Helping a friend: The impact of victim alcohol intoxication and perpetrator social status on bystander behaviors and responses to assault disclosure.

Abstract

Objective: Although data evaluating bystander interventions are promising (e.g., Banyard et al., 2007), little is known about factors that may interfere with friends taking action to prevent assault or to support victims upon assault disclosure. The present study examines the effects of victim alcohol intoxication and perpetrator social status (represented as a collegiate athlete) as potential barriers to effective bystander intervention and supportive responses to disclosure. Method: Using an experimental vignette design, participant responses were assessed in response to a situation involving imminent sexual risk to a friend (T1) and in response to the friend's disclosure of sexual assault (T2). Victim alcohol intoxication and perpetrator status were hypothesized to relate to bystander responses during the sexual risk scenario, which in turn were predicted to impact disclosure responses after the victim's assault. Results: Victim intoxication-though not perpetrator status-predicted friends' likelihood to intervene at T1 such that those in the high intoxication condition were more likely to intervene than were those in the low and no intoxication conditions. Further, friends' likelihood to intervene in the moment at T1 predicted a number of responses to the victim's disclosure at T2. Those who were more likely to intervene in the moment responded to the victim's disclosure with more supportive responses and less blameful responses. Implications: Bystander programs should teach friends to intervene in risk situations regardless of victim alcohol use and should highlight the importance of responding supportively to assault disclosure, regardless of initial intervention behaviors. Clinical Impact StatementFindings indicate that friends are less likely to intervene when a victim is sober or mildly intoxicated (vs. highly intoxicated). Bystander intervention programs should emphasize that an individual's intoxication level is but one important indication of risk and urge participants to not overlook risk to sober individuals. Findings also indicate that friends who do not intervene during sexual risk might respond more negatively to the victim's assault disclosure. Bystander programs should normalize conflicting feelings that might arise after a missed intervention opportunity and highlight that failing to intervene does not mean that it is too late to provide support.

Alcohol’s Role in Campus Sexual Assault Bystander Behavior: A Systematic Review

“…Studies frequently labeled proximal proxies of bystander behavior with names that can be misleading out of context, including bystander intervention behavior (Burn, 2009); bystander intervention (Fleming & Wiersma-Mosley, 2015; Hoffman & Daigle, 2020); bystander attitudes (Intagliata, 2017; McMahon, 2010; Pazienza, 2021; Powers et al, 2015); bystander inaction (Katz, 2015); direct bystander intervention (Katz & Nguyen, 2016); bystander non-intervention (Katz et al, 2018); in-the-moment response (Steel et al, 2022); and behavioral interventions (Zelin et al, 2019). In Supplemental Appendix A, we include the measure name as it appears in the study but with a descriptor in brackets (willingness, intentions, or difficulty) to reduce confusion.…”

“…In total, 10 studies describe the effects of drinking, for example: “a seemingly intoxicated girl who just spilt her drink on herself” (Katz & Nguyen, 2016, p. 667). Finally, four studies describe the bystander observing the drinking, for example: “you have seen her go downstairs to get a drink quite a few times” (Steel et al, 2022, p. 142).…”

“…Seven studies provided comparisons of bystander outcomes for intoxicated versus sober SA victims. Only two studies found that students exhibited more bystander behaviors and greater intentions in situations with an intoxicated victim compared to a sober victim (Hoxmeier et al, 2020b; Steel et al, 2022). Four studies found lower intentions, and greater perceived barriers and blame attribution for an intoxicated victim compared to a sober victim (Burn, 2009; Katz et al, 2015a; Untied et al, 2012; Zelin et al, 2019), blaming a drunk victim versus a sober victim was especially likely for male students considering an SA situation with a drunk female victim (Burn, 2009; Katz et al, 2015b).…”