Variation in Bystander Behavior Related to Sexual and Intimate

Partner Violence Prevention: Correlates in a Sample of

College Students
Victoria L. Banyard and Mary M. Moynihan
University of New Hampshire
Objective: Innovations in violence prevention mobilize peers as active bystanders, yet
little is known about what motivates helping in such contexts. We examined correlates
of actual helpful behavior (rather than only attitudes) related to the prevention of sexual
and intimate partner violence among college students at one university in the United
States. Method: Four hundred and six (406) undergraduate students at the University
of New Hampshire completed self-report surveys. We assessed attitudes (e.g., rape
myth acceptance, bystander condence) in relation to self-reported helping behavior.
Results: Different predictors were signicant for the self-report measures of attitude
compared to behaviors. Students who self-reported a greater sense of responsibility for
ending sexual and relationship violence and greater expressed condence as a by-
stander and perceptions of greater benets of stepping in to help, self-reported greater
helping behavior. We found some differences in correlates of helping behavior by type
of helping behavior. Conclusions: Correlates of helping differ when actual behaviors
performed in the community compared to attitudes were assessed. Prevention strategies
that increase community members sense of responsibility for ending violence, build
condence in helping, and support norms that encourage active bystanders are needed
to increase helping behavior to ameliorate this widespread community problem.
Keywords: bystander, rape prevention, helping, college students
Sexual assault and dating violence are alarm-
ing problems for college campuses. A national
study in the United States estimated that one in
ve college women experiences rape during her
college years (Fisher, Cullen, & Turner, 2000).
Schwartz, DeKeseredy, Tait, and Alvi (2001)
explore factors that may explain this problem
and highlight the importance of the presence
or absence of third parties or bystanders who,
by their presence and actions, may be able to
help deter the problem when it is in progress
or as a risky situation develops by using in-
formal social controls. In addition, their work
underscores the importance of peer norms
that implicitly support the use of coercion in
relationships.
The purpose of the current study was to ex-
amine who these helpful bystanders are and
what variables are associated with college stu-
dents who self-report stepping in to help others
when there is risk for relationship or sexual
violence (SV). Although researchers have ex-
amined correlates of helping attitudes, to date
few have conducted studies that directly exam-
ine behaviors for preventing sexual or relation-
ship violence.
Bystanders can be dened as witnesses to
crimes, emergencies, or high-risk situations,
who are not themselves directly involved as
perpetrators or victims. Their presence provides
them with an opportunity to make a choice to
step in and help, to do nothing, or to support
perpetrators in making the situation worse.
Helpful bystander behaviors in relation to sex-
ual and intimate partner violence (IPV) can be
broadly construed and may represent interven-
tions to remove someone from a high-risk situ-
ation before an assault happens, challenging
social norms that condone use of force in rela-
tionships, or supporting a survivor in the after-
This article was published Online First April 11, 2011.
Victoria L. Banyard and Mary M. Moynihan, Department
of Psychology, University of New Hampshire.
Correspondence concerning this article should be ad-
dressed to Victoria L. Banyard, University of New Hamp-
shire, Department of Psychology, 306 Conant Hall, Dur-
ham, NH 03824. E-mail: Victoria.Banyard@unh.edu
Psychology of Violence 2011 American Psychological Association
2011, Vol. 1, No. 4, 287301 2152-0828/11/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0023544
287
T
h
i
s

d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t

i
s

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n

P
s
y
c
h
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l

A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n

o
r

o
n
e

o
f

i
t
s

a
l
l
i
e
d

p
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
r
s
.


T
h
i
s

a
r
t
i
c
l
e

i
s

i
n
t
e
n
d
e
d

s
o
l
e
l
y

f
o
r

t
h
e

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
f

t
h
e

i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l

u
s
e
r

a
n
d

i
s

n
o
t

t
o

b
e

d
i
s
s
e
m
i
n
a
t
e
d

b
r
o
a
d
l
y
.
math of an incident. In his analysis of ndings
from National Crime Victim Survey data from
the U.S., Planty (2002) found that third parties
were present in nearly one third of reported
sexual assaults and that victims often reported
that third parties helped to make the situation
better. More specic to college communities,
Banyard, Moynihan, Walsh, Cohn, and Ward
(2010) found that one in three college women
and one in ve college men reported that a
friend had told them about a sexual assault
victimization. This work highlights the preva-
lence of bystander opportunities. Yet research-
ers also nd that many community members
lack skill and condence to step in and help
(e.g., Anderson & Danis, 2007).
Potential bystanders have recently become
the focus of prevention programs as part of
attempts to engage larger groups of community
members (e.g., Banyard, Moynihan, & Plante,
2007). However, it is beyond the scope of this
paper to review and discuss the growing litera-
ture on the evaluation and efcacy of bystander-
focused prevention efforts. Rather, we point out
this prevention work briey here to note that
effective prevention development utilizing such
models needs to be built on research about what
key variables can be inuenced to motivate
helpful bystanders and to promote positive by-
stander behavior.
After decades of research, social psycholo-
gists in the U.S. and Europe have identied
some key factors to bystander behavior, but we
know much less about the specic correlates of
bystanders to sexual and intimate partner vio-
lence situations compared to what we know
about bystanders to other types of emergencies
or high-risk situations. Given the often private
contexts of sexual and relationship violence and
community norms reinforcing that private na-
ture, as well as research that continues to show
the prevalence of rape myth acceptance (indi-
cating tolerance for sexual assault), there are
likely unique barriers to helping in this context
(Burn, 2009). Moreover, most researchers who
have looked at bystanders to sexual and intimate
partner violence have employed controlled ex-
perimental and laboratory methods, the results
of which may or may not reect the complexity
of helping in the community. Further, with a
few exceptions (Banyard, 2008; Burn, 2009),
most researchers have examined attitude out-
comesindicators of hypothetical helping or
intent to help rather than reports of actual help-
ing behaviors (e.g., Brown & Messman-Moore,
2010; Chabot, Tracy, Manning, & Poisson,
2009). Prevention work, however, ultimately
must be concerned with how to increase helping
behavior rather than only helping attitudes. In
the current study, we take a next step in this
research by examining correlates of several dif-
ferent types of self-reported bystander behavior
in the context of risk for sexual and intimate
partner violence in a U.S. college campus com-
munity.
The Psychology of Helping
If community members have a key role to
play in ameliorating the problem of sexual and
intimate partner violence, how do we encourage
more participation? To help answer this ques-
tion, we can turn to the research literature by
social psychologists from the U.S. and Europe
who have investigated why bystanders do or do
not get involved when someone needs help or
where uncivil behavior needs to be checked
(Chaurand & Brauer, 2008). Their research
demonstrates that increases in active bystander
intervention are related to a bystanders aware-
ness of the problem (less ambiguous situations
motivate more helping) and sense of responsi-
bility for dealing with it (see Dovidio, Piliavin,
Schroeder, & Penner, 2006 for a review; Bat-
son, 1998). Bystanders also weigh the costs and
benets of stepping in and are more likely to do
so when they can minimize costs (Darley &
Latane, 1968; Dovidio, Piliavin, Gaertner, Schr-
oeder, & Clark, 1991). Demographic factors
also play a role. Carlo, Hausmann, Christiansen,
and Randall (2003) found an increase in tenden-
cies to help others in general over the course of
adolescence, whereas Brinkley and Saarino
(2006) found a decrease in willingness to report
threats of school violence as grade level in-
creased from 6th to 12th grade, with older stu-
dents less willing to report threatening behavior
by other students. The situation in which the
helping takes place presents additional vari-
ables. For example, social norms can inuence
behavior, with men in particular being more
likely to engage in helpful behaviors related to
sexual assault to the extent that they perceive
community norms as supportive of these things
(e.g., Bohner, Siebler, & Schmelcher, 2006;
Brown & Messman-Moore, 2010; Fabiano, Per-
288 BANYARD AND MOYNIHAN
T
h
i
s

d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t

i
s

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n

P
s
y
c
h
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l

A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n

o
r

o
n
e

o
f

i
t
s

a
l
l
i
e
d

p
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
r
s
.


T
h
i
s

a
r
t
i
c
l
e

i
s

i
n
t
e
n
d
e
d

s
o
l
e
l
y

f
o
r

t
h
e

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
f

t
h
e

i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l

u
s
e
r

a
n
d

i
s

n
o
t

t
o

b
e

d
i
s
s
e
m
i
n
a
t
e
d

b
r
o
a
d
l
y
.
kins, Berkowitz, Linkenbach, & Stark, 2003;
Stein, 2007).
Further, the nature of the situation requiring
help (e.g., medical emergency vs. crime), is
likely to inuence both whether individuals in-
tervene and the range of bystander behaviors
that they may need. Researchers have found that
the scope and denitions of sexual and intimate
partner violence and where they occur include a
broad continuum of behaviors (Kelly, 1987)
from less serious verbal jokes and comments
to more invasive touching and nally rape itself.
However, we could locate few studies to date
that examined correlates of helping across this
continuum of situations.
A few studies examined bystander concepts
specically in relation to sexual and intimate
partner violence and thus serve to show the
extent to which factors predictive of helping in
general psychology models apply in specic
instances of sexual and intimate partner vio-
lence. Consistent with Brinkley and Saarinos
(2006) work on school violence, Beeble, Post,
Bybee, and Sullivan (2008) found that younger
adults seem more willing to help survivors of
IPV. Self-reported likelihood of helping was
also more probable among those with stronger
antiviolence attitudes and awareness, a strong
sense of responsibility for the problem, in-
creased self-reported condence to be an active
bystander, and with a personal history of vic-
timization or relationship to a victim (Banyard,
2008; Burn, 2009; Frye, 2007; McMahon,
2010). In addition, people were less likely to say
they would help in a hypothetical situation
when they perceived the level of violence in the
IPV incident as low and when they perceived
peer norms to be in support of sexual aggression
(Brown & Messman-Moore, 2009; Chabot et
al., 2009).
In summary, researchers applying theories of
helping behavior to the specic instances of
sexual and intimate partner violence have
shown the importance of personal attitude vari-
ables and community-level social norms, spe-
cically peer norms that inuence helping be-
haviors. Yet, like the limitations of the more
general research on helping, most of this re-
search is based on willingness to help measures
rather than reports of actual behaviors. When
researchers studied actual helping, they tended
to do so in a controlled lab setting where an
experimenter created and manipulated a helping
situation. If the goal of prevention efforts is to
mobilize more frequent and effective helping by
community members in instances of interper-
sonal violence, then more information is needed
about the complexity of what happens in real
community contexts across the range of situa-
tions that contain risk for intimate partner and
sexual violence. Two studies have taken this
next step and serve as the specic platform for
the current study. Burn (2009) examined a
range of barriers to a sample of U.S. college
students self-reported interventions in situa-
tions where there was high risk for sexual as-
sault. She found that both women and men were
less likely to intervene if they perceived less
responsibility for the situation, and that women
were also less likely to intervene if they worried
about what to do and having skills to help.
Banyard (2008) found greater self-reported
helping was associated with lower rape myth
acceptance, greater perceived benets of help-
ing, and great condence in ones ability to step
in to help. Additionally, Banyard included lon-
gitudinal data and found that greater intent or
likelihood to intervene as reported at an earlier
time point was the signicant predictor of future
self-reported behaviors over time, suggesting
that a focus on attitudes does have value for
prevention. However, neither study unpacked
different types of bystander helping or whether
correlates differed by helping type. Given the
earlier discussion of the range of situations in
which helping behavior takes place and the
range of bystander behaviors that may be help-
ful that are related to sexual assault and IPV,
further research is needed.
Current Study
In the current study, we aimed to increase the
understanding of variability in bystander behav-
ior among student populations who are likely
targets of prevention programs, applying the
bystander framework. Drawing from the litera-
ture reviewed above, we investigated a number
of variables: age, awareness/denial of the prob-
lem, rape myth acceptance, sense of responsi-
bility for the problem, bystander efcacy, deci-
sional balance (decisions about the pros and
cons or net benets of intervening), behavioral
intention or willingness (an indication of per-
sonal attitudes about this specic type of help-
ing), and the inuence of peer norms supporting
289 VARIATION IN BYSTANDER BEHAVIOR
T
h
i
s

d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t

i
s

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n

P
s
y
c
h
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l

A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n

o
r

o
n
e

o
f

i
t
s

a
l
l
i
e
d

p
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
r
s
.


T
h
i
s

a
r
t
i
c
l
e

i
s

i
n
t
e
n
d
e
d

s
o
l
e
l
y

f
o
r

t
h
e

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
f

t
h
e

i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l

u
s
e
r

a
n
d

i
s

n
o
t

t
o

b
e

d
i
s
s
e
m
i
n
a
t
e
d

b
r
o
a
d
l
y
.
coercive behaviors toward dates and intimate
partners. In the current investigation, we go
beyond previous studies. We examine these
variables in combination with and in relation to
self-reported bystander behaviors rather than
hypothetical vignettes, and in relation to spe-
cic subtypes of bystander behavior rather than
simply an overall behavior measure as used
previously (e.g., Banyard, 2008). It should be
noted that although the exploration of gender
differences in helping is also important to in-
vestigate, we have examined gender differences
separately elsewhere using the current dataset
(Banyard & Moynihan, under review), and thus
gender is not considered in the analyses pre-
sented here. Further, cultural contexts likely
also play a role in helping behavior, and this
question has received limited attention in re-
search to date. However, given the limited ra-
cial/ethnic diversity of the campus on which we
conducted the current study, this question re-
mains for future research.
Our rst aim was to unpack subtypes of by-
stander behaviors used by college students to
address situations across the continuum of vio-
lence. We hypothesized that bystander behav-
iors would fall into several subtypes according
to such things as degree of involvement with
victims or degree of severity of actions to which
bystanders responded.
In addition, we hypothesized that participants
would self-report engaging in greater numbers
of helpful bystander behaviors if they held
fewer rape myths, if they reported higher levels
of awareness of the problems of sexual and
intimate partner violence and felt more personal
responsibility for them, and if their peers were
less likely to be supportive of the use of coer-
cion in relationships. We further hypothesized
that a greater number of helping behaviors
would also be linked to greater behavioral in-
tent, efcacy, and the view that pros outweighed
cons for intervening. Given previous mixed
ndings with regard to age, we used it as an
exploratory correlate.
Next, we hypothesized that the pattern of
correlates related to participants self-reported
attitude toward or likelihood of intervening as a
bystander would be similar to those for self-
reported behavior. More specically, we hy-
pothesized that students who expressed greater
likelihood for intervening would also endorse
fewer rape myths, express greater responsibility
and awareness, greater condence, and greater
perceived benets versus costs of helping.
Our nal aim was exploratory. If we found
support for hypothesis 1 and could identify sub-
types of self-reported behaviors, we would ex-
plore whether the pattern of correlates was differ-
ent depending on the type of bystander behavior
reported.
Method
Participants
During one academic year, we recruited stu-
dents from three subgroups on one midsize pub-
lic university campus in the northeastern United
States to participate in a series of studies of the
effectiveness of a sexual violence prevention
program. We conducted the three studies with
each of the subgroups in compliance with the
universitys Institutional Review Board for the
protection of human subjects in research. We
performed the current analyses on a combined
sample of pretest (prior to any prevention pro-
gramming) surveys collected from all groups.
Four hundred and six (406) undergraduate
students participated in the studies that we have
combined here. We recruited 99 participants
(24% of the sample) from fraternity and sorority
houses. Recruitment focused on new members
just joining the chapters who were required by
university ofces to receive programming on
student issues such as sexual and intimate part-
ner violence. The response rate for this group
was 67.8%. Another 139 participants (34% of
the sample) were intercollegiate athletes who
we recruited with the help of coaches from
seven off-season teams (four womens and three
mens teams). Team rosters from that year
summed to 286 athletes across the seven teams
for a response rate of 48.6%. However, there
was not room in the study for all athletes, and
some of the coaches did not include seniors on
their rosters as potential participants in the re-
search. (This was because a later aim of that
research was to examine the effects of a pre-
vention program and coaches were interested in
having younger players, who would have more
future years in the community, invest the time
in prevention training). Our aim was to accept
up to 140 volunteer participants, given that
some in the athletes sample were later taking
part in prevention programs in which there was
290 BANYARD AND MOYNIHAN
T
h
i
s

d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t

i
s

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n

P
s
y
c
h
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l

A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n

o
r

o
n
e

o
f

i
t
s

a
l
l
i
e
d

p
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
r
s
.


T
h
i
s

a
r
t
i
c
l
e

i
s

i
n
t
e
n
d
e
d

s
o
l
e
l
y

f
o
r

t
h
e

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
f

t
h
e

i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l

u
s
e
r

a
n
d

i
s

n
o
t

t
o

b
e

d
i
s
s
e
m
i
n
a
t
e
d

b
r
o
a
d
l
y
.
limited enrollment space). Finally, we recruited
168 participants (42%) through a partnership
with the universitys Ofce of Residential Life.
Specically, we recruited students residing on
four oors in each of two large rst-year student
residence halls. Based on estimates from the
Ofce of Residential Life about the living ca-
pacity of the two halls, we estimated that there
were 207 residents across the eight oors in the
study, for a response rate of 81.2%.
The average age was 18.7 (SD 1.29), and
women composed 51.4% of the sample. We did
not include a question about race because the
campus is over 93% White, and we were con-
cerned that this question might identify individ-
ual study participants. First-year students were
overrepresented in the study, given that the res-
idence halls targeted for recruitment were for
rst-year students, that we recruited new mem-
bers from fraternities and sororities, and that
some coaches selected seniors out the pool of
participants. Thus, 68.0% rst-year stu-
dents, 21.5% sophomores, 7.7% juniors,
and 2.7% seniors compose the sample for the
current study. Although there were differences
among the student groups on demographics
(e.g., all of the residence hall participants were
rst-year students), given that the focus of the
current study is on correlates of student helping
behavior rather than group differences among
these subgroups, we decided to combine the
data for analysis.
Procedures
Pretest surveys (the focus of this study) were
administered in classrooms on campus at a time
specically reserved for participation in the
study (surveys were not given during any reg-
ularly scheduled classes) or in a study area in
the residence halls prior to any prevention pro-
gramming or follow-up surveys. All groups
across samples received the same surveys with
the same ordering of questions (rst demo-
graphic questions, then questions about peer
norms, followed by questions about attitudes
including rape myth acceptance, bystander ef-
cacy and willingness to help, awareness, and
pros/cons. The measure of bystander behavior
appeared last. We provided IRB-approved in-
centives to each group. Participants from the
residence halls were entered into a lottery for a
chance to win several prizes (e.g., iPhone,
iTunes cards, gift card to the UNH bookstore);
Greek system participants received GPEP
(Greek Performance Evaluation Program)
points (as part of their annual review and ac-
creditation process); and athletes received $10
for completing the survey.
Measures: Self-reported Attitudes
Peer support norms (Schwartz et al.,
2001). We adapted seven items that we
summed to indicate peer support for the use of
coercion in intimate relationships, and we made
the terms gender neutral rather than male-only
peer support norms. For example, one item
asked, Did any of your friends ever tell you
that your dates or partners should have sex with
you when you want? The Cronbachs alpha for
the current sample was .67 with a range of 0
to 7, M .29, SD .80.
Illinois rape myth acceptance scaleshort
form (Payne, Lonsway, & Fitzgerald, 1999).
This is a 20-item scale developed to assess
participants endorsement of a variety of com-
mon myths about sexual assault. Three items
are ller items. We used the 17 items (without
llers) of the scale in the current research. Par-
ticipants respond to these statements by indicat-
ing their level of agreement with each statement
on a 5-point Likert scale (1 not at all agree,
5 very much agree). For example, If the
rapist doesnt have a weapon, you really cant
call it rape. Higher scores indicate a greater
acceptance of rape myths. The Cronbachs al-
pha for the sample in this study was .86 with a
range of 1785, M 26.65, SD 8.03). Pre-
vious research results have established this
scales validity (Payne, Lonsway, & Fitzgerald,
1999).
Bystander efcacy scale (Banyard, 2008).
This scale includes 18 statements that assess the
participants condence in performing by-
stander behaviors. A participant rates her or his
condence to perform the behaviors on a 100-
percentage point scale (0 cant do and 100
very certain [that he or she do]). For example,
Ask a friend if they need to be walked home
from a party. The mean across all 18 items
becomes the total score used. The Cronbachs
alpha on this scale for the sample in this study
was .92 with a range of 6.67100, M 75.05,
SD 15.54. Validity of this scale has been
291 VARIATION IN BYSTANDER BEHAVIOR
T
h
i
s

d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t

i
s

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n

P
s
y
c
h
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l

A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n

o
r

o
n
e

o
f

i
t
s

a
l
l
i
e
d

p
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
r
s
.


T
h
i
s

a
r
t
i
c
l
e

i
s

i
n
t
e
n
d
e
d

s
o
l
e
l
y

f
o
r

t
h
e

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
f

t
h
e

i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l

u
s
e
r

a
n
d

i
s

n
o
t

t
o

b
e

d
i
s
s
e
m
i
n
a
t
e
d

b
r
o
a
d
l
y
.
established in previous research (Banyard,
2008).
Bystander intention to help scaleshort
form (Banyard, 2008). This scale in-
cludes 12 items that assess the participants
self-reported likelihood to engage in certain by-
stander behaviors. Each participant rates his or
her likelihood to perform the behaviors using a
5-point scale (1 not at all likely and 5
extremely likely). For example, Think through
the pros and cons of different ways I might help
if I see an instance of sexual violence. Higher
scores indicate that the participant would be
more likely to perform the behavior listed. The
Cronbachs alpha on this scale for the sample in
this study was .85 with a range of 1260,
M 45.41, SD 7.60.
Readiness to change scale II. This 25-item
scale is based on Prochaska and DiClementes
Transtheoretical Model (Grimley, Prochaska,
Velicer, Blais, & DiClemente, 1994). It is a
variation of the original Banyard, Eckstein, and
Moynihan (2010) scale that tested whether a
prevention program worked differently for peo-
ple at different stages of readiness to change
their behavior in relation to preventing sexual
and intimate partner violence. Participants re-
sponded on a ve-point scale (1 not at all
true and 5 very much true) to indicate how
much each of the statements was true of them.
We performed a factor analysis to examine clus-
tering of items. For the purposes of the current
analyses, we explored two subscales derived
from that factor analysis:
Responsibility. This factor consists of four
items that indicate taking responsibility for
issues relating to sexual or intimate partner vi-
olence, two were reverse scored (e.g., There
isnt a need for me to think about sexual abuse
on campus) while two were not I think I can
do something about sexual violence). Higher
scores indicate greater sense of responsibility
for the problem. The Cronbachs alpha on this
scale for the sample in this study was .76 with a
range of 4 to 20, M 12.28, SD 3.12.
Denial. Another factor, composed of ve
items, represents the denial or lack of aware-
ness of the problem (e.g., I dont think inti-
mate partner abuse is a problem on campus).
The Cronbachs alpha on this scale for the sam-
ple in this study was .83 with a range of 5 to 25,
M 12.43, SD 4.18.
Decisional balance scale (Banyard, 2008).
This is an 11-item scale reecting both the
positive benets (pros) and negative conse-
quences (cons) for intervening in a situation
where you thought someone might be being
hurt or was at risk of being hurt. Responses are
given on a 5-point scale (1 not at all important
and 5 extremely important) in deciding whether
to intervene. For example, one pro item is, If I
intervene regularly I can prevent someone from
being hurt. We calculated a total decisional bal-
ance score by subtracting the sum of responses to
cons items from the sum of responses to pros
items. The Cronbachs alpha on this scale for the
sample in this study was .78 with a range of
14.25 to 19, M .52, SD 5.83.
Self-Reported Behaviors
Bystander behavior scale (Banyard, 2008).
This scale consists of 26 items, including the
same list of behaviors as in the Bystander In-
tention to Help Scale, as well as other additional
items. Participants answered Yes or No to
indicate behaviors they had actually carried out
in the last two months. The Cronbachs alpha on
the overall scale for the sample in this study was
.90 with a range of 0 to 26, M 13.96,
SD 6.51. We used both the total number of
bystander behaviors engaged in the last two
months as well as the summative scores of items
on four subscales that we obtained through fac-
tor analysis of the scale. We discuss the ndings
from this factor analysis in the results section
below.
Table 1 presents correlations for variables
hypothesized to explain variance in self-
reported likelihood or intent to intervene as a
bystander and self-reported bystander behav-
iors. Correlations were small to moderate and
suggested relative independence of variables.
Analysis Plan
Data analysis proceeded in several stages.
First, we performed a factor analysis with vari-
max rotation on the 26-item bystander behavior
measure. Next, we conducted a series of regres-
sion equations on the overall bystander mea-
sure, the four subscales of types of bystander
behaviors that emerged from the factor analysis,
and the attitudinal measure of willingness to
help. We used individual characteristics (age,
292 BANYARD AND MOYNIHAN
T
h
i
s

d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t

i
s

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n

P
s
y
c
h
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l

A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n

o
r

o
n
e

o
f

i
t
s

a
l
l
i
e
d

p
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
r
s
.


T
h
i
s

a
r
t
i
c
l
e

i
s

i
n
t
e
n
d
e
d

s
o
l
e
l
y

f
o
r

t
h
e

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
f

t
h
e

i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l

u
s
e
r

a
n
d

i
s

n
o
t

t
o

b
e

d
i
s
s
e
m
i
n
a
t
e
d

b
r
o
a
d
l
y
.
efcacy, awareness, responsibility, rape myth
acceptance, and decisional balance) and com-
munity-level social peer norms (supportive of
coercion) as independent variables.
Results
To examine the rst aim of the study, de-
scribing subtypes of bystander behavior, we
performed a principal components factor anal-
ysis with varimax rotation on the 26-item by-
stander behavior scale. We chose a four-factor
solution that explained 52% of the variance.
(The four factors and the items specic to each
factor appear in the Appendix.) We created sub-
scales by selecting items for each subscale that
had an eigenvalue of greater than .4. Factor 1,
Dealing with SV and IPV specic incidents,
explained 17.18% of variance and consisted
of 12 items (Cronbachs alpha .85). The
second factor, Party safety, explained 12.63%
of the variance and contained ve items (Cron-
bachs alpha .83). The third factor, Helping
friends in distress, explained 11.04% of the
variance and consisted of ve items (Cron-
bachs alpha .74). The fourth factor, Con-
fronting language, (e.g., confronting sexist,
racist, or homophobic comments and jokes) ex-
plained 10.94% of the variance and consisted of
four items (Cronbachs alpha .83).
We used multiple regression equations to test
the remaining three hypotheses of the study.
Table 2 presents the results of regression equa-
tions for the total (overall) and specic by-
stander behaviors (e.g., party safety, SV and
IPV specic) as well as the self-report attitude
outcome (intent or intention to help). Results
show that a higher overall number of sexual and
intimate partner violence-related bystander-
intervention behaviors correlated with being
younger, having a greater sense of responsibil-
ity for ending violence, greater perceived ef-
cacy to be an effective bystander, and having a
score on the decision balance scale with pros
outweighing cons. Surprisingly, higher peer
norms supporting coercion and greater rape
myth acceptance were also related to greater
numbers of self-reported behaviors.
We found different patterns of signicant
correlates by subtype of positive bystander be-
havior. Participants who were younger, ex-
pressed less denial of the problems of sexual
violence, greater realization that ending sexual
and intimate partner violence on campus was
their responsibility, greater condence as by-
standers, and who had pros outweighing cons
on the decisional balance scale were more likely
to perform the sexual and intimate partner vio-
lence specic interventions (Factor 1). Again, a
higher score on the peer norms scale indicating
greater support for the use of coercion in rela-
tionships was related to self-report of greater
performance of these types of active bystander
behaviors, as was higher rape myth acceptance.
Performing party safety behaviors (Factor 2)
was signicantly higher among participants
who were younger, who expressed greater re-
sponsibility for playing a role in ending sexual
and intimate partner violence in the community,
and had greater perceived efcacy to be an
effective bystander. Helping a friend in distress
(Factor 3) was signicantly related to greater
expressed responsibility and with a decisional
balance score in which the pros of intervening
outweighed the cons. Finally, intervening in
instances or verbal behavior such as remarks or
jokes (Factor 4) was signicantly related to
Table 1
Correlations Between Hypothesized Correlates of Bystander Intervention (N 394405)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1. Age .11

.10

.01 .05 .02 .04. .05

2. Gender .29

.09 .06 .22

.08 .20

3. Denial violence is problem .37

.17

.22

.10 .00
4. Responsibility .34

.18

.04 .29

5. Efcacy .26

.09 .34

6. Rape myth acceptance .17

.09
7. Peer norms .13

8. Decisional Balance

p .05.

p .01.

p .001.
293 VARIATION IN BYSTANDER BEHAVIOR
T
h
i
s

d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t

i
s

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n

P
s
y
c
h
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l

A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n

o
r

o
n
e

o
f

i
t
s

a
l
l
i
e
d

p
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
r
s
.


T
h
i
s

a
r
t
i
c
l
e

i
s

i
n
t
e
n
d
e
d

s
o
l
e
l
y

f
o
r

t
h
e

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
f

t
h
e

i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l

u
s
e
r

a
n
d

i
s

n
o
t

t
o

b
e

d
i
s
s
e
m
i
n
a
t
e
d

b
r
o
a
d
l
y
.
T
a
b
l
e
2
R
e
g
r
e
s
s
i
o
n
o
f
C
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
s
t
i
c
s
o
n
F
o
u
r
B
y
s
t
a
n
d
e
r
B
e
h
a
v
i
o
r
O
u
t
c
o
m
e
s
a
n
d
O
n
e
A
t
t
i
t
u
d
i
n
a
l
O
u
t
c
o
m
e
C
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
s
t
i
c
s
O
v
e
r
a
l
l
B
e
h
a
v
i
o
r
s
a
S
V
&
I
P
V
s
p
e
c
i

c
b
P
a
r
t
y
s
a
f
e
t
y
c
D
i
s
t
r
e
s
s
e
d
F
r
i
e
n
d
d
R
2

.
2
1

R
2

.
1
9

R
2

.
2
6

R
2

.
1
1

B
S
E
B

B
S
E
B

B
S
E
B

B
S
E
B

A
g
e

.
6
5
.
2
5

.
1
2

.
4
0
.
1
4

.
1
4

.
1
7
.
0
7

.
1
2

.
0
7
.
0
6

.
0
6
G
e
n
d
e
r

2
.
0
8
.
6
8

.
1
6

.
5
5
.
3
7
.
0
8

1
.
5
1
.
1
8

.
4
1

.
5
1
.
1
5

.
1
8

D
e
n
i
a
l
v
i
o
l
e
n
c
e
i
s
p
r
o
b
l
e
m

.
1
4
.
0
9

.
0
9

.
1
1
.
0
5

.
1
3

.
0
0
.
0
2
.
0
0

.
0
1
.
0
2

.
0
2
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
.
4
4
.
1
1
.
2
1

.
2
3
.
0
6
.
2
1

.
1
0
.
0
3
.
1
6

.
0
5
.
0
3
.
1
1

R
a
p
e
m
y
t
h
a
c
c
e
p
t
a
n
c
e
.
0
8
.
0
4
.
1
0

.
0
8
.
0
2
.
1
7

.
0
0
.
0
1
.
0
1
.
0
1
.
0
1
.
0
6
E
f

c
a
c
y
.
0
6
.
0
2
.
1
4

.
0
3
.
0
1
.
1
1

.
0
1
.
0
1
.
1
0

.
0
1
.
0
1
.
0
8
D
e
c
i
s
i
o
n
a
l
b
a
l
a
n
c
e
.
1
7
.
0
6
.
1
5

.
0
7
.
0
3
.
1
2

.
0
3
.
0
2
.
0
8
.
0
5
.
0
1
.
1
9

P
e
e
r
n
o
r
m
s
.
8
0
.
3
9
.
1
0

.
5
9
.
2
2
.
1
3

.
0
1
.
1
1

.
0
1
.
1
4
.
0
9
.
0
8
C
o
n
f
r
o
n
t
i
n
g
L
a
n
g
u
a
g
e
e
I
n
t
e
n
t
f
R
2

.
1
4

R
2

.
5
9

B
S
E
B

B
S
E
B

A
g
e

.
0
1
.
0
6

.
0
1

.
2
2
.
2
1

.
0
4
G
e
n
d
e
r

.
5
8
.
1
7

.
1
8

2
.
6
3
.
5
5

.
1
7

D
e
n
i
a
l
v
i
o
l
e
n
c
e
i
s
a
p
r
o
b
l
e
m

.
0
2
.
0
2

.
0
6

.
0
7
.
0
7

.
0
4
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
.
0
8
.
0
3
.
1
5

.
1
6
.
0
9
.
0
7
R
a
p
e
m
y
t
h
a
c
c
e
p
t
a
n
c
e

.
0
0
.
0
1

.
0
1

.
1
1
.
0
3

.
1
2

E
f

c
a
c
y
.
0
2
.
0
1
.
1
5

.
3
0
.
0
2
.
6
0

D
e
c
i
s
i
o
n
a
l
b
a
l
a
n
c
e
.
0
2
.
0
2
.
0
9
.
1
3
.
0
5
.
1
0

P
e
e
r
n
o
r
m
s
.
1
0
.
1
0
.
0
5

.
9
3
.
3
3

.
1
0

a
N

3
6
2
.
b
N

3
7
3
.
c
N

3
7
4
.
d
N

3
7
7
.
e
N

3
7
7
.
f
N

3
9
0
d
u
e
t
o
m
i
s
s
i
n
g
d
a
t
a
o
n
v
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
s
.

.
0
5
.

.
0
1
.

.
0
0
1
.
294 BANYARD AND MOYNIHAN
T
h
i
s

d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t

i
s

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n

P
s
y
c
h
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l

A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n

o
r

o
n
e

o
f

i
t
s

a
l
l
i
e
d

p
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
r
s
.


T
h
i
s

a
r
t
i
c
l
e

i
s

i
n
t
e
n
d
e
d

s
o
l
e
l
y

f
o
r

t
h
e

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
f

t
h
e

i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l

u
s
e
r

a
n
d

i
s

n
o
t

t
o

b
e

d
i
s
s
e
m
i
n
a
t
e
d

b
r
o
a
d
l
y
.
greater sense of responsibility and greater self-
efcacy.
When we performed a regression analysis for
the attitudinal measure of intent to engage in
bystander behaviors, we found that the pattern
of signicant correlates was somewhat differ-
ent. Table 2 shows these results. We found
greater expressed likelihood of engaging in ac-
tive bystander behaviors related to lower rape
myth acceptance, greater bystander efcacy,
pros of intervening outweighing cons, and a
lower score on peer norms that are supportive of
coercion.
In all of the analyses, we used gender as a
control variable. It was signicant across by-
stander behaviors, with women reporting more
of all types of self-reported bystander behaviors
as well as greater expressed likelihood to inter-
vene. Given the large literature on gender and
helping, we have conducted a fuller exploration
of the role of gender in active bystander inter-
vention in a different paper from this same
study (Banyard & Moynihan, under review).
Unpacking the Role of Peer Norms
Researchers are paying increasing attention
to the importance of the effects of peer norms
supportive of coercion on behaviors related to
sexual and intimate partner violence. For that
reason and given the one nding in the current
study that ran counter to what we hypothesized,
that peer norms more supportive of coercion
were in some cases related to higher engage-
ment in actual bystander behaviors, we per-
formed a series of exploratory analyses to try to
better understand this nding. In this regard, we
found that study recruitment group was not a
moderator. That is, when computed separately
by recruitment sample, the correlations between
peer norms supporting coercion and engaging in
a greater number of bystander behaviors were
not obviously different and indeed the correla-
tions were nonsignicant.
We also examined whether age exerted a
moderating effect on peer norms given that it
was a signicant demographic correlate of by-
stander behavior. We hypothesized that this
might be the case because the peer group used
as the referent by participants may differ by
year in college. First-year students may still be
using friends back at home in high school or
other students living in their residence halls as
their referent group when answering these ques-
tions, while as students spend more years on
campus, that reference group may shift to a
more specic or limited group of peers with
whom they choose to spend their time. We
hypothesized that these preferred reference
groups (i.e., particular individuals or groups on
campus with whom they have chosen to afli-
ate) would exert a more powerful effect on
campus bystander behaviors. For that reason,
we calculated correlations separately by year in
school. Interestingly, rst-year students who in-
dicated greater peer endorsement of use of co-
ercion in relationships also reported greater en-
gagement in bystander behaviors (r .13, and
was signicant at p .05). For sophomores, the
correlation between peer norms and behaviors
was .10; though nonsignicant, it was in the
expected direction with higher peer norms sup-
porting coercion related to lower engagement in
helpful bystander behavior. Finally, while the
correlation was not statistically signicant for
the combined group of juniors and seniors
(likely due to the small subsample size of
n 42 for this group and resulting loss of
power), it was in the expected hypothesized
direction, r .16, with greater peer norms
related to lower self-reported performance of
helpful bystander behaviors. This is a key area
for future research. We need to understand how
predictors of helpful behavior may vary over
time with changing age and contexts across
years in college.
Discussion
We found evidence for the presence of dif-
ferent subtypes of bystander behavior related to
sexual and relationship violence in a college
community. These subtypes mapped well onto
models of a continuum of violence including a
subtype related to challenging use of language
and jokes, behaviors specic to helping a
clearly identied IPV or sexual assault victim,
and more general types of helping a distressed
friend and behaviors to minimize risk at parties.
In keeping with the exploratory fourth aim of
the current study, there were some differences
in correlates by type of bystander behavior. For
example, decisional balance was a signicant
correlate of more active forms of helping as-
sessed by the subtypes involving sexual and
intimate partner violence very specically and
295 VARIATION IN BYSTANDER BEHAVIOR
T
h
i
s

d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t

i
s

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n

P
s
y
c
h
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l

A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n

o
r

o
n
e

o
f

i
t
s

a
l
l
i
e
d

p
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
r
s
.


T
h
i
s

a
r
t
i
c
l
e

i
s

i
n
t
e
n
d
e
d

s
o
l
e
l
y

f
o
r

t
h
e

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
f

t
h
e

i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l

u
s
e
r

a
n
d

i
s

n
o
t

t
o

b
e

d
i
s
s
e
m
i
n
a
t
e
d

b
r
o
a
d
l
y
.
protection/support of friends. These types of
helping may be perceived by students as higher
risk behaviors. That is, they are behaviors where
one is intervening in situations that are more
serious and also likely lower frequency behav-
iors, or ones that potentially have the greatest
costs. Thus, performing such behaviors may be
particularly sensitive to the weighing of these
costs and benets and the importance of benets
outweighing costs before carrying out the be-
havior. Level of awareness/denial of the prob-
lem was signicant only for behaviors specic
to IPV and sexual violence, suggesting that de-
nial of the problem of sexual violence is partic-
ularly important for taking on the challenge of
relationship violence specic interventions. By
contrast, perceived self-efcacy or condence
as a bystander appeared to be a key factor for
more ambiguous or general situations such as
confronting jokes and encouraging friends to
follow safe party behaviors.
Hypotheses two and three explored patterns
of correlates linked to both an attitudinal mea-
sure of intent and an index of self-reported
behavior. Overall, the pattern of ndings for
bystander intent, the attitudinal self-report out-
come, ts best with earlier models of bystander
action and helping behavior. Individuals
seemed to indicate greater likelihood to help
when they possessed greater awareness of the
problem, had peers who were less likely to
support use of coercion in relationships, en-
dorsed fewer rape myths themselves, and re-
ported higher levels of condence for being an
active and helpful bystander.
However, in keeping with social psycholog-
ical literature that often nds variability in the
correspondence between attitudes and behav-
iors (e.g., Glasman & Albarracin, 2006), results
from this study also revealed some interesting
complexities when trying to examine correlates
of self-reported bystander behavior rather than
behavioral intent. For example, in this study we
found that those who reported higher peer
norms supportive of coercion and those who
reported higher rape myth acceptance also re-
ported doing greater numbers of behaviors spe-
cically related to sexual and intimate partner
violence. More research is needed to unpack
this phenomenon. Brown and Messman-Moore
(2010) found higher likelihood of peer norms
that support aggression linked to lower likeli-
hood of being an active bystander. We repli-
cated these ndings in the current study when
the attitudinal variable of likelihood (behavioral
intent) was the outcome. However, a different
pattern emerged when participants self-reported
bystander behaviors that they performed during
the past two months. The exploratory analyses
showed that year in college may be an important
moderator variable here, though overall the cor-
relations between peer norms and self-reported
behavior were low, suggesting that there may be
little signicant relationship. While small sam-
ple sizes and self-reported, cross-sectional data
precluded more in-depth analysis by group, this
may be an interesting direction for future re-
search. We also need to consider the role of
ordering effects. All students completed the
peer norms scale prior to reporting about their
own bystander behavior. Thinking about peer
norms may have had an impact about how they
remembered and reported about their own be-
havior.
Of note is that the variable responsibility,
that describes the level of felt accountability for
dealing with sexual and intimate partner vio-
lence in the community, was signicant across
bystander behaviors. Responsibility appears to
be a key variable for predicting actual helpful
behaviors. Though again, it is interesting this
variable did not signicantly predict behavioral
intent (the attitude variable). This outcome ts
well with Chaurand and Brauers (2008) nding
that responsibility was the main signicant fac-
tor for predicting informal social control.
Research Implications
Some of the ndings from the current study
are different from those reported in previous
social psychological literature. This may be due
to our attempt to measure bystander behavior
using self-reports in the community rather than
experimentally manipulated behavior in the lab
(where all participants have equal opportunity
to help or not). This difference in ndings illus-
trates the complexities of trying to predict behav-
ior in the community, a key task for researchers
because of its importance for informing preven-
tion efforts. What our ndings do indicate is that
researchers need to know much more about the
context in which active and helpful bystander
behaviors take place on campus and what stu-
dents are thinking that motivates them to step
in. This includes how students perceive their
296 BANYARD AND MOYNIHAN
T
h
i
s

d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t

i
s

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n

P
s
y
c
h
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l

A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n

o
r

o
n
e

o
f

i
t
s

a
l
l
i
e
d

p
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
r
s
.


T
h
i
s

a
r
t
i
c
l
e

i
s

i
n
t
e
n
d
e
d

s
o
l
e
l
y

f
o
r

t
h
e

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
f

t
h
e

i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l

u
s
e
r

a
n
d

i
s

n
o
t

t
o

b
e

d
i
s
s
e
m
i
n
a
t
e
d

b
r
o
a
d
l
y
.
current friends views on stepping in to prevent
or intervene in instances of sexual and intimate
partner violence.
In our current study (and following Schwartz
et al., 2001), we asked, Did any of your friends
ever tell you that it is all right for a person
to. . . hit a date, use physical force, or commit
other acts of sexual and/or intimate partner vi-
olence. Given the unexpected outcome concern-
ing the relationship between scores on this scale
and some types of actual bystander behavior, in
the future researchers may want to add items
about peer views of bystander intervention.
That is, researchers may want to add items that
would query respondents about their own views
and actions as bystanders as well as what they
perceive their current friends views to be on
bystander intervention specically, rather than
peer norms about coercion in relationships more
generally as assessed in the current study. Their
answers may lead to clearer understanding
about which variables in particular are related to
engagement in prosocial bystander behaviors.
More research is needed to more clearly ar-
ticulate key forces that promote active and help-
ful bystander intervention. Future research
should develop and use more objective, rather
than subjective, measures of both bystander at-
titudes and behaviors. For example, a multisite
campus study could survey students about
norms related to bystander intervention and use
of coercion in relationships. These self-reports
by peers could be combined into an index of
community norms that would move beyond a
research participants perception of what the
community thinks. Additionally, peer observa-
tions of actual bystander behaviors could be
used to move beyond self-reports as would
employing experimental methods such as
simulations of situations in which an individ-
ual needs help. Gidycz et al. (2010), for ex-
ample, have developed a technique of phon-
ing research participants months after their
study and asking if they would donate time or
money to help a local rape crisis center as an
index of behaviors related to sexual assault
prevention. The relatively homogeneous sam-
ple in the current study, a limitation of pre-
vious bystander studies as well, precludes a
more thorough understanding of the impact of
culture. Characteristics of the situation are
important to helping behavior. Yet to date, we
know little about how correlates of helping
may vary by cultural context. Within college
contexts, for example, how is helping shaped
by situational variables like use of alcohol,
particularly by underage bystanders?
Limitations
The current study has a number of limita-
tions including the relatively short list of by-
stander behaviors on the survey, the over-
sample of rst-year students, and the lack of
racial/ethnic diversity of the sample. Further,
the peer norms scale that we used had rela-
tively low internal consistency. Given the sur-
prising ndings obtained with this scale, fur-
ther research is needed using better measures
of peer attitudes. In addition, the current
study, although using both attitudinal and be-
havioral measures, relied solely on self-report
measures. The current study was also limited
in its collection of data about individual par-
ticipants. Results of the current study raised
questions about the role of opportunity to be
an active bystander. Future research should
assess the level of opportunity that students
have to intervene as well as data on their
drinking behavior and attendance at parties,
potential self-reported indices of opportunity.
Practice Implications and Conclusions
Nevertheless, the study represents an im-
portant next step in the understanding of cor-
relates of actual helpful bystander behaviors
performed in situations where there are risk
markers for sexual and intimate partner vio-
lence. A growing number of prevention pro-
grams have begun translating knowledge
gained from empirical studies of helping be-
havior into educational programs and social
marketing campaigns that seek to encourage
prosocial, engaged bystander intervention in
situations where there is risk for sexual or
intimate partner violence (e.g., Banyard et al.,
2007; Katz, 2007; Potter, Moynihan, &
Stapleton, 2010). Furthering the positive im-
pact and effectiveness of such prevention ini-
tiatives requires ongoing examination of vari-
ability in bystander intervention behaviors
and explanations for such differences in the
specic context of sexual and intimate partner
violence.
297 VARIATION IN BYSTANDER BEHAVIOR
T
h
i
s

d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t

i
s

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n

P
s
y
c
h
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l

A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n

o
r

o
n
e

o
f

i
t
s

a
l
l
i
e
d

p
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
r
s
.


T
h
i
s

a
r
t
i
c
l
e

i
s

i
n
t
e
n
d
e
d

s
o
l
e
l
y

f
o
r

t
h
e

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
f

t
h
e

i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l

u
s
e
r

a
n
d

i
s

n
o
t

t
o

b
e

d
i
s
s
e
m
i
n
a
t
e
d

b
r
o
a
d
l
y
.
For example, an understanding of how the
correlates of helpful bystander behaviors may
change across the years that students spend in a
campus community environment would en-
hance prevention efforts. Work by Carlo et al.
(2003) indicates that prosocial tendencies in-
crease over adolescence. In the current study,
we found that, overall, self-reported helpful by-
stander behaviors decrease across year in col-
lege, with rst-year students reporting greater
numbers of behaviors. To what extent is this
outcome a product of opportunity? To what
extent does it reect changing choices? Yet
another variable may be tied to in-group mem-
bers. Levine, Prosser, Evans, and Reichers
(2005) study indicates that degree of connect-
edness to others may be a key variable for
understanding bystander intervention. Ones
sense of in-group membership and belonging
both to other bystanders in the situation as well
as to the victim promotes helping. The sense of
in-group membership and belonging among the
individuals one is surrounded by may be greater
among rst-year students. They may spend
more time in contexts with other students from
their residence halls and oors, groups among
whom a sense of connection is actively fostered
by campus staff who work with rst-year stu-
dents in residence halls. As students get older,
they may more frequently nd themselves in
situations where there is a greater diffusion or
heterogeneity of group membership (as one
moves from eating, studying, and socializing
with other new rst-year students to branching
out into other parts of the campus and commu-
nity where one is not always surrounded by
people one knows).
Further, our nding about the importance of
fostering a sense of responsibility for sexual and
intimate partner violence lends support to the
importance of awareness campaigns that in-
clude messages that reach all community mem-
bers, not just victims. Individuals, however,
also clearly need opportunities to both discuss
costs and benets of intervening but also per-
haps to develop new skills so that they have a
choice of what do tohaving a range of op-
tions for choosing how to intervene may serve
to increase perceived benets relative to costs of
intervening and work against bystander apathy.
What many of the correlates identied in the
current study seem to share is that individuals
will intervene when they have a sense of emo-
tional and physical safetywhen intervening is
seen as legitimate and safe. Communities must
send clear messages that support bystanders
both through social norms changing awareness
campaigns and skill building opportunities, as
well as by creating policies that support good
Samaritans and spaces where bystanders can
come together with others for recognition and
encouragement.
Finally, variables in the current study ex-
plained much more variance in bystander atti-
tudes than bystander behaviors. This nding
highlights the need to evaluate prevention pro-
grams in light of behavior change, not just at-
titude change. While participants in prevention
programs may change their attitudes in line with
program content, such attitude shifts do not
necessarily create the needed behavior change
we wish to see in our communities. Building
bridges between research on helping behavior
and its application to prevention efforts is one
way to work to end the epidemic of sexual and
relationship violence in communities.
References
Anderson, K. M., & Danis, F. S. (2007). Collegiate
sororities and dating violence: An exploratory
study of informal and formal helping strategies.
Violence Against Women, 13, 87100. doi:
10.1177/1077801206294808
Banyard, V. L. (2008). Measurement and correlates
of pro-social bystander behavior: The case of in-
terpersonal violence, Violence and Victims, 23,
8599. doi:10.1891/0886670823183
Banyard, V. L., Eckstein, R. P., & Moynihan, M. M.
(2010). Involving community in sexual violence
prevention: The role of stages of change. Journal
of Interpersonal Violence, 25, 111135. doi:
10.1177/0886260508329123
Banyard, V. L., & Moynihan, M. M. (Under review).
Gender and bystander behavior to prevent sexual
and intimate partner violence.
Banyard, V. L., Moynihan, M. M., & Plante, E. G.
(2007). Sexual violence prevention through by-
stander education: An experimental evaluation.
Journal of Community Psychology, 35, 463481.
doi:10.1002/jcop.20159
Banyard, V. L., Moynihan, M. M., Walsh, W., Cohn,
E. S., & Ward, S., (2010). Friends of survivors:
The community impact of unwanted sexual expe-
riences. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25,
242256. doi:10.1177/0886260509334407
Batson, C. D. (1998). Altruism and prosocial behav-
ior. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey
298 BANYARD AND MOYNIHAN
T
h
i
s

d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t

i
s

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n

P
s
y
c
h
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l

A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n

o
r

o
n
e

o
f

i
t
s

a
l
l
i
e
d

p
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
r
s
.


T
h
i
s

a
r
t
i
c
l
e

i
s

i
n
t
e
n
d
e
d

s
o
l
e
l
y

f
o
r

t
h
e

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
f

t
h
e

i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l

u
s
e
r

a
n
d

i
s

n
o
t

t
o

b
e

d
i
s
s
e
m
i
n
a
t
e
d

b
r
o
a
d
l
y
.
(Eds.), The handbook of social psychology II (pp.
282316). Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Beeble, M. L., Post, L. A., Bybee, D. I., & Sullivan,
C. M. (2008). Factors predicting willingness to
help survivors of intimate partner violence. Jour-
nal of Interpersonal Violence, 23, 17131729. doi:
10.1177/0886260508314333
Bohner, G., Siebler, F., & Schmelcher, J. (2006).
Social norms and the likelihood of raping: Per-
ceived rape myth acceptance of others affects
mens rape proclivity. Personality and Social Psy-
chology Bulletin, 32, 286 97. doi:10.1177/
0146167205280912
Brinkley, C. J., & Saarino, D. A. (2006). Involving
students in school violence prevention: Are they
willing to help? Journal of School Violence, 5,
93106. doi:10.1300/J202v05n01_07
Brown, A., & Messman-Moore, T. L. (2010). Personal
and perceived peer attitudes supporting sexual ag-
gression as predictors of male college students will-
ingness to intervene against sexual aggression. Jour-
nal of Interpersonal Violence, 25, 503518. doi:
10.1177/0886260509334400
Burn, S. (2009). A situational model of sexual assault
prevention through bystander intervention. Sex
Roles, 60, 779792. doi:10.1007/s11199-008
9581-5
Carlo, G., Hausmann, A., Christiansen, S., & Ran-
dall, B. A. (2003). Sociocognitive and behavioral
correlates of a measure of prosocial tendencies for
adolescents. Journal of Early Adolescence, 23,
107134. doi:10.1177/0272431602239132
Chabot, H. F., Tracy, T. L., Manning, C. A., &
Poisson, C. A. (2009). Sex, attribution, and sever-
ity inuence intervention decisions of informal
helpers in domestic violence. Journal of Interper-
sonal Violence, 24, 16961713. doi:10.1177/
0886260509331514
Chaurand, N., & Brauer, M. (2008). What determines
social control? Peoples reactions to counternor-
mative behaviors in urban environment. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 38, 16891715. doi:
10.1111/j.15591816.2008.00365.x
Darley, J. M., & Latane, B. (1968). Bystander inter-
vention in emergencies: Diffusion of responsibil-
ity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 8, 377383.
Dovidio, J., Piliavin, J. A., Schroeder, D., & Penner,
L. (2006). The social psychology of prosocial be-
havior. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Dovidio, J. F., Piliavin, J. A., Gaertner, S., Schroeder,
D. A., & Clark, R. D. (1991). The arousal: Cost-
reward model and the process of intervention: A
review of the evidence. In M. Clark (Ed.), Proso-
cial behavior. Review of personality and social
psychology, 12, (pp. 86118). Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.
Fabiano, P. M., Perkins, H. W., Berkowitz, A.,
Linkenbach, J., & Stark, C. (2003). Engaging men
as social justice allies in ending violence against
women: Evidence for a social norms approach.
Journal of American College Health, 52, 105112.
Fisher, B. S., Cullen, F. T., & Turner, M. G. (2000). The
sexual victimization of college women: Findings from
two national level studies. Washington, DC: National
Institute of Justice and Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Frye, V. (2007). The informal social control of inti-
mate partner violence: Assessing the role of indi-
vidual-level attitudes. Journal of Community Psy-
chology, 35, 10011018. doi:10.10020jcop
Gidycz, C. A., Orchowski, L. M. Probst, D., Ed-
wards, K., Murphy, M., Tansill, E., & Berkowitz,
A., (July, 2010). Preventing sexual assault among
college students: An outcome evaluation. Paper
presented at the International Family Violence and
Youth Victimization Conference, Portsmouth, NH.
Glasman, L. R., & Albarracin, D. (2006). Forming
attitudes that predict future behavior: A meta-
analysis of the attitudebehavior relation. Psycho-
logical Bulletin, 132, 778822.doi:10.1037/0033
2909.132.5.778
Grimley, D., Prochaska, J. O., Velicer, W. F., Blais, L. M.,
& DiClemente, C. C. (1994). The transtheoretical
model of change. In T. M. Brinthaupt & R. R. Lipka
(Eds.), Changing the self: Philosophies, techniques, and
experiences (pp. 201227). Albany: SUNY.
Katz, J. (2007, November 30). Mentors in violence
prevention: History and overview. Retrieved from
http://www.jacksonkatz.com/aboutmvp.html
Kelly, L. (1987). The continuum of sexual violence.
In J. Holmes and M. Maynard (Eds.), Women,
violence, and social control (pp. 4660). London:
Macmillan.
Levine, M., Prosser, A., Evans, D., & Reicher, S.
(2005). Identity and emergency interventions:
How social group membership and inclusiveness
of group boundaries shape helping behavior. Per-
sonality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 443
453. doi:10.1177/0146167204271651
McMahon, S. (2010). Rape myth beliefs and by-
stander attitudes among incoming college students.
Journal of American College Health, 59, 311.
doi:10.1080/07448481.2010.483715
Payne, D. L., Lonsway, K. A., & Fitzgerald, L. F.
(1999). Rape myth acceptance: Exploration of its
structure and its measurement using the Illinois
Rape Myth Acceptance Scale. Journal of Research
in Personality, 33, 2768.
Planty, M. (2002). Third-party involvement in vi-
olent crime, 19931999. National Institute of
Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Re-
port. Rockville, MD. Justice Statistics Clearing-
house/NCJRS. NCJ 189100
Potter, S. J., Moynihan, M. M., & Stapleton, J. G.
(2010). Using social self-identication in social
299 VARIATION IN BYSTANDER BEHAVIOR
T
h
i
s

d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t

i
s

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n

P
s
y
c
h
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l

A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n

o
r

o
n
e

o
f

i
t
s

a
l
l
i
e
d

p
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
r
s
.


T
h
i
s

a
r
t
i
c
l
e

i
s

i
n
t
e
n
d
e
d

s
o
l
e
l
y

f
o
r

t
h
e

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
f

t
h
e

i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l

u
s
e
r

a
n
d

i
s

n
o
t

t
o

b
e

d
i
s
s
e
m
i
n
a
t
e
d

b
r
o
a
d
l
y
.
marketing materials aimed at reducing violence
against women on campus. Journal of Interper-
sonal Violence. Advance online publication. doi:
10.1177/0886260510365870
Schwartz, M. D., DeKeseredy, W. S., Tait, D., &
Alvi, S. (2001). Male peer support and a feminist
routine activities theory: Understanding sexual as-
sault on the college campus. Justice Quarterly, 18,
623649. doi:10.1080/07418820100095041
Stein, J. L. (2007). Peer educators and close
friends as predictors of male college students
willingness to prevent rape. Journal of College
Student Development, 48, 7589. doi:10.1353/
csd.2007.0008
Appendix
Bystander Behavior Scale: Factors and Items
Factor 1: Dealing with SV and IPV specic
incidents Items
1. Think through the pros and cons of dif-
ferent ways I might help if I see an
instance of sexual violence.
2. Speak up if I hear someone say, She
deserved to be raped.
3. Ask for verbal consent when I am inti-
mate with my partner, even if we are in a
long-term relationship.
4. I talk with my friends about sexual and
intimate partner violence as an issue for
our community.
5. I express concern to a friend if I see their
partner exhibiting very jealous behavior
and trying to control my friend.
6. I tell a friend if I think their drink may
have been spiked with a drug.
7. Talk with friends about what makes a
relationship abusive and what warning
signs might be.
8. I see a man talking to a female friend. He
is sitting very close to her and by the
look on her face, I can see she is uncom-
fortable. I ask her if she is ok or try to
start a conversation with her.
9. I stop and check in with my friend who
looks very intoxicated when they are be-
ing taken upstairs at a party.
10. Approach a friend if I thought they were
in an abusive relationship and let them
know that Im here to help.
11. Express disagreement with a friend who
says having sex with someone who is
passed out or very intoxicated is okay.
12. Go with my friend to talk with someone
(e.g., police, counselor, crisis center, res-
ident advisor) about an unwanted sexual
experience or physical violence in their
relationship).
Factor 2: Party Safety Items
1. Make sure I leave the party with the
same people I came with.
2. I talk with my friends about going to
parties together and staying together and
leaving together.
3. I talk with my friends about watching
each others drinks.
4. Watch my friends drinks at parties.
5. Make sure friends leave the party with
the same people they came with.
(Appendix continues)
300 BANYARD AND MOYNIHAN
T
h
i
s

d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t

i
s

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n

P
s
y
c
h
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l

A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n

o
r

o
n
e

o
f

i
t
s

a
l
l
i
e
d

p
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
r
s
.


T
h
i
s

a
r
t
i
c
l
e

i
s

i
n
t
e
n
d
e
d

s
o
l
e
l
y

f
o
r

t
h
e

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
f

t
h
e

i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l

u
s
e
r

a
n
d

i
s

n
o
t

t
o

b
e

d
i
s
s
e
m
i
n
a
t
e
d

b
r
o
a
d
l
y
.
Factor 3: Helping friends in distress Items
1. If a friend has had too much to drink, I
ask them if they need to be walked home
from the party.
2. Ask a friend who seems upset if they are
okay or need help.
3. Walk a friend home from a party who
has had too much to drink.
4. If I heard a friend insulting their partner
I would say something to them.
5. Talk to my friends or acquaintances to
make sure we dont leave an intoxicated
friend behind at a party.
Factor 4: Confronting Language Items
1. Indicate my displeasure when I hear sex-
ist jokes.
2. Indicate my displeasure when I hear rac-
ist jokes.
3. Indicate my displeasure when I hear ho-
mophobic jokes.
4. Indicate my displeasure when I hear cat-
calls.
Received June 21, 2010
Revision received February 24, 2011
Accepted March 1, 2011
New Editors Appointed, 20132018
The Publications and Communications Board of the American Psychological Association an-
nounces the appointment of 5 new editors for 6-year terms beginning in 2012. As of January 1,
2012, manuscripts should be directed as follows:
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition (http://www.apa.org/
pubs/journals/xlm/), Robert L. Greene, PhD, Department of Psychology, Case Western
Reserve University
Professional Psychology: Research and Practice (http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/pro/),
Ronald T. Brown, PhD, ABPP, Wayne State University
Psychology and Aging (http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/pag), Ulrich Mayr, PhD, Depart-
ment of Psychology, University of Oregon
Psychology, Public Policy, and Law (http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/law/), Michael E.
Lamb, PhD, University of Cambridge, United Kingdom
School Psychology Quarterly (http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/spq/), Shane R. Jimerson,
PhD, University of California, Santa Barbara
Electronic manuscript submission: As of January 1, 2012, manuscripts should be submitted
electronically to the new editors via the journals Manuscript Submission Portal (see the website
listed above with each journal title).
Current editors Randi C. Martin, PhD, Michael C. Roberts, PhD, Paul Duberstein, PhD, Ronald
Roesch, PhD, and Randy W. Kamphaus, PhD, will receive and consider new manuscripts through
December 31, 2011.
301 VARIATION IN BYSTANDER BEHAVIOR
T
h
i
s

d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t

i
s

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n

P
s
y
c
h
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l

A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n

o
r

o
n
e

o
f

i
t
s

a
l
l
i
e
d

p
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
r
s
.


T
h
i
s

a
r
t
i
c
l
e

i
s

i
n
t
e
n
d
e
d

s
o
l
e
l
y

f
o
r

t
h
e

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
f

t
h
e

i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l

u
s
e
r

a
n
d

i
s

n
o
t

t
o

b
e

d
i
s
s
e
m
i
n
a
t
e
d

b
r
o
a
d
l
y
.