Adverse Consequences to Assisting Victims of Campus Violence: Initial Investigations Among College Students

Abstract

Despite growing interest in the use of bystander education programs to address the problems of sexual and relationship violence on college campuses, little knowledge exists on adverse consequences experienced by students intervening as a bystander. The current study examined the prevalence and correlates of adverse consequences of bystander intervention in two samples of first-year college students. In Study 1, 281 students completed a measure of negative consequences experienced when acting as a bystander to help someone at risk of sexual assault, relationship abuse, or stalking. Efficacy for bystander behavior was also assessed. Approximately one third of the students (97/281) reported having tried to help someone who had been at risk of violence during the previous academic year. Of these, approximately 17% (16/97) reported experiencing a negative consequence from having tried to help. Experiencing negative consequences was associated with lower levels of bystander efficacy. In Study 2, conducted at a different university, 299 students completed measures of negative consequences resulting from intervening as a bystander and efficacy for bystander behavior. Students also participated in virtual-reality simulations that provided opportunities to intervene as a bystander. Again, approximately one third of the students (99/299) reported having tried to help someone at risk of violence. Of these, 20% (20/99) reported experiencing a negative consequence. Two of the adverse consequences (physically hurt, got into trouble) were negatively associated with bystander efficacy and observed effectiveness of bystander behavior in the virtual simulations. Results of exploratory analyses suggest that training in bystander intervention might reduce the likelihood of experiencing adverse consequences.

Virtual Reality or Augmented Reality as a Tool for Studying Bystander Behaviors in Interpersonal Violence: Scoping Review

“…While most studies were operationalized as an experiment with participants incorporating a simulated VR environment, three studies were randomized controlled trials [20,30,35]. Different violent incident scenarios were used across these studies, including school bullying behaviors (including relational, verbal, and/or physical violence) among student peers [22,35]; sexual assault incidents that took place in dating or a potential dating relationship [20,21,35,36]; a combination of different types of assaults among friends or acquaintances [30]; and verbal and physical assaults that occurred among strangers [19,29,31,37]. In addition to the victim-aggressor relationship, we examined the relationship between victims and bystanders simulated in the VR scenarios, including school peers (n=2) [22,35], friends (n=5) [20,21,30,36,38], and strangers (n=4) [19,29,31,37].…”

“…Different violent incident scenarios were used across these studies, including school bullying behaviors (including relational, verbal, and/or physical violence) among student peers [22,35]; sexual assault incidents that took place in dating or a potential dating relationship [20,21,35,36]; a combination of different types of assaults among friends or acquaintances [30]; and verbal and physical assaults that occurred among strangers [19,29,31,37]. In addition to the victim-aggressor relationship, we examined the relationship between victims and bystanders simulated in the VR scenarios, including school peers (n=2) [22,35], friends (n=5) [20,21,30,36,38], and strangers (n=4) [19,29,31,37]. Regarding study participants, four studies recruited middle or high school students [20,22,35,38], three studies sampled undergraduate students [21,30,36], and the four remaining studies included participants who identified as soccer fans supporting different teams [19,29,31,37].…”

Rethinking the Bystander Effect in Violence Reduction Training Programs

“…The relatively low risk of bystander victimization reported in this study is supported by self‐report survey data, showing that between 4% and 18% of bystanders (dependent on incident type) are reportedly threatened or harmed during episodes of interpersonal aggression (Hamby, Weber, Grych, & Banyard, ). In the context of sexual and relationship violence, the likelihood of being physically harmed for intervening, estimated from a university sample, is between 5% and 9% (Krauss et al., ).…”

“…It turns out that the real risks are low. Research analyzing real‐life bystander victimization as recorded in CCTV data (Liebst et al., ) and also in self‐report accounts (Hamby et al., ; Krauss et al., ) shows that the risk of physical harm is minimal. Of course, there may be a number of psychological consequences associated with bystander intervention.…”

Readiness to Help: How Students' Sexual Assault Awareness, Responsibility, and Action Correlate with Bystander Intervention Behavior

“…The TTM asserts that movement toward later stages of readiness is not linear and individuals could relapse or move backward. Based on recent research that students who report a negative intervention experience report diminished intention to intervene in the future (Krauss et al 2017;Witte et al 2017), there is potential for students who have intervened in the past to choose differently in the next opportunity. Banyard and colleagues (2010) hypothesized that RTH precedes bystander behaviors, although the directionality of this assumption was not tested here.…”