English
 
Help Privacy Policy Disclaimer
  Advanced SearchBrowse

Item

ITEM ACTIONSEXPORT

Released

Journal Article

Reactive guardianship: Who intervenes? How? And why?

MPS-Authors
/persons/resource/persons255828

Barnum,  Timothy
Criminology, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Crime, Security and Law, Max Planck Society;

/persons/resource/persons266870

Herman,  Shaina
Criminology, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Crime, Security and Law, Max Planck Society;

/persons/resource/persons239621

Van Gelder,  Jean-Louis
Criminology, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Crime, Security and Law, Max Planck Society;

External Resource
No external resources are shared
Fulltext (restricted access)
There are currently no full texts shared for your IP range.
Supplementary Material (public)
There is no public supplementary material available
Citation

Barnum, T., Herman, S., Van Gelder, J.-L., Ribeaud, D., Eisner, M., & Nagin, D. S. (2024). Reactive guardianship: Who intervenes? How? And why? Criminology. doi:10.1111/1745-9125.12380.


Cite as: https://hdl.handle.net/21.11116/0000-000F-D3C8-1
Abstract
Guardianship is a core tenet of routine activity theory and collective efficacy. At its outset, routine activity research assumed that the mere presence of a guardian was sufficient to disrupt many forms of crime. More recent research, however, has taken as a starting point that would-be-guardians must take on an active role for a reduction in crime to occur. Integrating research on bystander intervention and guardianship-in-action, the current study elaborates the individual-level motivations and decision processes of guardianship to answer the following questions: Who serves as a reactive guardian? How do they do so? And why? We tasked young adults (N = 1,032) included in the recent waves of the Zurich Project on the Social Development from Childhood to Adulthood (z-proso) to assess a 70-second video depicting a sexual harassment event. We examined participants? willingness to engage in a range of intervention options as a function of their prosocial attitudes, safety considerations, socioemotional motivations, and moral considerations. Results show a complex decision process leading to whether and how a would-be guardian decides to intervene to disrupt sexual harassment, such that prosocial motivations and emotional reactions are weighed against perceptions of danger when deciding on a specific course of action.