Beyond the Situational Model: Bystander Action Consequences to Intervening in Situations Involving Sexual Violence

Abstract

Sexual violence is a widely reported problem in college communities. To date, research has largely focused on bystander intervention as one way to help prevent this problem. Although perceived consequences of bystander intervention, such as the weighting of costs and benefits, have been examined, little research has explored what happens after a bystander intervenes. The current study investigated what bystanders report as perceived outcomes and actual consequences of their bystander actions in response to risk for sexual assault. Of the 545 surveyed, 150 reported having taking bystander action in the past month and qualitatively described their bystander behavior and the responses of those parties involved. A range of behavioral responses and intervention methods were identified. The most frequent responses reported by participants were victims conveying positive and perpetrators conveying negative responses. Different types of helping were associated with bystanders reporting different types of responses to their actions. Future research should incorporate additional measures of consequences of bystander intervention. Implications for policy and bystander intervention programs are discussed, stressing the need for bystander intervention programs to address a range of bystander behaviors and explain the potential consequences and risks of intervening.

Evaluation of a Bystander-Focused Interpersonal Violence Prevention Program with High School Students

“…It is also possible that classroom-delivered bystander-focused violence prevention curricula are not particularly effective in moving the needle on more socially-based behaviors, such as bystander behaviors. Indeed, recent research on bystander actions among college students highlights the importance of peer norms for helping, and highlights important differences in correlates of helping friends versus strangers (Moschella, Bennett, & Banyard, 2016).…”

“…To date we know little about possible unintended negative consequences when bystanders step in. There may be situations where bystanders make the situation worse or where bystanders themselves experience harm (Moschella et al, 2016). We also know relatively little about the most successful and safe bystander strategies for high school students as the few studies of consequences of helping focus on college samples.…”

Bystander intervention to prevent sexual violence: The overlooked role of bystander alcohol intoxication.

“…Given the low base rates of SV intervention (e.g., Hamby et al, 2016), it is critical that researchers utilize appropriate analytic techniques to model these data accurately. Experimental and survey-based research indicate approximately 72–75% of bystanders do not engage in SV intervention (e.g., Leone et al, 2017; Moschella, Bennett, & Banyard, 2016), resulting in zero-inflated outcome data. Techniques to normalize skewed data (e.g., square root transformation) are often ineffective because a large proportion of the sample does not intervene.…”

Preventing Sexual Violence Through Bystander Intervention: Attitudes, Behaviors, Missed Opportunities, and Barriers to Intervention Among Australian University Students

“…Bystander intentions are associated with bystander intervention behaviors; individuals who report higher intentions to intervene in risky situations typically are also more likely to do so (Banyard, Moynihan, & Plante, 2007; Brown, Banyard, & Moynihan, 2014; McMahon, 2010). This association tends to be small, and many other factors play a role in whether an individual actually engages in helpful bystander behavior (e.g., see Moschella, Bennett, & Banyard, 2018).…”