The Questionnaire of Intention to Help in VAW Cases (QIHVC): Development and preliminary results

Ferrer-Perez, Victoria A.; Sánchez-Prada, Andrés; Bosch-Fiol, Esperanza; Delgado-Alvarez, Carmen; Vázquez-González, Leila I.; Nardi-Rodriguez, Ainara

doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1153678

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Front. Psychol., 22 March 2023

Sec. Gender, Sex and Sexualities

Volume 14 - 2023 | https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1153678

The Questionnaire of Intention to Help in VAW Cases (QIHVC): Development and preliminary results

$\r\nVictoria A. Ferrer-Perez*$ Victoria A. Ferrer-Perez^1*

Andrés Sánchez-Prada²

Esperanza Bosch-Fiol¹

Carmen Delgado-Alvarez²

Leila I. Vázquez-González¹

Ainara Nardi-Rodriguez³

¹Faculty of Psychology, University of the Balearic Islands, Palma, Spain
²Faculty of Psychology, Pontifical University of Salamanca, Salamanca, Spain
³Faculty of Psychology, Miguel Hernández University of Elche, Elche, Spain

Introduction: Violence against women (VAW) is a worldwide social and health problem of epidemic proportions. This violence is preventable, and bystander programs are one of the possible preventative strategies. The main purpose of this research was to develop a tool that, by applying a contrastive methodology for its application in different forms of violence (forms of gender-based violence, such as intimate partner VAW, sexual harassment at work, and street harassment, and common violence, such as a robbery), would allow measuring the probability of occurrence of bystander response in the face of these types of violence with good evidence of content validity.

Method: Firstly (Study 1), an initial version of a measure tool, the Questionnaire of Intention to Help in VAW Cases (QIHVC), was developed; secondly (Study 2), a Delphi (modified) study was carried out to obtain valid, content-based evidence; and finally (Study 3), a pilot study was carried out to evaluate the appropriate functioning of the QIHVC and, if required, to make any necessary adjustments.

Results and discussion: The main result is the development of a set of case scenarios and a questionnaire related to its content which constitutes the QIHVC and, in its initial approximation, seems to constitute an adequate and sensible tool to capture the differences between the characterizations of common violence and VAW and in the possible response of bystanders in the face of such violence.

Introduction

Violence against women (VAW) is a worldwide social and health problem of epidemic proportions (World Health Organization [WHO], 2018; Sardinha et al., 2022) and one of the most egregious and prevalent human rights violations against women and girls (UNWomen, 2015; Editorial, 2022). However, it is not an inevitable problem but rather is preventable (UNWomen-WHO, 2020). Different alternatives have been put forth as effective preventative strategies, including the development of individual skills to carry out preventative action, the creation of training groups to promote changes in social norms regarding masculinity or gender equality, or bystander programs (UNWomen, 2015). Within this context, this work focuses on studying bystander response and how it can be measured.

Within the scope of VAW, we refer to bystanders (or witnesses) as those individuals who are involved in offensive or violent acts but neither as victim nor as perpetrator (Banyard et al., 2005; Katz, 2006; Fenton et al., 2016; European Institute for Gender Equality [EIGE], 2020). That is, they are witness to the violence or to the conditions that perpetuate such acts, they are present immediately prior, during or after the incident, or they are aware of its occurrence and, despite having no direct participation in the incident, they do have the possibility to intervene by either helping the victim, perpetuating the violence or doing nothing at all (Banyard et al., 2005; Powell, 2014; Hamby et al., 2016).

Although some authors consider all individuals who form part of the community to be possible bystanders in cases of VAW (e.g., Waltermaurer, 2012), others make a distinction between bystanders, understood to be non-professional adults (including family members, friends, colleagues, neighbors, acquaintances, etc.) who observe, suspect or have knowledge of VAW, and professionals who work in any field related to such violence (including those who work in a judicial capacity, in health and social services, or in specialized services for victims of VAW, the police, etc.) (e.g., Herrero et al., 2017; European Institute for Gender Equality [EIGE], 2020). The present study focus on non-professional bystanders.

The field of crime prevention tends to distinguish passive bystanders, meaning those who know of or observe an incident but do nothing about it, and active bystanders (also referred to as prosocial bystanders), meaning those who engage in some type of bystander action, intervening in some capacity in response to an observed situation (Powell, 2014; Fenton et al., 2016). In fact, as recalled by Banyard (2015) and Rothman et al. (2019), the term bystander was originally used only to describe those who did nothing and, for that reason proposed speaking of “actionists” to refer to active bystanders who positively intervene in a violent situation.

The response of an “actionist” may contribute not only toward the prevention of VAW but also its consequences, and can manifest in different ways (McMahon and Banyard, 2012; Powell, 2014; Rothman et al., 2019; European Institute for Gender Equality [EIGE], 2020). Thus, for example, and using sexual violence as a reference, different bystander response opportunities have been classified as either reactive or proactive (McMahon and Banyard, 2012; Rothman et al., 2019): reactive responses would include actions that are carried our prior to, during or after a high-risk situation for the victim, including acts of primary prevention (such as informing somebody that their drink has been spiked), secondary prevention (such as calling the police or physically confronting the aggressor to prevent the aggression), or tertiary prevention (such as accompanying the victim to file a report or offering support); proactive responses would include actions that can be performed at any moment to modify social norms and attitudes that perpetuate violence and to promote healthy and non-violent relationships (such as participating in information or sensitivity campaigns). Other authors distinguish between intervention responses, which put an end to the violent situation, and responses focused on the prevention of violence, whether primary, secondary or tertiary prevention (e.g., Powell, 2014). In the case of intimate partner violence against women (IPVAW), the European Institute of Gender Equality (European Institute for Gender Equality [EIGE], 2020) distinguishes between mediation response (including lending help, support or understanding to the victim; helping the victim in choosing a course of action, intervening in a violent situation; or confronting the aggressor) y reporting responses (including informing or reporting a case of IPVAW to the police or authorities). In short, upon taking into account all of these possibilities, we can conclude that bystander response can be either positive and helpful if it contributes in any way toward halting VAW and/or protecting the victim, or non-helpful if it does not support the victim, remaining neutral, or somehow facilitating the occurrence of the VAW, and negative if it recriminates or blames the victim.

Findings have shown that a considerable number of cases of VAW occur in the presence of bystanders (Burn, 2009; Gracia et al., 2018; European Institute for Gender Equality [EIGE], 2020; León et al., 2022; Sánchez-Prada et al., 2022) and suggest the need and relevance for working with these individuals and convert them into “actionists,” active agents of prevention (McMahon and Banyard, 2012; Fenton and Mott, 2017; Fenton et al., 2019; McMahon et al., 2019; Rothman et al., 2019). This leads to the development of intervention programs to modify attitudes and beliefs held by bystanders (such as possible sexist attitudes or blaming the victim) and to strengthen their active responses (reactive and/or proactive) toward the victims (UNWomen, 2015). An important part of these programs, and the research on which they are based, has focused on cases of sexual VAW (Crooks et al., 2019; Kettrey and Marx, 2019; McMahon et al., 2019; Mainwaring et al., 2022; Woods et al., 2022), although they have been applied to others forms of VAW, such as IPVAW (Banyard et al., 2020; European Institute for Gender Equality [EIGE], 2020; Sprang et al., 2020).

A critical component for maximizing the efficacy and efficiency of these programs is to understand and analyze the bystander’s response (Bush et al., 2019) in addition to both their actual conduct and their willingness to act or intervene given that, as indicated in the Theory of Planned Behavior (Ajzen, 1985; Fishbein and Ajzen, 2010), intention constitutes a valuable predictor of conduct. Likewise, it is important to understand both the factors that facilitate active bystander response and the barriers that impede it (Burn, 2009; Gracia et al., 2018; European Institute for Gender Equality [EIGE], 2020; Álvarez-García et al., 2021; Mainwaring et al., 2022). Overall, there is a fundamental need to have the most valid assessment tools possible (Parrott et al., 2012; Banyard et al., 2014; McMahon et al., 2014, 2017, 2019; Jouriles et al., 2016; Bush et al., 2019).

One of the most commonly used techniques for measuring bystander responses are self-report questionnaires (Bush et al., 2019), focused both on bystander behavior, such as active participation in the incident, and the willingness to intervene (McMahon et al., 2014). Various questionnaires have been published in recent years, contributing significantly to this field of study.

As an example, the Bystander Behaviors Scale (BBS; Banyard et al., 2005, 2007, 2014; Banyard and Moynihan, 2011) originally included 51 items [later reduced to 20 in the Bystander Behavior Scale – Revised (BBS-R; McMahon et al., 2014)] which can be used to measure the helping behavior of bystanders with friends and strangers, whether in the context of sexual assault or abusive relationships, and to evaluate high-risk situations, access to resources, victim support and filing a complaint of physical violence, or proactive and safe behavior in open spaces (e.g., “Call the police or authorities if you saw a group of males bothering a female in a parking lot or similar situation”; or “Confront a friend if you heard rumors that they forced someone to have sex”). Participants in the survey should indicate whether they have engaged in this type of conduct in the previous 2 months, and the number of affirmative responses allows us to create an index for responsive bystander behavior (Jouriles et al., 2016). It should be said that, although it is a widely used questionnaire (i.e., Jouriles et al., 2020; Cascardi et al., 2021), it is not without limitations. One of the main constraints is that, although the meaning of the affirmative responses is clear (occurrence of conduct), the negative responses can be subject to various interpretations (e.g., that the incident did not take place, that when it took place the person did not recognize it as an opportunity to intervene, did nothing or did something different from what is described in the item) (Jouriles et al., 2016; McMahon et al., 2017). For this reason, some authors have proposed adding new response options relative to the number of times a response has occurred (e.g., Coker et al., 2011), or the lack of opportunity to engage (e.g., McMahon et al., 2017; Bush et al., 2019).

The Bystander Attitudes Scale (BAS; Banyard et al., 2005), later called Bystander Intention to Help Scale (Banyard and Moynihan, 2011), includes the same 51 items as the BBS [also reduced to 20 in the Bystander Attitudes Scale – Revised (BAS-R; McMahon et al., 2014)] used to evaluate the willingness to intervene in the face of high-risk situations, accompanying victims to file a report, reporting the violence to the police or authorities, and other proactive actions. For each item the participants use a 5-point scale to indicate (ranging from 1, not likely, to 5 very likely) the likelihood of engaging in the behavior described [e.g., “(How likely are you to) call the police or authorities if you saw a group of males bothering a female in a parking lot or similar situation?” or “(How likely are you to) confront a friend if you heard rumors that they forced someone to have sex?”]. In this case the answers can be tallied to obtain an index of willingness to intervene (Jouriles et al., 2016). As expected, and in accordance with the Theory of Planned Behavior (Ajzen, 1985; Fishbein and Ajzen, 2010), various studies (e.g., Banyard et al., 2007; Jouriles et al., 2016) have observed a significant and positive correlation between the willingness to intervene, as measured with the BBS, and bystander response, as measured by BAS.

The Bystander Intervention Behavior Scale (BIB; Burn, 2009) also evaluates willingness to intervene. More specifically it evaluates the differential probability between male and female adolescents of intervening in cases of sexual violence when the incident of violence occurs to a friend (4 items) or to a stranger (4 items). Participants must indicate on a 7-point scale (ranging from 1, completely disagree, to 7, completely agree) the extent to which they agree with the behavior described (e.g., “I remind my female friends to take actions to reduce sexual assault risk” or “If I see a man pressuring a woman to leave a party or bar with him, I intervene” on the scale used for females; and “I discourage my friends from talking about women in sexually degrading ways” or “I discourage strangers or acquaintances if I hear them talking about women in sexually degrading ways” on the scale used for males). The average score of the 8 items is used to create a bystander intervention index. These scales present indexes of adequate reliability, although they have not been used as often as the previous scales.

The Critically Conscious Bystander Scale (CCBS; Johnson et al., 2019) is another measure of self-report. It includes 43 items and measures four factors, including bystander response in the face of sexual harassment and sexual assault, activism, and increased awareness of these types of violence. The primary characteristic of this questionnaire is that beyond focusing on reactive response in the face of high-risk violent behavior, it focuses on the study of proactive behavior.

In contrast to previous scales, the Willingness to Intervene in Cases of Intimate Partner Violence (WI-IPVAW; Gracia et al., 2018) focuses on bystander response to IPVAW. This scale was developed in Spain and also indicates adequate psychometric properties. It includes 31 items that describe different situations of IPVAW in different contexts and the possible types of bystander response (e.g., “In a supermarket, if a man insulted his wife, I would ignore the situation”). Participants must indicate on a 6-point scale (ranging from 1, Not likely, to 6, Highly likely) the likelihood of intervening in the hypothetical scenarios. This questionnaire incorporates a bifactorial structure, including a general, non-specific factor relative to willingness to intervene in cases of IPVAW, which includes all items, and 3 specific factors relative to preferred forms of intervention (“call the police,” “personal involvement,” and “not my concern” factors, as defined by the authors). In addition to the complete version, there are two short versions of 9 and 5 items, respectively.

As previously noted, the different questionnaires mentioned in this study contain, overall, adequate psychometric properties and, beyond their internal consistency and their correlations with other variables related to theoretical presuppositions on the subject, have the advantage of being quick and easy to administer and calculate, and eliciting information involving different types of behavior in a wide range of situations (Jouriles et al., 2016). Nevertheless, due to their self-report nature (and especially if they are retrospective, as in several cases) they are not without constraints, including (Jouriles et al., 2016; McMahon et al., 2017): the effects of social desirability and the fact that people do not always respond accurately about what they said or did; the difficulties to correctly understand and interpret the characteristics of the situations about which they are asked (such as the seriousness, the danger involved, etc.); or the fact that the response options offered do not always reflect or adequately describe all of the available possibilities.

Precisely due to these limitations, other instruments have been developed to have the participants placed in the situation and offer a more direct measurement to the bystander responses. Thus, for example, to generate a situation involving exposure to sexual violence, Parrott et al. (2012) used film clips containing or not containing sexually explicit content, and Jouriles et al. (2016) used virtual reality to create a simulation. Other authors (e.g., Philpot et al., 2019) have even suggested analyzing bystander response in real-life violent or dangerous situations using CCTV (closed-circuit television) recordings.

However, this type of measurement is not without limitations either, including, among others, greater financial and human support than simply the use of self-reporting, technical or ethical problems, or the difficulty in representing or simulating certain VAW situations and the possible forms of bystander response (Jouriles et al., 2016).

Another variation of the previous study is the design of vignettes or case scenarios that present the participants with a particular situation after which they are asked questions. These types of tools have been widely used to study the perception of sexual assault (Papendick and Bohner, 2017), and also to study bystander response in these cases. To that end, for example, Katz et al. (2015), designed a scenario to describe a high-risk situation of sexual assault in a party, alternating the variable of knowing or not knowing the victim; Levy and Ben-David (2015) presented the description of a rape, alternating the variables of age and personal circumstances of the victim at the moment of the aggression; and Franklin and Garza (2021) described an intimate encounter between two students which ended in sexual assault, alternating the variables of the relationship (how well they knew each other) between the aggressor and the victim and the victim’s skin color. Other studies of bystander response in the case of IPVAW have used various scenarios. For example, Cinquegrana et al. (2018) presented a case of IPVAW alternating in the description the possible cause of violence; and León (2020) and León et al. (2022) presented a case of violence in which six variables were modified in the description: the situation that had led to the violence; the type of violence; the frequency of the occurrence; the origin of the couple involved; the adherence to traditional gender roles; and the possible cause of the violence.

Related to the present study, as previously noted, the methodology involving case scenarios is a useful contrast to the study involving bystander response in the case of sexual violence (e.g., Katz et al., 2015; Levy and Ben-David, 2015; Franklin and Garza, 2021) as well as IPVAW (e.g., Rincón-Neira, 2017; Cinquegrana et al., 2018; León et al., 2022). For this reason we decided to use this evaluation strategy in our research.

Specifically, our research focuses on the study of bystander response in the case of three forms of VAW, all of which are particularly important within the context of Spain, where our study takes place, given that: (a) IPVAW, which constitutes the most prevalent form of VAW on a global scale (World Health Organization [WHO], 2018; Sardinha et al., 2022) has been the object of focus in Spain both at a legislative level (including the development of the Organic Law 1/2004, 28 December, for Comprehensive Measures of Protection against Gender Violence), as well as at a social level and within research in general and on behalf of our research group; (b) Sexual Harassment in the Workplace (SHW), which, despite its lesser prevalence, has also been the object of legislative focus (Organic Law 3/2007, 22 March, for effective equality between women and men, and Organic Law 10/2022, 6 September, full guarantee of sexual freedom); and (c) street harassment (STH), understood as “the sexual harassment directed at women by a stranger in a public place” (Bowman, 1993, p. 51), specifying “undesired comments, gestures and actions forced upon an unknown person in a public space and without that person’s consent” (Plan Internacional, 2019), and which, according to preliminary research, constitutes an extraordinarily prevalent form of VAW especially among young women (Ferrer-Perez et al., 2021).

Given that, to the best of our knowledge, there are no existing tools to evaluate bystander response in the case of these three forms of VAW, the main purpose of this work is to present the development of a tool that applies a scenario-based methodology and makes it possible to measure the probability of the provided responses with good evidence of content validity. To this end, it is important to emphasize that, while measuring real bystander response is important, so too is evaluating one’s inclination to intervene (McMahon et al., 2015, 2019) given that intention constitutes one of the primary predictors of subsequent effective behavior (Ajzen, 1985; Fishbein and Ajzen, 2010), offers important keys to understand how to motivate individuals to participate as “actionists” (McMahon et al., 2015), and also constitutes one of the most frequent positive results after applying intervention programs with bystanders (Katz and Moore, 2013; McMahon et al., 2019). For these reasons, the decision was made to focus the measuring tool on the evaluation of intention or probability (in place of real response).

In an effort to reach this objective, a research survey was prepared, in the line of previous studied that have developed new procedures, tools, instruments, or tests to study psychometric properties (Montero and León, 2007; Ato et al., 2013). To begin (Study 1) an initial version of the Questionnaire of Intention to Help in VAW Cases (QIHVC) was developed; after that, (Study 2) a Delphi (modified) study was carried out to obtain valid, content-based evidence (American Educational Research Association [AERA] et al., 2014); and finally, (Study 3) a pilot study was carried out to evaluate the appropriate functioning of the tool and, if required, to make any necessary adjustments.

Study 1: Develop the initial version of the Questionnaire of Intention to Help in VAW Cases

The aim of this first study was to develop a first version of the QIHVC.

Materials and methods

Participants

Participants in this first study include individuals who form part of the research team and who have signed this work, along with junior collaborators who were involved in the project at that time, all of whom have training in VAW.

Procedure

Previous questionnaires for the evaluation of bystander response were used as a starting point in the design of the QIHVC (e.g., Banyard et al., 2005, 2007, 2014; Burn, 2009; Banyard and Moynihan, 2011; Coker et al., 2011; McMahon et al., 2014, 2017; Katz et al., 2015; Levy and Ben-David, 2015; Jouriles et al., 2016; Cinquegrana et al., 2018; Gracia et al., 2018; Bush et al., 2019; Johnson et al., 2019; León, 2020; Franklin and Garza, 2021; León et al., 2022), in particular those that had defined case-scenarios (e.g., Katz et al., 2015; Levy and Ben-David, 2015; Cinquegrana et al., 2018; León, 2020; León et al., 2022).

To begin, the specific forms of violence to be included were selected. As previously noted, three forms of VAW were chosen: IPVAW, SHW, and STH. Additionally, and as a means of control, a form of non-gender-based violence, specifically robbery, was also selected, with two differentiated variables according to whether the victim was male or female (RMV and RFV). Four junior collaborators all of whom are trained in VAW were then selected from the research team to prepare and agree on a description for each form of violence used as a case scenario, with the following conditions: (1) the situations described had to be as real and credible as possible; (2) the types of violence described had to be comparable in terms of the intensity of violence used by the aggressor, the presence of possible facilitating circumstances, the originator of the aggression and the possible risks and consequences for the bystanders; and (3) given the relevance of the bystander effect (see Darley and Latané, 1968, 1970; Latané and Darley, 1968), each type of violence required two scenarios, one with a single bystander (the participant) and another with several bystanders (the participant and other individuals). The first meeting was held with the collaborators to explain the objective and conditions that they had to meet in each case scenario. After that the collaborators worked with a partner and then in a group to share their ideas and reach an agreement for the final descriptions. After several rounds, and subsequent to combining the different levels of the relevant variables (type of violence and number of bystanders), the scenarios were defined (n = 10) and are described Table 1.

TABLE 1

Table 1. Case scenarios designed.

Finally, the member of the research team (who have signed this study) reviewed the vignettes, first individually and then as a group, until reaching a consensus on the wording with regard to the following aspects: (1) the situations described for each scenario had to be equally credible; (2) the situations were not to include physical violence (robbery due to carelessness in the case of RMV and RFV; psychological violence in the form of verbal aggression in the cases of IPVAW, SHW, and STH; (3) all situations presented had to include circumstantial aspects that could facilitate the activation of stereotypes for blaming the victim (e.g., leaving possessions within reach of others in the case of RMV and RFV; alcohol consumption and/or attire in the case of de IPVAW, SHW and STH); (4) the description of the scenarios could leave no doubt as to the originator of the aggression; and (5) in all case scenarios, the proposed intervention would assume the same level of risk to the bystander.

Results

The developed case scenarios, which include a description of three situations of VAW (corresponding to IPVAW, SHW, and STH) and one common form of violence with two variables according to the gender of the victim (RMV and RFV), are presented in Supplementary Appendix 1.

Next, and referencing the questions included in previous studies (e.g., León, 2020; León et al., 2022) a questionnaire was developed with similar wording used for each of the scenarios and related to the following variables (see Supplementary Appendix 2):

– Perceived seriousness of the violence described in each scenario, understood as the importance attributed to the harm or danger for the victim, measured on a Likert scale ranging from 1, Not serious, to 4, Very serious.

– Responsibility attributed to the victim, related to the victims’ degree of responsibility in the violence, measured on a Likert scale ranging from 1, Not responsible, to 4, Very responsible.

– Responsibility attributed to the perpetrator, related to the perpetrator’s degree of responsibility in the violence, measured on a Likert scale ranging from 1, Not responsible, to 4, Very responsible.

– Responsibility attributed to the bystander in acting as an active agent, that is, the extent to which the participant would consider him or herself responsible for intervening, measured on a Likert scale ranging from 1, Not responsible, to 4, Very responsible.

– Willingness to intervene: using several previous studies as a reference (e.g., Fundación FEDE. Social Research Service, 2012; León, 2020; León et al., 2022), addresses the intention or probability of carrying out a series of bystander responses. Specifically, 10 possible answers, either positive and helpful to, or negative and not helpful, and both active and passive (confronting the victim; confronting the aggressor; calling the police and confronting the aggressor; calling the police but not confronting the aggressor; trying to mediate between the victim and the aggressor; trying to help the victim; asking other people or witnesses for help; not knowing what to do; probably do nothing; and do nothing because “it’s not my concern”). Responses were given according to a 4 point Likert scale ranging 1, Not likely, to 4, Very likely).

Discussion

Subsequent to the process described, an evaluation tool was obtained and considered adequate to reach the intended objectives (see Supplementary Appendix 1, 2). The proposal gathered the suggestions from previous studies on the topic (Banyard et al., 2005, 2007, 2014; Burn, 2009; Banyard and Moynihan, 2011; Coker et al., 2011; McMahon et al., 2014, 2017; Katz et al., 2015; Levy and Ben-David, 2015; Jouriles et al., 2016; Cinquegrana et al., 2018; Gracia et al., 2018; Bush et al., 2019; Johnson et al., 2019; León, 2020; Franklin and Garza, 2021; León et al., 2022) and incorporated a new element with the focus on three forms of VAW and one type of non-gender based violence as the control element.

With the aim of confirming its suitability, the following two studies were carried out.

Study 2: Panel of experts (modified Delphi)

The aim of this second study was to determine the suitability of the case scenarios and the design of the corresponding questionnaires by subjecting them to an expert review.