The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Journal of Community Psychology
Abstract
This study explores an emergent area of bystander research by describing associations between bystander involvement and community or microsystemic support factors across different types of victimizations. A total of 1703 adults and adolescents were surveyed about bystander presence, bystander actions, and bystander safety across 9 forms of victimization. They were also surveyed about 3 community-level factors—collective efficacy, support for community youth, informal community support—and 2 microsystemic factors—social support and tangible family resources community and microsystemic support scores were not typically associated with bystander presence. Higher community and microsystemic support scores, particularly support for community youth, informal community support, and social support, were commonly associated with perceiving bystanders as helpful to the situation. Support scores, especially collective efficacy, were also associated with bystander safety for some victimization types. Our exploratory findings show a relationship between bystander helpfulness and characteristics of the victim's community and microsystem, especially for victimization types that are typically public, like peer aggression.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Diabetes-related distress was measured using the Diabetes Distress Scale (DDS; [74]).”
From An online positive affect skills intervention reduces depression in adults with type 2 diabetes (2014) · cites this paper as [74]
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Principles and Practice of Scaled Difference Chi-Square Testing
Bryant, F. B., & Satorra, A. (2012) · Structural Equation Modeling A Multidisciplinary Journal · doi:10.1080/10705511.2012.687671 · Cited by 583
Evidence Base Update of Psychosocial Treatments for Child and Adolescent Depression
Weersing, V. R., Jeffreys, M., Do, M.-C. T., Schwartz, K. T. G., & Bolano, C. (2017) · Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology · doi:10.1080/15374416.2016.1220310 · Cited by 505
How Can Theory-Based Evaluation Make Greater Headway?
Weiss, C. H. (1997) · Evaluation Review · doi:10.1177/0193841x9702100405 · Cited by 484
Promoting Healthy Adolescents: Synthesis of Youth Development Program Evaluations
Roth, J. L., Jeanne Brooks-gunn, B., Murray, L. F., & Foster, W. (1998) · Journal of Research on Adolescence · doi:10.1207/s15327795jra0804_2 · Cited by 486
Families Living with Severe Mental Illness: A Literature Review
Saunders, J. C. (2003) · Issues in Mental Health Nursing · doi:10.1080/01612840305301 · Cited by 411
Metadata
- Authors
- Hahm, H. C., Lahiff, M., Barreto, R. M., Shin, S. H., & Chen, W.
- Venue
- Journal of Community Psychology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2006-03-30
- ISSN
- 0090-4392 (ISSN-L)
- 1520-6629
- OpenAlex
- W4230841133
- Cited by
- 676
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 4 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 29 · 2020: 23 · 2019: 71 · 2018: 55 · 2017: 58 · 2016: 70 · 2015: 64 · 2014: 24 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 5
- Type
- paratext
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Community Psychology (publishedVersion)
- DigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Bullying, Victimization, and Aggression
- Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Sexual Assault and Victimization Studies
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Crime Patterns and Interventions
- Keywords
- bystander behavior, victimization, collective efficacy, social support, family resources, peer aggression, adolescents
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review