Friends in Need: Bystander Intervention for Intimate Partner Violence in Beijing and Seoul

How and why friends respond to control intimate partner violence has seldom been studied in survey data, in cross-cultural comparisons, or outside the United States. Moreover, the study of such responses has been siloed in two different research streams. The concept of bystander intervention has been mainly studied in psychology, whereas informal social control has been used in sociology. We use comparative data from two East Asian cultures (China and South Korea) to hypothesize and test for relationships among totalitarian-style partner control, Confucian gender role norms, secrecy regarding intimate partner violence (IPV), and two types of bystander intervention. The data consist of random probability samples of married/partnered women from Beijing (n = 301) and Seoul (n = 459). Multilevel models with the combined data indicate that protective intervention is negatively associated with Confucian gender role norms. Punitive intervention is associated with IPV secrecy and totalitarian-style partner control. There were important differences between Beijing and Seoul. Although not significant in the combined Seoul and Beijing data, totalitarian-style partner control and neighborhood informal social control were associated with more protective intervention in the Beijing model, but not in the Seoul model. Totalitarian-style partner control and IPV secrecy were associated with punitive intervention in Seoul, but not in Beijing. Interestingly, punitive intervention was positively associated with neighborhood socioeconomic status. Lower social cohesion in Beijing may explain differences in perceived bystander intervention between the two cities. Interventions for IPV must be thoroughly grounded in a deep understanding of sociocultural factors influencing bystander intervention.