Top

Published in:

01-12-2020 | Original Paper

Reactions to Actions: Exploring How Types of Bystander Action Are Linked to Positive and Negative Consequences

Authors: Elizabeth A. Moschella, Victoria L. Banyard

Published in: Journal of Prevention | Issue 6/2020

Abstract

Sexual and dating violence (SDV) are growing public health problems in the United States. Prevention programs have sought to engage potential bystanders so they can safely and effectively intervene in situations involving SDV. However, the ability of these programs to prepare bystanders may be limited if they do not address the possible outcomes of their actions. Few studies have examined positive and negative consequences of bystander action, and only one has examined how various types of action impact these consequences. The purpose of our study was to explore how specific types of bystander actions and their number of actions were related to positive and negative consequences. We recruited participants (N = 615) through Amazon’s Mechanical Turk and a university subject pool, all of whom were between the ages of 18 and 24. Participants described the type of action they took in response to risk for SDV (i.e., harassing comments, dating violence, unwanted sexual advances, and controlling behavior). We performed a content analysis on participants’ written responses about the type of action taken. New measures of bystander consequences were used to examine bystander feelings and reactions of others (e.g., the victim, perpetrator). A range of action types were identified (i.e., direct, distract, distance, delegate, and physical action). Of note, direct action toward the perpetrator was related to more negative feelings and responses, whereas distract and distance action were associated with more positive feelings and responses from others. Further, taking multiple actions (as opposed to a single one) was related to more positive feelings and responses from others. Implications for research and practice are discussed, with a specific focus on prevention programming.

Banyard, V. L. (2011). Who will help prevent sexual violence: Creating an ecological model of bystander intervention. Psychology of Violence, 1, 216–229.CrossRef

Banyard, V. L. (2015). Toward the next generation of bystander prevention of sexual and relationship violence: Action coils to engage communities SpringerBriefs in Criminology. Berlin: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-23171-6_4.CrossRef

Banyard, V. L., Edwards, K. M., & Siebold, W. (2016). Involving community in sexual violence prevention: Engaging bystanders. In Sturmey, P. (Ed.), Handbook of violence and aggression: Part XVII Societal interventions (pp. 3:122:1–12). John Wiley Sons.

Banyard, V. L., Moschella, E. A., Grych, J., & Jouriles, E. (2019). What happened next? New measures of consequences of bystander actions to prevent interpersonal violence. Psychology of Violence, 9(6), 664–674. https://doi.org/10.1037/vio0000229.CrossRef

Banyard, V. L., Moynihan, M. M., & Plante, E. G. (2007). Sexual violence prevention through bystander education: An experimental evaluation. Journal of Community Psychology, 35, 463–481. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.20159.CrossRef

Banyard, V. L., Plante, E. G., & Moynihan, M. M. (2004). Bystander education: Bringing a broader community perspective to sexual violence prevention. Journal of Community Psychology, 32, 61–79. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.10078.CrossRef

Banyard, V. L., Potter, S., Cares, A. C., et al. (2018). Multiple sexual violence prevention tools: Doses and boosters. Journal of Aggression, Conflict, and Peace Research, 10, 145–155. https://doi.org/10.1108/JACPR-05-2017-0287.CrossRef

Behrend, T. S., Sharek, D. J., Meade, A. W., & Wiebe, E. N. (2011). The viability of crowdsourcing for survey research. Behavior Research Methods, 43, 800–813. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-011-0081-0.

Bennett, S., & Banyard, V. L. (2016). Do friends really help friends? The effect of relational factors and perceived severity on bystander perception of sexual violence. Psychology of Violence, 6, 64–72. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037708.CrossRef

Bennett, S., Banyard, V. L., & Garnhart, L. (2013). To act or not to act, that is the question? Barriers and facilitators of bystander intervention. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 29, 476–496. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260513505210.CrossRefPubMed

Black, M. C., Basile, K. C., Breiding, M. J., et al. (2011). The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2010 summary report. National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/nisvs_report2010-a.pdf.

Bowes-Sperry, L., & O’Leary-Kelly, A. M. (2005). To act or not to act: The dilemma faced by sexual harassment observers. Academy of Management Review, 30(2), 288–306.CrossRef

Brown, A. L., Banyard, V. L., & Moynihan, M. M. (2014). College students as helpful bystanders against sexual violence: Gender, race, and year in college moderate the impact of perceived peer norms. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 38, 350–362. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684314526855.CrossRef

Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon’s mechanical turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(1), 3–5. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691610393980.

Burn, S. M. (2009). A situational model of sexual assault prevention through bystander intervention. Sex Roles, 60, 779–792. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-008-9581-5.CrossRef

Bush, H. M., Coker, A. L., DeGue, S., Clear, E. R., Brancato, C. J., & Fisher, B. S. (2019). Do violence acceptance and bystander actions explain the effects of Green Dot on reducing violence perpetration in high schools? Journal of Interpersonal Violence. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260519888206.CrossRefPubMed

Bystander Intervention. (2016). Health promotion and wellness. Retrieved September 20, 2020, from https://wellness.uchicago.edu/page/bystander-intervention.

Cares, A. C., Banyard, V. L., Moynihan, M. M., Williams, L. M., Potter, S. J., & Stapleton, J. G. (2014). Changing attitudes about being a bystander to violence: Translating an in-person education program to a new campus. Violence Against Women, 21, 165–187.CrossRef

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2004). Sexual violence facts. Retrieved September 20, 2020, from http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/svfacts.htm.

Charmaz, K. (2004). Premises, principles, and practices in qualitative research: Revisiting the foundations. Qualitative Health Research, 14(7), 976–993. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732304266795.

Clifford, S., Jewell, R. M., & Waggoner, P. D. (2015). Are samples drawn from Mechanical Turk valid for research on political ideology? Research and Politics, 4, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053168015622072.

Coker, A. L., Bush, H. M., Brancato, C. J., Clear, E. R., & Recktenwald, E. A. (2019). Bystander program effectiveness to reduce violence acceptance: RCT in high schools. Journal of Family Violence, 34(3), 153–164.CrossRef

Coker, A. L., Davis, K. E., Arias, I., Desai, S., Sanderson, M., Brandt, H. M., et al. (2002). Physical and mental health effects of intimate partner violence for men and women. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 23, 260–268.CrossRef

DeGue, S., Valle, L. A., Holt, M. K., Massetti, G. M., Matjasko, J. L., & Tharp, A. T. (2014). A systematic review of primary prevention strategies for sexual violence perpetration. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 19, 346–362. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2014.05.004.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Hamby, S., Weber, M. C., Grych, J., & Banyard, V. L. (2016). What difference do bystanders make? The association of victim outcomes with bystander involvement in a community sample. Psychology of Violence, 6, 91–102. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039073.CrossRef

Hara, K., Adams, A., Milland, K., et al. (2018). A data-driven analysis of workers’ earnings on Amazon Mechanical Turk. In CHI’18: Proceedings of the 2018 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems (paper 449, 1–14). https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3174023.

Hoxmeier, J. C., O’Connor, J., & McMahon, S. (2019). “She wasn’t resisting”: Students’ barriers to prosocial intervention as bystanders to sexual assault risk situations. Violence Against Women, 25(4), 485–505.CrossRef

Hsieh, H-F, & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687.

Katz, J. (2018). Bystander training as leadership training: Notes on the origins, philosophy, and pedagogy of the mentors in violence prevention model. Violence Against Women, 24(15), 1755–1776.CrossRef

Katz, J., Heisterkamp, H. A., & Fleming, W. M. (2011). The social justice roots of the mentors in violence prevention model and its application in a high school setting. Violence Against Women, 17, 684–702.CrossRef

Krauss, A., Jouriles, E. N., Yule, K., Grych, J. H., Sargent, K. S., & Banyard, V. L. (2017). Adverse consequences to assisting victims of campus violence: Initial investigations among college students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260517746944.CrossRefPubMed

Krippendorff, K. (1980). Content analysis. An introduction to its methodology. Sage.

Latané, B., & Darley, J. M. (1970). The unresponsive bystander: Why doesn’t he help. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Levine, M., Philpot, R., & Kovalenko, A. G. (2020). Rethinking the bystander effect in violence reduction training programs. Social Issues and Policy Review, 14(1), 273–296.CrossRef

McMahon, S., Palmer, J. E., Banyard, V. L., Murphy, M., & Gidycz, C. A. (2015). Measuring bystander behavior in the context of sexual violence prevention: Lessons learned and new directions. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 32, 1–23.

Miller, E., Tancredi, D. J., McCauley, H. L., et al. (2012). “Coaching boys into men”: A cluster-randomized controlled trial of a dating violence prevention program. Journal of Adolescent Health, 51, 431–438.CrossRef

Moschella, E. A., & Banyard, V. L. (2018). Action and reaction: The impact of consequences of intervening in situations of interpersonal violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260518782983.CrossRefPubMed

Moschella, E. A., Bennett, S., & Banyard, V. L. (2018). Beyond the situational model: Bystander action consequences to intervening in situations involving sexual violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 33, 3211–3231.CrossRef

Moynihan, M. M., Banyard, V. L., Cares, A. C., Potter, S. J., Williams, L. M., & Stapleton, J. G. (2015). Encouraging responses in sexual and relationship violence prevention: What program effects remain one year later? Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 30, 110–132.CrossRef

Oesterle, D. W., Orchowski, L. M., Moreno, O., & Berkowitz, A. (2018). A qualitative analysis of bystander intervention among heavy-drinking college men. Violence Against Women, 24, 1207–1231.CrossRef

Orchowski, L. M., Edwards, K. M., Hollander, J. A., et al. (2018). Integrating sexual assault resistance, bystander, and men’s social norms strategies to prevent sexual violence on college campuses: A call to action. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 21(4), 811–827. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838018789153.CrossRef

Planty, M. (2002). Third-party involvement in violent crime, 1993–1999 (Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report). U.S. Department of Justice. https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=189100.

Rennison, C. M. (2001). Intimate partner violence and age of victim, 1993-99. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice. https://www.ojp.gov/library/publications/intimate-partner-violence-and-age-victim-1993-99.

Rothman, E. F., Edwards, K. M., Rizzo, A. J., Kearns, M., & Banyard, V. L. (2019). Perceptions of community norms and youths’ reactive and proactive dating and sexual violence bystander action. American Journal of Community Psychology, 63(1–2), 122–134.CrossRef

Sinozich, S., & Langton, L. (2014). Rape and sexual victimization among college aged females, 1995–2013. Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice. https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=5176.

The 3 Ds of sexual assault prevention. (2011). Campus safety. Retrieved from https://www.campussafetymagazine.com/article/The-3-Ds-of-Sexual-Assault-Prevention.

Thornberg, R., & Jungert, T. (2013). Bystander behavior in bullying situations: Basic moral sensitivity, moral disengagement and defender self-efficacy. Journal of Adolescence, 36(3), 475–483.CrossRef

Witte, T. H., Casper, D. M., Hackman, C. L., & Mulla, M. M. (2017). Bystander interventions for sexual assault and dating violence on college campuses: Are we putting bystanders in harm’s way? Journal of American College Health, 65, 149–157.CrossRef

Title: Reactions to Actions: Exploring How Types of Bystander Action Are Linked to Positive and Negative Consequences
Authors: Elizabeth A. Moschella
Victoria L. Banyard
Publication date: 01-12-2020
Publisher: Springer US
Published in: Journal of Prevention / Issue 6/2020
Print ISSN: 2731-5533
Electronic ISSN: 2731-5541
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10935-020-00618-9

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Reactions to Actions: Exploring How Types of Bystander Action Are Linked to Positive and Negative Consequences

Abstract

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 6/2020

Modifiable Risk Factors Associated With Disposal of Unused Prescription Drugs by Parents of Adolescents

Effects of Ebola Virus Disease Outbreak on Bush Meat Enterprise and Environmental Health Risk Behavior Among Households in South-East Nigeria

Promoting Healthy Eating and Regular Physical Activity in Low-Income Families Through Family-Centered Programs: Implications for Practice

Correlates to Lifetime Suicide Attempts, Thoughts, and Planning Behaviors Among African American Transgender Individuals

Web-Based Training for School-Based Mentors of Military-Connected Youth: A Multi-Phase Development Study

Relationship Between Parental Locus of Control and Childhood Injury