1. Ending the secrecy: Encouraging observer intervention in instances of intimate partner violence
Carl Newton, Alexandra M. Zidenberg, & Golnaz Ghaderi Laurentian University, Sudbury, Ontario
Introduction
Chaiken’s Heuristic-Systematic Model
Results
Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a serious issue in Canada, with approximately 88,600 instances reported to the police in 2014 (Ibrahmin, 2016).
Best estimates suggest that these reports reflect only 30% of the total number of violent incidents (Burczycka, 2016).
Despite the fact that 66% of women state that they have spoken of the violence to family members, only 10% of the violence that is reported is done so through individuals outside of the intimate relationship (Burczycka, 2016).
Due to the low rate of bystander intervention in situations involving IPV, research in how best to encourage pro-intervention behaviour becomes important.
The Heuristic-Systematic Model of information processing (Chaiken, 1980) lends insight as to which methods of persuasion are most effective in influencing attitudes and behavioural change.
The HSM posits that individuals who process information systematically do so by careful analysis of arguments and facts, whereas individuals who heuristically process do so only on a surface level, relying on shortcuts such as source credibility and consensus (Chaiken, 1980).
The current study sought to apply the HSM to anti-violence arguments, in order to assess the effectiveness of different processing levels on influencing participant behaviour.
A two way ANOVA revealed a significant interaction between processing type and essay relatedness, F(1,76) = 6.47, p < 0.05
Tests of simple effects revealed a significant difference between the systematic processing group and the heuristic processing group, F(1,76) = 7.63, p < 0.01.
Tests of simple effects also revealed a significant difference between the systematic processing group and the systematic control group, F(1,76) = 6.26, p < 0.05
A manipulation check comparing the participant ratings of argument strength between systematic and heuristic processing conditions was not significant, t(38) = 1.86, p = 0.071, d = 0.58.
Systematic
Thorough, Effortful Analysis, High Motivation
Heuristic Quick, Reliance on Shortcuts, Low Motivation
Message
Cues
Argument strength
Non-Message
Cues
Source credibility, consensus
Comparison of Total IPV Intervention Scores
Group
Mean SD
Systematic
22.65*ab
2.39
Heuristic
20.00*a
2.85
Systematic Control
20.25**b
3.29
Heuristic Control
21.05
3.49
* = significant difference (p < 0.01); ** = significant difference (p < 0.05)
a,b=Denotes where significant differences were found
Attitude Change
Discussion
More Supportive Cognitions
More attitudinal persistence,
greater behavioural congruence
Less Supportive Cognitions
Attitudes less resistant to future persuasion attempts, less behavioural congruence
Methods
Systematic processing of information resulted in greater willingness to intervene in hypothetical scenarios of intimate partner violence compared to the heuristic processing group and one of the control groups.
Provides information on the intended intervention behaviours of Canadian university students.
The manipulation check, while not significant, had a moderate effect size – future investigation would benefit from a larger sample to further examine the effectiveness of this manipulation.
Recruitment
Participants were recruited from Psychology classes at Laurentian University, and were eligible for course credit where applicable.
Procedure
Participants were randomly assigned to four groups based on gender: systematic, heuristic, systematic control, and heuristic control.
Participants in all groups read an essay. Experimental groups received a pro-intervention essay, whereas controls received an unrelated topic.
Participants in the systematic and systematic control conditions had 5 minutes to analyze the arguments fully.
Participants in the heuristic and heuristic control arguments had a minute and thirty seconds to peruse the essay, increasing reliance on source cues.
Participants in systematic and heuristic experimental groups were asked to rate the argument strengths in the presented essays for a manipulation check.
Measures
Five scenarios of IPV, where participants indicated their likelihood of intervention on a Likert scale from 1 (Not at All) to 5 (Definitely Willing). These scenarios together created a total score out of 25 for each participant.
Participants
Total Participants: 80
Gender
Male 40 Age (M) years
Female 40
Ethnicity (%) Religious Identity (%)
Caucasian 87.5% Atheist 40%
Asian 3.75% Catholic 37.5%
Aboriginal 2.5% Christian 10%
Indian 2.5% Other 12.5%
Other 3.75%
Implications
Provides evidence that the HSM can be applied to IPV advocacy to potentially increase intervention behaviours.
Overall, these results suggest that advocacy campaigns should target attitude change and influencing behaviour with facts and information, rather than heuristic cues such as source credibility.
Despite low report rates from bystanders (Burczycka, 2016), the sample in question demonstrated relatively high willingness to intervene in hypothetical scenarios of IPV.