Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
The Journal of Primary Prevention Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to acknowledge Abby Jackson, B.A., for her hard work on this paper.

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Prevention Innovations Research Center, University of New Hampshire, 9 Madbury Road, Suite #405, Durham, NH, 03824, USA

    Elizabeth A. Moschella

  2. Department of Social Work, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, USA

    Victoria L. Banyard

Authors
  1. Elizabeth A. Moschella
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Victoria L. Banyard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elizabeth A. Moschella.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Moschella, E.A., Banyard, V.L. Reactions to Actions: Exploring How Types of Bystander Action Are Linked to Positive and Negative Consequences. J Primary Prevent 41, 585–602 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10935-020-00618-9

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10935-020-00618-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation