daughter] was hospitalized with a severe eye injury. [. . .] [Bystander] is afraid [her daughter] might not survive if the violence does not end.”

Recent escalation was common across both types of IPV but proved to be the most common reason to report in situational couple violence. In intimate terrorism, recent escalation regularly co-occurred with the ineffectiveness of previous help, emphasizing the need for effective help to prevent further escalation.

Continued Unsafety

Some bystanders, mostly men, did not identify a specific turning point but expressed their concerns about the persistent suspicion of IPV, leading to a sense of continued unsafety within the household. These suspicions were often ongoing for a while, and there were no clear indicators that the IPV became more severe. Yet, these bystanders seemed to have realized that repeated exposure to violence and/or unsafety could result in negative long-term consequences. Bystanders particularly reported this in relation to children in the home, whom they suspected witnessed or experienced violence, and often mentioned fears related to the children’s development. Continued unsafety occurred in relative numbers, mostly in cases of situational couple violence, which can be related to bystanders’ fear of the lasting effects on children.

Disturbance

Some bystanders specifically mentioned that they experienced disturbance from the IPV (e.g., noise, nuisance), and ending this disturbance was part of their reasoning to report. While disturbance is a more self-centered reason to report, this was never the sole reason to report, and was always expressed in combination with other concerns. An example of this is the following: “[Bystander] says that he is disturbed by the fights, and cannot sleep, which negatively impacts his job. [. . .] [Bystander] wants the noise disturbance to end.” Not surprisingly, this reason was primarily indicated by neighbors, who experienced disturbance as a result of their close spatial proximity and were often repeatedly exposed to noise. In addition, this reason was more common among men. Disturbance was predominantly prevalent in cases of situational couple violence and often co-occurred with a recent escalation, which could be the result of the overtness and mutuality of escalation as a form of communication between partners.

Lack of Sight

Some bystanders decided to report their suspicions because they did no longer had sight on the partner(s), and as such, were concerned about their safety. This was reported by women and by a dyad consisting of a man and woman. In the following statement, an example is provided:

[Bystander] reports that she received a Facebook message on [date] from [woman] saying she is afraid of her partner [man] and wants to leave him. [Bystander] says she has now been blocked on Facebook and cannot get in contact with [woman].

This reason was reported equally across both forms of IPV and often co-occurred with ineffectiveness of previous help (in intimate terrorism) or with a recent escalation (in situational couple violence).

“No One Does Anything”

Another reason to report was bystanders’ realization that other individuals who were aware of IPV did not intervene. Contrary to ineffectiveness of previous help, where individuals and/or helping agencies were involved but perceived as ineffective, bystanders mentioned that others who were aware remained passive, and as such, they felt responsible. This is exemplified in the following statement: “[Bystander] finds it difficult to report, but everybody knows, and no one does anything.” This factor predominantly played a role in reports made by women and was mostly mentioned in cases of intimate terrorism.

Advised to Report

A specific turning point that became apparent in several reports—across both types of IPV—was the fact that bystanders were advised to report to Safe at Home by an external agency or organization (e.g., Victim Support, the police). In reports of intimate terrorism, this reason overlapped with ineffectiveness of previous help, as agencies likely refer to Safe at Home because this is the official agency responsible for coordinating help.

Personal Experience

Two women who reported instances of situational couple violence shared that they had experienced domestic violence in their family of origin. These experiences influenced their ability to recognize the signs and resulted in a sense of responsibility. For example, one bystander mentioned that she and her sister had experienced physical and emotional abuse from their parents during their childhood. The bystander reported that her sister and partner abused each other in front of their children and were additionally abusive toward their children, who were her primary concern. As a result of her lived experience, she recognized the children’s fear, having gone through this herself. This is in line with previous research suggesting that first-hand knowledge due to past experiences may motivate bystander intervention in IPV (Kuskoff & Parsell, 2024).

To summarize, bystanders had various, often co-existing, reasons to report their suspicions. In situations that reflect intimate terrorism, ineffectiveness of previous help was by far the most common reason to report, which could potentially be explained by the fact that this type of IPV is more likely to receive formal help (Johnson, 2011; Leone et al., 2007). At the same time, this type of IPV may be particularly difficult to terminate, given the pattern of severe abuse and control. In situational couple violence, bystanders are often reported because of recent escalation. It is possible that the violence is initially perceived as less severe because bystanders suspect that both partners engage in violence until an escalation clarifies the severity. The reasons for reporting were generally similar among men and women, although men were more likely to report due to continued unsafety, which can be related to concerns about lasting effects on children.

Discussion

Using a qualitative approach, we analyzed statements of bystanders who reported their suspicions of IPV to a domestic violence helpline in the Netherlands. By offering practical and theoretical insights into real-life cases of IPV, we provide rare insights into bystander perspectives on intervention. Our findings complement existing video-based observations indicating that bystanders intervene but not why they do so (e.g., Ejbye-Ernst, 2023; Philpot et al., 2020). Understanding the willingness, motivations, and reasons behind bystander reporting is crucial in recognizing their valuable role in the de-escalation of IPV.

We found that roughly two-thirds of bystanders who reported suspicions of IPV were women, suggesting that women may perceive IPV as more severe and recognize risky situations earlier compared to men, potentially due to their increased exposure (Casper et al., 2021; Hamby & Jackson, 2010; Harris & Cook, 1994; Kuijpers et al., 2021). Further, women, in particular family members, more often received disclosure from the victim, especially in cases perceived as intimate terrorism, whereas men mostly reported after direct signs of IPV. These findings contribute to the growing understanding that men and women might perform different roles in intervention trajectories (Liebst et al., 2019; Lindegaard et al., 2017; van Baak et al., under review).

We did not find major gender differences in the types of IPV that were reported by men and women. In relative numbers, men and women bystanders reported intimate terrorism and situational couple violence at similar rates, suggesting that men and women bystanders may report cases of IPV regardless of whom they perceive as the victim. Yet, women more frequently reported cases involving (only) emotional violence, while men tended to report instances of physical violence. This suggests that women might be more perceptive of emotional abuse, possibly due to their proximity and their ability to recognize abuse at lower thresholds (Fledderjohann & Johnson, 2012; Hoefnagels & Zwikker, 2001).

Most reports were filed by neighbors, highlighting their importance in providing informal social control in the context of IPV—a role that has increased during the COVID-19 pandemic (Coomans et al., 2023). Due to their proximity, neighbors often directly witnessed IPV, which may increase their confidence to intervene and reduce the ambiguity of the situation (Nardi-Rodríguez et al., 2022; Nicksa, 2014). As neighbors can serve as crucial sources of early recognition of IPV, and, as such, can help terminate or de-escalate IPV, it is essential to consider neighbors’ perspectives and needs related to intervention. Future studies could conduct focus groups among both neighbors who have and who have not intervened in IPV, to gain further insight into their decision-making processes and to identify how their emotional and practical needs could potentially be included in policy efforts.

In slightly over half of the reported cases, bystanders reported situations consistent with intimate terrorism perpetrated by a man partner against a woman victim, suggesting that bystanders perceive both forms of IPV as severe enough to report, regardless of the perceived perpetrator. All bystanders who reported IPV did so out of concern for others’ well-being and to prevent further harm, suggesting that their helping behavior is motivated by empathy and benevolence. Yet, the perception of who needs help and protection differed. In intimate terrorism, bystanders expressed concerns related to the woman victim in particular, sometimes co-existing with concerns about children. In these situations, bystanders identified a clear victim that they believed should be protected from further harm, occasionally expressing concerns about the risk of women’s severe injury or death. An important theme that emerged in reports reflecting intimate terrorism related to women’s perceived vulnerability. More generally, studies have found that individuals construct violence by men against women as particularly unacceptable due to perceptions of women’s vulnerability and men’s perceived ability to cause harm to women (Carlson, 2008; Hollander, 2001; Ravn, 2018; Sundaram, 2013). Yet, this vulnerability can also be attributed to the nature of intimate terrorism, typically consisting of perpetrator’s severe abuse and control against the victim, most often a woman, in which severe harm is not uncommon (Johnson, 2011). In situational couple violence, bystanders prioritized the protection of children and often expressed concerns about negative long-term consequences. The overlap in victim and offender roles in situational couple violence may make it harder for bystanders to identify who needs help, whereas children are eminently vulnerable victims in an unsafe environment. Further, in many reports reflecting situational couple violence bystanders reported a range of other concerns, such as substance use and child maltreatment or neglect, in addition to IPV, which arguably increases bystanders’ concerns about children’s well-being.

Bystanders reported their suspicions for various reasons, which often overlapped, with the most common reason being the perceived ineffectiveness of previous help, especially when reporting intimate terrorism. While victims of intimate terrorism are typically more likely to receive formal help (Johnson, 2011; Leone et al., 2007), this type of IPV may be particularly difficult to terminate due to persistent patterns of abuse and control, and efforts to help are not always effective. In these cases, bystanders were often aware of the pattern of abuse for months and sometimes years. As intervention in IPV is a dynamic and fluid process that can have psychological and emotional consequences for bystanders, including anxiety, guilt, and self-blame (Gregory, 2017; Latta & Goodman, 2011), it is pivotal to acknowledge these challenges and to support bystanders by providing guidance when seeking advice or deciding to report. Indeed, the reports indicated it was quite common for bystanders to experience stress and guilt. Future research should explore the barriers bystanders of IPV experience during this process and how they navigate these challenges over time.

Among bystanders who reported situational couple violence, the most common reason for reporting was a recent escalation of violence. Signs of a recent escalation likely increase bystanders’ perception of the severity of the situation, which is known to increase their willingness to report IPV (Leon et al., 2022). Especially in situational couple violence, where conflict resolution and communication skills may escalate into two-sided violence (Johnson, 2008), the need for help may not always be clear (Leone et al., 2014). Therefore, a recent escalation of violence may serve as a crucial turning point for bystanders, making the need to intervene more evident and less ambiguous.

Several other findings emerged from our data. First, we found that many bystanders who reported suspicions of IPV had engaged in previous actions (e.g., calling the police, talking to one of the partners), and reporting was not an isolated action but often a last resort after previous actions did not succeed. As such, bystander intervention in IPV appears to be a continuous effort and could, thus, be conceptualized as a continuum of actions. Future research could elaborate on this by analyzing the range of acts of intervention that bystanders engage in over time. This finding also raises an important challenge, as many previous actions—both by bystanders and professionals—do not suffice, and the domestic violence agency is often informed as a last resort, meaning victims continue to be exposed to severe harm. As mentioned previously, another important theme that emerged was the impact on bystanders’ own well-being. To continue to involve bystanders in efforts to combat IPV, while simultaneously taking care of their well-being, it is essential to consider bystanders’ needs in future studies.

Limitations

While our data comprised observations of real-life situations, thereby avoiding the limitations of vignette studies (Hoefnagels & Zwikker, 2001), this study has several important limitations. First, we relied on bystander reports summarized by employees, and although these summaries are approved by the reporting bystander and written by trained employees, we cannot retrieve the exact content of the conversations. It is possible that bystanders may have provided more detail than what was included in the report.

Although we categorized reports as intimate terrorism and situational couple violence, it is important to note that this was based on bystanders’ descriptions of IPV, which may not accurately reflect the dynamics of the situation. As such, we cannot completely disregard the possibility that, for example, some reports categorized as situational couple violence, may have entailed violent responses to intimate terrorism, or that IPV against a woman did not include the pattern of coercion and control that is embedded in intimate terrorism. Yet, matters of coercion and control are heavily influenced by gender, which, therefore, should form a core focus of our understanding of IPV (Johnson, 2024). As such, the vast majority of reports are likely consistent with Johnson’s typology—a typology for which overwhelming support has been found (Conroy et al., 2024)—and, with the exception of one report, all reports indicated patterns of abuse rather than isolated incidents. As argued by Johnson (2006), “[i]f we want to understand partner violence, to intervene effectively in individual cases, or to make useful policy recommendations, we must [always] make these distinctions” (p. 1015). Because of our focus on understanding how bystanders perceive and respond to these situations, these perspectives are crucial. Yet, future research should address this limitation by relying on data that allow to analyze the dynamics of IPV and bystanders’ perceptions to a greater extent, for example by corroborating bystanders’ perceptions with victims’ accounts of the violence. Further, to encourage bystander reporting of IPV, it is essential to know in what situations and under what conditions they do so. Future studies could conduct in-depth interviews with bystanders who have reported to a domestic violence helpline to gain an understanding of the mechanisms that influence this decision. As our study only provides insight into bystanders who reported, we do not know why bystanders who are aware of IPV do not report the abuse. Future research should, therefore, also aim to uncover the decision-making processes among bystanders who do not intervene.

We used all reports registered as IPV in one geographical region in the Netherlands. As Safe at Home does not register the bystander’s residence—which need not be similar to that of the victim and/or offender—we cannot analyze to what extent bystanders’ willingness to intervene may vary within this region. In addition, there is no data available that allows us to compare these regions, as permission for data collection was only received from this region. As such, future research should investigate bystanders’ reporting behavior in other regions and countries. In addition, future studies should analyze if and how IPV exposure and subsequent bystander reporting behavior may vary across urban and rural areas for a more comprehensive understanding.

In addition, previous research conducted in the Netherlands suggests that the taboo on IPV and on talking about “private” issues may inhibit help-seeking among victims, which was particularly reported by women in cultural groups that emphasize family collectivism (Pels et al., 2015). As such, it is possible that cultural norms, in addition to aspects such as social cohesion, education, and socio-economic status, may play a role in IPV disclosure and/or exposure, which may subsequently influence bystander intervention. Further, decisions to report IPV may be influenced by bystanders’ perceptions of formal authorities. More generally, it has been found that individuals from minoritized communities tend to show lower levels of general trust compared to majoritized groups in the Netherlands (De Vroome et al., 2013). As such, it is possible that perceptions of formal authorities may discourage reporting to these authorities, while shared group membership in terms of ethnic or cultural identity may also affect bystanders’ decision to intervene (Levine et al., 2005). As we only have data on bystanders who decided to report to the hotline, we are unable to investigate to what extent such aspects may play a role in the decision not to intervene by reporting. Therefore, we call for future studies to incorporate this important avenue of research, for example, by conducting interviews or focus groups across an ethnically and culturally diverse sample.

Further, over half of the reports were filed anonymously, indicating the potential importance of anonymous reporting of IPV for bystanders. As it was beyond the scope of the current study to analyze why bystanders choose to report anonymously, future research should aim to uncover bystanders’ reasoning for doing so. Additionally, analyzing potential gender differences in anonymous reporting of IPV would be informative, given women’s tendency to use indirect forms of intervention in IPV (Berkowitz et al., 2022; West & Wandrei, 2002).

In addition, we excluded reports involving women as perpetrators due to their low prevalence and the lack of detailed information to differentiate between intimate terrorism and situational couple violence in these cases. Yet, as men’s victimization of IPV tends to be highly underreported and is often perceived differently (Dutton & White, 2013), it is crucial for future research to explore bystander responses in these situations.

Further, gender of bystanders, victims, and perpetrators was based on information by the registering employee, defining individuals as “man” or “woman.” As such, we lack knowledge of how individuals self-identify in terms of gender, and this distinction does not do justice to identities outside the gender binary, and the fluidity of gender self-identification (Miller, 2002; Valcore & Pfeffer, 2018). Future research would benefit from adopting a more inclusive operationalization of gender. Additionally, our sample only included reports of IPV among heterosexual couples, as there were no reports on same-sex couples in our data. As victims in same-sex couples may experience additional barriers and greater inhibitions to disclose IPV compared to heterosexual couples (Sylaska & Edwards, 2014), exploring how bystanders can facilitate intervention among same-sex couples is essential.

Last, the data were collected during the COVID-19 pandemic and included reports made during lockdowns in the Netherlands. While we do not see differences in the identified themes during this period, it is possible that the pandemic has affected bystanders’ willingness to report or the personal or situational factors surrounding their reports.

Conclusion

Our results indicate that bystanders report IPV when the need for help is clear, and their motivation for acting concerns the well-being of victims. Bystanders reported IPV regardless of whom they perceived as the perpetrator. Yet, the perception of who needs help and protection from harm differed, as situations perceived as situational couple violence often revolved around a primary need to protect children, compared to the protection of both the woman victim and children in intimate terrorism. Bystanders often reported IPV when they felt other options were exhausted, especially among those reporting intimate terrorism. There were no major gender differences in the reporting of intimate terrorism and situational couple violence. Yet, women more often reported emotional violence as the only type of IPV, whereas men predominantly reported if they (also) suspected physical violence. Our findings contribute to the growing body of literature suggesting that bystander behaviors by men and women are context-specific.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-jiv-10.1177_08862605241227156 – Supplemental material for Why Do Bystanders Report Intimate Partner Violence? Insights into Real-Life Reasoning from Those Who Actually Intervened

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-jiv-10.1177_08862605241227156 for Why Do Bystanders Report Intimate Partner Violence? Insights into Real-Life Reasoning from Those Who Actually Intervened by Carlijn van Baak, Veroni Eichelsheim, Don Weenink and Marie Rosenkrantz Lindegaard in Journal of Interpersonal Violence

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Cor Scheurwater from Veilig Thuis for his help in getting access to the data. Further, the authors would like to thank Anne Coomans and Rosanne Bombeld for their help in coding the data.

Author contributions

Conceptualization—CVB VE DW MRL, Data collection—CVB VE, Formal analysis—CVB, Funding acquisition—MRL VE, Investigation—CVB, Methodology—CVB, Project administration—CVB, Supervision—MRL, Writing—original draft—CVB, Writing—review & editing—CVB MRL VE DW.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, 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 study was funded by the Dutch Research Council (NWO VI.Vidi.195.083) by means of a grant awarded to Marie Rosenkrantz Lindegaard. Further, the data collection of this study was part of a larger project that was funded by a grant awarded to Veroni Eichelsheim in the COVID-19 funding round of The Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development (ZonMw) and was registered under number 10430032010007.

ORCID iD

Carlijn van Baak

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Notes

Author Biographies

Carlijn van Baak, is a PhD candidate at the Netherlands Institute for the Study of Crime and Law Enforcement (NSCR) and the University of Amsterdam. Her research interests include intimate partner violence, bystander behavior, and gender.

Veroni Eichelsheim, Netherlands Institute for the Study of Crime and Law Enforcement (NSCR) and Faculty of Behavioral and Social Sciences, University of Groningen (The Netherlands), is a senior researcher and professor of developmental psychology. She specializes in intergenerational continuity of problematic behavior, such as (domestic) violence and crime, focusing on familial relationships and circumstances.

Don Weenink, is associate professor at the Department of Sociology at the University of Amsterdam. He published on various forms of violence and currently works on a book provisionally entitled “The Social Reality of Violence” which reports the results of research projects on arranged fights, police teams, security guards, youth groups and vigilantes.

Marie Rosenkrantz Lindegaard, is a professor of sociology at the University of Amsterdam and a senior researcher at the Netherlands Institute for the Study of Crime and Law Enforcement (NSCR). Her research interests include interactional aspects of offending, victimization, guardianship and law enforcement, street culture, observational methods, and urban ethnography in South Africa.

References

Ansara

D. L.

Hindin

M. J.

(2010). Exploring gender differences in the patterns of intimate partner violence in Canada: A latent class approach. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, 64(10), 849–854.

Banyard

V. L.

Rizzo

A. J.

Edwards

K. M.

(2020). Community actionists: Understanding adult bystanders to sexual and domestic violence prevention in communities. Psychology of Violence, 10(5), 531.

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.

Berkowitz

Sowan-Basheer

Winstok

(2022). Bystanders’ behavioral responses to intimate partner violence: The role of gender, culture, and education. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 32(5), 651–668.

Braun

Clarke

(2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.

Carlson

(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.

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.

Clarke

Braun

(2017). Thematic analysis. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 12(3), 297–298.

Conroy

N. E.

Crowley

C. G.

DeSanto

D. L.

(2024). Assessing the state of empirical research on Johnson’s typology of violence: A systematic review. Journal of Family Violence, 39(1), 23–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-022-00416-3

10.

Coomans

Kühling-Romero

van Deuren

van Dijk

Van de Weijer

Blokland

Eichelsheim

(2023). Stay home, stay safe? The impact of the COVID-19 restrictions on the prevalence, nature, and type of reporter of domestic violence in the Netherlands. Journal of Family Violence, 38(8), 1545–1561.

11.

De Vroome

Hooghe

Marien

. (2013). The origins of generalized and political trust among immigrant minorities and the majority population in the Netherlands. European Sociological Review, 29(6), 1336–1350.

12.

Dutton

D. G.

White

K. R.

(2013). Male victims of domestic violence. New Male Studies: An International Journal, 2(1), 5–17.

13.

Edwards

Dardis

Gidycz

C. A.

(2012). Womens disclosure of dating violence: A mixed methodological study. Feminism & Psychology, 22, 507–517.

14.

Ejbye-Ernst

(2023). 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.

15.

Ermer

A. E.

Roach

A. L.

Coleman

Ganong

(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.

16.

Fledderjohann

Johnson

D. R.

(2012). What predicts the actions taken toward observed child neglect? The influence of community context and bystander characteristics. Social Science Quarterly, 93(4), 1030–1052.

17.

Fraga Dominguez

Storey

J. E.

Glorney

. (2021). Informal supporters of elder abuse victims: Who are they and what is their experience seeking help?. Journal of Family Violence, 37, 1–14.

18.

Gracia

García

Lila

(2009). Public responses to intimate partner violence against women: The influence of perceived severity and personal responsibility. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 12(2), 648–656.

19.

Gregory

A. C.

(2017). ‘The edge to him was really, really nasty’: Abusive tactics used against informal supporters of domestic violence survivors. Journal of Gender-Based Violence, 1(1), 61–77.

20.

Hamby

Jackson

(2010). Size does matter: The effects of gender on perceptions of dating violence. Sex Roles, 63, 324–331.

21.

Harris

R. J.

Cook

C. A.

(1994). Attributions about spouse abuse: It matters who the batterers and victims are. Sex Roles, 30(7), 553.

22.

Hoefnagels

Zwikker

(2001). The bystander dilemma and child abuse: Extending the Latane and Darley model to domestic violence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31(6), 1158–1183.

23.

Hollander

J. A.

(2001). Vulnerability and dangerousness: The construction of gender through conversation about violence. Gender & Society, 15(1), 83–109.

24.

Johnson

M. P.

(1995). Patriarchal terrorism and common couple violence: Two forms of violence against women. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57(2), 283–294.

25.

Johnson

M. P.

(2006). Conflict and control: Gender symmetry and asymmetry in domestic violence. Violence Against Women, 12(11), 1–16.

26.

Johnson

M. P.

(2008). A typology of domestic violence. Upne.

27.

Johnson

M. P.

(2011). Gender and types of intimate partner violence: A response to an anti- feminist literature review. Aggression & Violent Behavior, 16(4), 289–296.

28.

Johnson

M. P.

(2024). My reactions to “Johnson’s typology of intimate partner violence: Reflecting on the first 25 years and looking ahead”. Journal of Family Violence, 39(1), 149–152. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-023-00595-7

29.

Johnson

M. P.

Leone

J. M.

(2005). The differential effects of intimate terrorism and situational couple violence: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey. Journal of Family Issues, 26(3), 322–349.

30.

Katz

Nguyen

L. J.

(2016). Bystander responses to risk for rape perpetrated by a friend, acquaintance, or stranger. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 25(6), 652–667.

31.

Kruttschnitt

Yule

Alper

Klassen

(2018). Situational variations in, and women’s accounts of, avoided acts of serious intimate partner violence. Violence Against Women, 24(4), 477–501.

32.

Kuijpers

K. F.

Blokland

A. A.

Mercer

N. C.

(2021). Gendered perceptions of intimate partner violence normality: An experimental study. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(3–4), NP1412–1440NP.

33.

Kuskoff

Parsell

(2024). Bystander intervention in intimate partner violence: A scoping review of experiences and outcomes. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 25(3), 1799–1813. https://doi.org/10.1177/15248380231195886

34.

Latta

R. E.

Goodman

L. A.

(2011). Intervening in partner violence against women: A grounded theory exploration of informal network members’ experiences. The Counseling Psychologist, 39(7), 973–1023.

35.

Liebst

L. S.

Philpot

Bernasco

Dausel

K. L.

Ejbye-Ernst

Nicolaisen

M. H.

Lindegaard

M. R.

(2019). Social relations and presence of others predict bystander intervention: Evidence from violent incidents captured on CCTV. Aggressive Behavior, 45(6), 598–609.

36.

Lindegaard

M. R.

Liebst

L. S.

Bernasco

Heinskou

M. B.

Philpot

Levine

Verbeek

(2017). Consolation in the aftermath of robberies resembles post-aggression consolation in chimpanzees. PLoS One, 12(5), e0177725.

37.

Lindegaard

M. R.

Liebst

L. S.

Philpot

Levine

Bernasco

(2022). Does danger level affect bystander intervention in real-life conflicts? Evidence from CCTV footage. Social Psychological & Personality Science, 13(4), 795–802.

38.

Leon

C. M.

Aizpurua

Rollero

(2022). None of my business? An experiment analyzing willingness to formally report incidents of intimate partner violence against women. Violence Against Women, 28(9), 2163–2185.

39.

Leone

J. M.

Johnson

M. P.

Cohan

C. L.

(2007). Victim help seeking: Differences between intimate terrorism and situational couple violence. Family Relations, 56(5), 427–439.

40.

Leone

J. M.

Lape

M. E.

(2014). Women’s decisions to not seek formal help for partner violence: A comparison of intimate terrorism and situational couple violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 29(10), 1850–1876.

41.

Levine

Prosser

Evans

Reicher

(2005). Identity and emergency intervention: How social group membership and inclusiveness of group boundaries shape helping behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(4), 443–453.

42.

Love

H. A.

Spencer

C. M.

May

S. A.

Mendez

Stith

S. M.

(2020). Perpetrator risk markers for intimate terrorism and situational couple violence: A meta-analysis. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 21(5), 922–931.

43.

McMahon

(2022). How helpful is bystander intervention? Perspectives of dating and sexual violence survivors. Violence Against Women, 30(2), 575–597.

44.

Miller

(2002). The strengths and limits of ‘doing gender’ for understanding street crime. Theoretical Criminology, 6(4), 433–460.

45.

Nardi-Rodríguez

Paredes-López

(2022). How can we increase neighbors’ intention to report intimate partner violence against women during the pandemic?. Violence Against Women, 28(10), 2377–2397.

46.

Nicksa

S. C.

(2014). Bystander’s willingness to report theft, physical assault, and sexual assault: The impact of gender, anonymity, and relationship with the offender. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 29(2), 217–236.

47.

Palmer

J. E.

Nicksa

S. C.

McMahon

(2018). Does who you know affect how you act? The impact of relationships on bystander intervention in interpersonal violence situations. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 33(17), 2623–2642.

48.

Paquin

G. W.

(1994). A statewide survey of reactions to neighbors’ domestic violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 9(4), 493–502.

49.

Pels

van Rooij

F. B.

Distelbrink

(2015). The impact of intimate partner violence (IPV) on parenting by mothers within an ethnically diverse population in the Netherlands. Journal of Family Violence, 30, 1055–1067.

50.

Philpot

Liebst

L. S.

Levine

Bernasco

Lindegaard

M. R.

(2020). Would I be helped? Cross-national CCTV footage shows that intervention is the norm in public conflicts. American Psychologist, 75(1), 66.

51.

Profitt

N.-J.

(1996). “Battered Women” as “Victims” and “Survivors”: Creating space for resistance. Canadian Social Work Review, 13(1), 23–38.

52.

Ravn

(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.

53.

Sánchez-Prada

Delgado-Alvarez

Bosch-Fiol

Ferreiro-Basurto

Ferrer-Perez

V. A.

(2022). Bystanders of intimate partner violence against women and their willingness to intervene: An analysis of secondary data in Spain (2005–2020). PLoS One, 17(9), e0274822.

54.

Seelau

S. M.

Seelau

E. P.

(2005). Gender-role stereotypes and perceptions of heterosexual, gay and lesbian domestic violence. Journal of Family Violence, 20, 363–371.

55.

Sundaram

(2013). Violence as understandable, deserved or unacceptable? Listening for gender in teenagers’ talk about violence. Gender & Education, 25(7), 889–906.

56.

Sylaska

K. M.

Edwards

K. M.

(2014). Disclosure of intimate partner violence to informal social support network members: A review of the literature. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 15(1), 3–21.

57.

Sylaska

K. M.

Walters

A. S.

(2014). Testing the extent of the gender trap: College students’ perceptions of and reactions to intimate partner violence. Sex Roles, 70, 134–145.

58.

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.

59.

Taylor

C. A.

Sorenson

S. B.

(2005). Community-based norms about intimate partner violence: Putting attributions of fault and responsibility into context. Sex Roles, 53, 573–589.

60.

Ten Boom

Wittebrood

. (2019). De prevalentie van huiselijk geweld en kindermishandeling in Nederland [The prevalence of domestic violence and child abuse in the Netherlands]. WODC.

61.

Valcore

J. L.

Pfeffer

(2018). Systemic error: Measuring gender in criminological research. Criminal Justice Studies, 31(4), 333–351.

62.

van Baak

Hoeben

Liebst

L. S.

Weenink

Lindegaard

M. R

. (Under review). Bystander action beyond intervention: Video-observing behavior of bystanders in public conflicts.

63.

Walker

Fenton

R. A.

Snowdon

L. C.

Parry

Barton

E. R.

Donovan

Bellis

M. A.

(2021). Bystander experiences of domestic violence and abuse during the COVID-19 pandemic. Public Health Wales NHS Trust.

64.

Weitzman

Cowan

Walsh

(2020). Bystander interventions on behalf of sexual assault and intimate partner violence victims. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 35(7–8), 1694–1718.

65.

West

Wandrei

M. L.

(2002). Intimate partner violence: A model for predicting interventions by informal helpers. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 17(9), 972–986.

66.

Wilkinson

D. L.

Hamerschlag

S. J.

(2005). Situational determinants in intimate partner violence. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 10(3), 333–361.

67.

Wolf

M. E.

Hobart

M. A.

Kernic

M. A.

(2003). Barriers to seeking police help for intimate partner violence. Journal of Family Violence, 18(2), 121–129.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.04 MB