Discussion: Sexual Violence and Bystander Intervention

For this Discussion, you view a video case in which the circumstances for a potential act of sexual violence are put in motion. You analyze the bystander behavior in the video and the possible effects of sexual violence on survivors and bystanders.

Review the Learning Resources on sexual assault, dating violence, and bystander intervention. Focus on the theories of bystander intervention described in the assigned journal articles.

Watch the Johnson Family video case study. Consider the behavior of the people in the video, paying particular attention to a bystander’s decision whether to intervene.

Apply one bystander intervention theory to the behavior of those exhibited in the video. Then, describe a scenario in which a bystander could have influenced this scenario in a different way. Please use the Learning Resources to support your application of theory.

Johnson Family Episode 1

Johnson Family Episode 1
Program Transcript

ERIC: Ladies, what’s going on?

TALIA: Hi.

ERIC: I’m Eric.

TALIA: Talia

SHERRY: Sherry.

ERIC: Excellent. So I know some good-looking guys looking for some good-
looking girls.

SHERRY: You do, huh?

ERIC: We’re throwing a party Saturday night, and invitation only. I want you guys
to come. Lots of booze. You like to dance?

TALIA: I love to dance.

ERIC: Me too. You should dance with me. You better come.

TALIA: All right.

ERIC: Both of you.

SHERRY: Thanks.

ERIC: I’ll see you then? All right, see you later.

TALIA: Bye.

SHERRY: Bye.

TALIA: He’s hot.

SHERRY: You think?

TALIA: Oh, yeah. You gonna go?

SHERRY: Well, yeah, if you’re going to go.

TALIA: Yeah, I’m definitely gonna go.

Johnson Family Episode 1

SHERRY: OK, then we’re going.

TALIA: OK, it’s settled.

[INTERPOSING VOICES]

ERIC: Hey, there. How you feeling?

I’m drunk.

ERIC: Yes, you are. Here, have some more.

TALIA: I need to lay down. I don’t feel so good.

ERIC: Oh, no. No, no, no. Not here.

TALIA: Take me home.

ERIC: It’s my frat party. I actually– I’ll tell you what. I’ll take you upstairs. You can

use my bed, OK?

TALIA: Sure.

ERIC: All right. Come on, Talia. I got you.

SHERRY: Talia. Hey, are you OK?

TALIA: I’m fine.

SHERRY: You sure? Do you want to go with him?

ERIC: It’s fine. She likes me. Don’t you?

TALIA: Uh-huh.

Johnson Family Episode 1
Additional Content Attribution

MUSIC:
Music by Clean Cuts

Original Art and Photography Provided By:
Brian Kline and Nico Danks

Bystander Intervention to Prevent Sexual Violence: The Overlooked Role
of Bystander Alcohol Intoxication

Ruschelle M. Leone
Georgia State University

Michelle Haikalis
University of Nebraska—Lincoln

Dominic J. Parrott
Georgia State University

David DiLillo
University of Nebraska—Lincoln

Objectives: Bystander training is a promising form of sexual violence (SV) prevention that has
proliferated in recent years. Though alcohol commonly accompanies SV, there has been little consider-
ation of the potential impact of bystander alcohol intoxication on SV prevention. The aims of this
commentary are to provide an integrative framework for understanding the proximal effect of alcohol on
SV intervention, provide recommendations to spark novel research, and guide the application of research
to bystander programming efforts. Method: This commentary begins with a review of existing bystander
training programs and the need to target alcohol use and misuse in these programming efforts. Next,
pertinent alcohol and bystander theories and research are drawn to develop a framework for the proximal
effect of alcohol on SV intervention. Results: The well-established decision-making model of bystander
behavior (Latané & Darley, 1970) and alcohol myopia theory (Steele & Josephs, 1990) are used to
identify potential barriers to SV intervention that may be created or exacerbated by alcohol use.
Additionally, the ways in which alcohol may facilitate intervention are discussed. Conclusions: Specific
recommendations are made for elucidating the relationship between alcohol and bystander behavior and
testing the impact of alcohol at each level of the presented framework. Methodological and analytic
concerns are discussed, including the need for more multimethod studies. Recommendations to guide the
application of the present framework to SV prevention programming efforts are provided, and consider
how the proximal effects of alcohol impact intervention.

Keywords: alcohol myopia, bystander effect, prevention, sexual aggression, sexual assault

Through the myopia it causes, alcohol may tie us to a roller-coaster
ride of immediate impulses arising from whatever cues are salient.

—(Steele & Josephs, 1990, p. 923)

. . . situational factors, specifically factors involving the immediate
social environment, may be of greater importance in determining an
individual’s reaction to an emergency than such broad motivational
concepts as “apathy”. . . .

—(Latané & Darley, 1970, p. 127)

Bystander training is a promising form of sexual violence (SV)
prevention that has gained widespread favor in recent years

(DeGue et al., 2014). These programs train witnesses to intervene
in risky sexual situations, which often involve alcohol (Abbey,
2002; Testa, 2002). Though bystanders, if also intoxicated in these
situations, are undoubtedly susceptible to alcohol’s cognitive and
attentional influences, there is little empirical data to inform
whether intoxication on the part of bystanders interferes with their
ability to respond effectively to sexual risk situations. As such, the
principal aims of this article are to (a) propose an integrative
framework for the proximal effect of alcohol intoxication on by-
stander intervention when witnessing SV behavior (hereafter referred
to as SV intervention), (b) provide recommendations to stimulate new
lines of research, and (c) guide the application of research to bystander
programming efforts. This article begins by reviewing bystander
training programs and discussing the need to target alcohol use and
misuse in these programming efforts. We then provide a framework to
understand how the proximal effects of alcohol may influence SV
intervention by integrating pertinent alcohol and bystander theories.
This framework is the basis for specific recommendations for future
research and is used to guide potential applications of findings to
prevention programming efforts.

Review of Bystander Training Programming

Bystander training programs have proliferated on college cam-
puses in recent years as a key approach to SV prevention. In

This article was published Online First October 19, 2017.
Ruschelle M. Leone, Department of Psychology, Georgia State University;

Michelle Haikalis, Department of Psychology, University of Nebraska—Lin-
coln; Dominic J. Parrott, Department of Psychology, Georgia State University;
David DiLillo, Department of Psychology, University of Nebraska—Lincoln.

Ruschelle M. Leone and Michelle Haikalis contributed equally to this
work and share first authorship. Preparation of this article was supported in
part by National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism Grants
F31AA024692 awarded to Michelle Haikalis and F31AA024369 awarded
to Ruschelle M. Leone.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Ruschelle
M. Leone, Department of Psychology, Georgia State University, P.O. Box
5010, Atlanta, GA 30302-5010. E-mail: rleone1@gsu.edu

T
hi

s
do

cu
m

en
t

is
co

py
ri

gh
te

d
by

th
e

A
m

er
ic

an
P

sy
ch

ol
og

ic
al

A
ss

oc
ia

ti
on

or
on

e
of

it
s

al
li

ed
pu

bl
is

he
rs

.
T

hi
s

ar
ti

cl
e

is
in

te
nd

ed
so

le
ly

fo
r

th
e

pe
rs

on
al

us
e

of
th

e
in

di
vi

du
al

us
er

an
d

is
no

t
to

be
di

ss
em

in
at

ed
br

oa
dl

Psychology of Violence © 2017 American Psychological Association
2018, Vol. 8, No. 5,

639

– 647 2152-0828/18/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/vio0000155

639

mailto:rleone1@gsu.edu

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/vio0000155

contrast to traditional prevention approaches that seek to educate
about SV and shift rape-supportive attitudes (Banyard, Plante, &
Moynihan, 2004; DeGue et al., 2014; Söchting, Fairbrother, &
Koch, 2004), these programs focus on activating individuals to
intervene in a range of SV behaviors (Bennett, Banyard, &
Garnhart, 2014). Bystander programs serve two main functions:
(a) to prevent specific instances of SV from occurring by encour-
aging bystanders to engage in intervention when witnessing risky
sexual scenarios and (b) to lead a cultural shift by establishing
healthy social norms and dispelling rape-supportive attitudes that
contribute to SV (Fabiano, Perkins, Berkowitz, Linkenbach, &
Stark, 2003). By targeting individual-, peer-, and community-level
risk factors for SV, bystander programs answer the numerous calls
made for a multilevel, ecological approach to strengthen preven-
tion efforts (Banyard, 2011; DeGue et al., 2014). Evaluations
indicate that bystander training can attenuate attitudinal barriers to
action (e.g., rape-myth acceptance) and increase bystanders’ desire
to intervene in risky sexual situations (e.g., bystander intentions;
for review, see Katz & Moore, 2013). Though reducing rape-
supportive attitudes is desirable, examination of attitudinal out-
comes in isolation stops short of the main outcomes of interest,
namely, fostering bystander intervention behaviors and reducing
the occurrence of SV. A focus on attitudes alone is concerning,
given a recent review of SV training programs that target attitu-
dinal or knowledge outcomes are ineffective in producing behavior
change (DeGue et al., 2014). Moreover, only a few studies have (a)
examined whether bystander training leads to increases in self-
reported prosocial bystander behavior, and (b) demonstrated pos-
itive increases in prosocial bystander behavior following training
(Coker et al., 2015; Moynihan et al., 2015).

In-person training is the most common method of enlisting
bystanders to intervene and is typically conducted through presen-
tations or small group workshops, with audiences most often
consisting of U.S. college students. Online trainings have also been
developed, which ease the burden of dissemination and have the
potential to reach more individuals, more often (Jouriles et al.,
2016; Salazar, Vivolo-Kantor, Hardin, & Berkowitz, 2014).
Though details vary, trainings share many common components,
including SV awareness education, specific techniques to identify
sexual risk markers, education about bystanders’ responsibility
when they witness risk, and discussion about or practice engaging
in strategies to intervene in risky situations (for a review, see
Storer, Casey, & Herrenkohl, 2016). Trainings often include some
consideration of the well-established finding that alcohol is a
contributing factor of SV (Abbey et al., 2002) and focus on
encouraging students to recognize risk when in alcohol-related
contexts. This focus is particularly important, given that perpetra-
tor or victim alcohol intoxication is a factor in over half of sexual
assaults (Abbey, 2002; Testa, 2002) and that bystanders report
perceiving more barriers to intervention when a potential victim is
intoxicated (Pugh, Ningard, Ven, & Butler, 2016).

Though training bystanders to attend to alcohol-related risk is
helpful, programming efforts to date have not adequately ad-
dressed how alcohol use could influence bystanders themselves.
Thus, key questions remain. Are intoxicated individuals less likely
to recognize SV risk, less able to engage in bystander behavior, or
less effective at intervening? Relatedly, what are the mechanisms
by which alcohol might influence bystander witnessing or behav-
ior? Surprisingly, no study has directly examined the effects of

alcohol use on bystander behavior in the moment, and only three
studies have examined general links between bystander alcohol
use and bystander behavior. These latter findings demonstrate that
men who drink more heavily are less willing to intervene in SV
than men who do not drink heavily (Orchowski, Berkowitz, Bog-
gis, & Oesterle, 2016); heavy alcohol use is associated with a
lower likelihood of SV intervention among men but not women
(Fleming & Wiersma-Mosley, 2015), and bystanders fail to inter-
vene in the vast majority of bystander opportunities in bar settings
(Graham et al., 2014). Though these findings suggest possible
associations between alcohol use and bystander behaviors, the
field lacks evidence to inform our understanding of the impact of
acute intoxication on bystander behavior and the putative mecha-
nisms for this effect.

An Integrative Framework for the Proximal Effect of
Alcohol on SV Intervention

The most well-established model of bystander behavior (Ben-
nett et al., 2014; Burn, 2009), the decision-making model, posits
that bystanders must make a series of decisions to intervene: They
must (a) notice the event, (b) identify the situation as intervention
appropriate, (c) take responsibility to intervene, (d) decide how to
help, and (e) take action (Latané & Darley, 1970). Progressing
through these decision-making steps is important for bystanders to
engage in prosocial behavior; however, barriers at each step may
hinder intervention. As the number of perceived barriers increases,
the likelihood that a bystander will engage in SV intervention
decreases (Burn, 2009). Moreover, bystanders’ decision-making
does not necessarily follow a linear path, wherein each step is
subsequently achieved (Banyard, 2011). Depending on the devel-
opment of the witnessed situation, bystanders may take in new
information and regress to the previous steps. Further, although
decision-making is an internal process, bystanders are influenced
by contextual variables and previous experiences with witnessing
and intervening in SV, which impact current behavior (Banyard,
2011). The present article will use the structure of the internal
decision-making process outlined by Latané and Darley (1970),
while considering how context and previous experiences impact
this process at each step. We argue that alcohol intoxication
inhibits bystander behavior because it creates barriers at multiple
steps of the decision-making model. Before reviewing data in
support of this view, it is important first to establish how acute
alcohol intoxication is theorized to influence decision-making and
behavior.

Alcohol Myopia Theory

Alcohol myopia theory (AMT; Steele & Josephs, 1990) is one of
the most well-accepted explanations of the effects of alcohol
intoxication on behavior. AMT purports that the pharmacological
properties of alcohol impair attentional capacity and processes.
Specifically, this alcohol-related impairment has a narrowing ef-
fect on attention, also known as “alcohol myopia,” which restricts
the range of internal and external cues individuals perceive and
process. By impairing attentional capacity, intoxication causes
individuals to allocate or shift their limited attentional focus to the
more salient, immediate, and easier to process cues in the envi-
ronment. As a consequence, the full meaning of less salient cues is

T
hi
s
do
cu
m
en
t
is
co
py
ri
gh
te
d
by
th
e
A
m
er
ic
an
P
sy
ch
ol
og
ic
al
A
ss
oc
ia
ti
on
or
on
e
of
it
s
al
li
ed
pu
bl
is
he
rs
.
T
hi
s
ar
ti
cl
e
is
in
te
nd
ed
so
le
ly
fo
r
th
e
pe
rs
on
al
us
e
of
th
e
in
di
vi
du
al
us
er
an
d
is
no
t
to
be
di
ss
em
in
at
ed
br
oa
dl
y.

640 LEONE, HAIKALIS, PARROTT, AND DILILLO

never fully processed, or possibly even perceived. Importantly, the
content of the cues that are processed is posited to influence
subsequent behavior.

To help illustrate AMT, attention may be thought of as a
spotlight. When individuals are sober, the spotlight is wide and
focuses on both salient and less salient cues. However, when an
individual is intoxicated, the spotlight is narrow and focuses only
on the most immediate and salient cues in the environment, to the
exclusion of less salient cues. For example, in SV situations,
alcohol would inhibit intervention in cases in which myopia nar-
rows attention onto peers who condone forceful sexual behavior
(e.g., salient and immediate cue) rather than onto the sexual
disinterest or discomfort of the female (e.g., less salient and less
immediate cue). In other words, alcohol’s effect on behavior is
mediated by narrowed attentional capacity. Research in support of
the AMT is well documented, most pertinently in risky sexual
behavior and aggression (for a review, see Giancola, Josephs,
Parrott, & Duke, 2010).

Bystander Decision-Making: Alcohol as a Barrier
to Intervention

At each step of the decision-making model, common barriers are
reviewed, followed by a discussion on how alcohol intoxication
may facilitate additional barriers at each step (see Table 1).

Step 1. The first step toward bystander intervention is noticing
an event. Bystanders may fail to notice SV behaviors for several
reasons, such as not looking in the direction of sexual risk behav-
iors or due to self-focus or sensory distractions (Burn, 2009;
Latané & Darley, 1970). Alcohol increases susceptibility to dis-
traction or mind-wandering, lessening one’s ability to attend to
information, particularly when it is not especially salient, and
simultaneously mitigates the ability to notice one’s mind-
wandering (Sayette, Reichle, & Schooler, 2009). In other words,
inebriated individuals are more likely to “zone out,” and not realize
it, as compared with their sober counterparts. This likelihood that

intoxicated bystanders will be distracted from noticing a risky
event is particularly concerning, given that indicators of an un-
wanted sexual advance are often subtle (e.g., averted eye contact,
paralyzed reactions, and polite resistance).

Next, inattentional blindness, a phenomenon in which individ-
uals fail to detect salient unexpected objects in the field of vision
(Mack & Rock, 1998; Simons & Chabris, 1999), helps explain
why some individuals do not notice risk cues for nearby SV. For
example, experimental research that examines this phenomenon
has demonstrated approximately half of participants failed to no-
tice a woman in a gorilla suit walking across a basketball game
they were tasked with monitoring (Simons & Chabris, 1999). SV,
particularly less severe forms, may similarly go unnoticed by
bystanders whose focus is narrowed due to alcohol intoxication.
Recent laboratory-based research suggests alcohol intoxication
increases the likelihood of inattentional blindness due to its myo-
pic effects, which makes it difficult for individuals to allocate their
attention to information outside a directed goal (Clifasefi, Ta-
karangi, & Bergman, 2006). In most drinking environments, these
goals (e.g., focusing on one’s own conversation) may not routinely
encompass risk factors for SV experienced by others. Such find-
ings suggest that alcohol-facilitated inattentional blindness de-
creases the likelihood that intoxicated bystanders notice seemingly
obvious SV behavior.

Step 2. The second step toward intervention is identifying
the situation as intervention appropriate, or high in SV risk
(Burn, 2009). Bystanders can fail to identify a situation as
intervention appropriate due to ambiguity or ignorance. Here, it
is important to recognize that SV exists on a continuum that
ranges from heinous behaviors (e.g., rape) to actions much more
commonly accepted in society (e.g., unwanted sexual com-
ments; Stout & McPhail, 1998), which can escalate into more
severe behaviors. Not surprisingly, bystanders are more likely
to intervene in “dangerous emergencies” because they are less
ambiguous and induce higher levels of arousal than lower level

Table 1
Proximal Effects of Alcohol on Bystander Decision-Making

Step Barrier Influences Effects of acute alcohol intoxication

1. Notice an event Failure to notice Self-focus Increases susceptibility to distractions or mind-wandering
(Sayette et al., 2009)Sensory distractions

Inattentional blindness Exacerbates inattentional blindness (Clifasefi et al., 2006)
2. Interpret as intervention

appropriate
Failure to identify

situation as a risk
Ambiguity
Ignorance

Cue misinterpretation (Abbey et al., 2005; Farris et al.,
2010)

Failure to identify danger cues (Testa, Livingston, &
Collins, 2000)

Delay in identifying inappropriate sexual behavior (Gross
et al., 2001; Marx et al., 1997)

3. Take responsibility Failure to take
responsibility

Diffusion of responsibility
Attributions of victims’

worthiness

Narrow bystanders’ attentional focus toward other
potential intervenors

Narrow bystanders’ attentional focus toward victim’s
“worthiness” and “responsibility”

4. Decide how to help Failure to intervene due to
uncertainty or skills
deficit

Lack of skills Impairs high-order cognitive functioning, including
working memory, problem solving, planning, set
shifting, psychomotor speed, and response inhibition
(Curtin & Fairchild, 2003; Giancola, 2000) needed to
execute skills

5. Choose to act Failure to act due to
audience inhibition

Social norms Narrow bystander’s attention on salient peer norms

641BYSTANDER ALCOHOL INTOXICATION

transgressions (Fischer et al., 2011). Situations with greater
ambiguity impede bystanders’ ability to recognize risk. This is
concerning because bystanders are more likely to witness pre-
assault SV behaviors (e.g., inappropriate sexual conversations),
which are more likely to be viewed as ambiguous and thus less
likely to be identified as intervention appropriate, than they are
to witness ongoing acts of SV (Burn, 2009).

Interpreting complex situational and interpersonal cues is not an
easy task, and alcohol intoxication further compromises this pro-
cess. Indeed, intoxication distorts men’s ability to interpret a
woman’s affective cues by increasing their likelihood of interpret-
ing her behavior as sexually suggestive (Abbey, Zawacki, & Buck,
2005; Farris, Treat, & Viken, 2010). Similarly, intoxicated men,
relative to sober men, take longer to identify a male’s inappropriate
sexual behavior toward a female (Gross, Bennett, Sloan, Marx, &
Juergens, 2001; Marx, Gross, & Juergens, 1997), because its
ambiguity does not attract the drinker’s myopic or narrowed at-
tention. In other words, alcohol can distort or delay bystanders’
understanding of SV risk. Alcohol-induced myopia can also impair
women’s abilities to recognize danger cues that may subsequently
lead to SV (Parks, Levonyan-Radloff, Dearing, Hequembourg, &
Testa, 2016; Testa, Livingston, & Collins, 2000). Though a key
goal of bystander training programs is to increase awareness that
less severe forms of SV can escalate to more severe violence, the
influence of alcohol exacerbates ambiguity in sexual risk situa-
tions, thereby impeding intervention.

Step 3. Assuming that a bystander recognizes risk and sees
the situation as meriting intervention, the third step toward
intervention is taking responsibility to intervene. This step is
often obstructed by diffusion of responsibility, or the belief that
the onus of helping is shared among all bystanders. Extant
literature unequivocally demonstrates that the presence of oth-
ers is a robust situational cue that prevents bystanders from
intervening in nondangerous emergencies (for a review, see
Fischer et al., 2011). Failure to take responsibility is also
affected by beliefs about a victim’s “worthiness” (Burn, 2009).
Some men report that women are responsible for their own
safety, and thus do not feel responsible for intervening in SV
(Koelsch, Brown, & Boisen, 2012). Further, greater victim
blame is often placed on women dressed provocatively (What-
ley, 2005; Workman & Freeburn, 1999) or who have consumed
alcohol (for a review, see Grubb & Turner, 2012).

Intoxication can exacerbate the diffusion of responsibility for
intervening by narrowing bystanders’ attentional focus toward the
presence of others who conceivably could help, thereby thwarting
intervention. Alcohol can also facilitate attention toward perceived
norms regarding sexual behavior (a salient cue), such as the
victim’s “worthiness,” rather than toward risk for SV. For exam-
ple, if a victim is drinking alcohol, intoxicated bystanders are
likely to focus on the victim’s “responsibility” for the situation,
thereby inhibiting intervention behavior. Conversely, if prointer-
vention contextual cues are more salient than others’ mere pres-
ence or negative perceptions of victim’s “worthiness,” alcohol will
facilitate prosocial bystander behaviors via this attentional mech-
anism. For example, if the victim is a friend, the relationship to the
bystander may be more salient than the presence of others. Thus,
alcohol intoxication can conceivably increase the likelihood of
prosocial intervention behavior.

Step 4. The fourth step toward intervention is deciding how to
help, which may be impaired by a bystander’s a skills deficit or
uncertainty about what strategy to use (Burn, 2009). This barrier
has been identified as one of the most prevalent in SV intervention
(Bennett et al., 2014). Although training programs aim to prepare
bystanders to intervene by building behavioral skills (e.g., using
distraction) and increasing confidence necessary to intervene (Pot-
ter, Stapleton, & Moynihan, 2008), alcohol intoxication presum-
ably undermines bystanders’ ability to execute decision-making
skills. It is well established that acute alcohol intoxication impairs
high-order cognitive functioning, including working memory,
problem solving, planning, set shifting, psychomotor speed, and
response inhibition (Curtin & Fairchild, 2003; Giancola, 2000). As
such, intoxicated bystanders who would otherwise have the skills
and confidence to intervene are less able to effectively implement
a plan of action due to cognitive impairments induced by alcohol.
For example, individuals may not be able to implement a complex
plan to help due to impairments in working memory that prevent
them from holding parts of their plan in working memory long
enough to implement them. Moreover, intoxication may make it
difficult for bystanders to shift intervention strategies in response
to changes in or escalation of a perpetrator’s tactics.

Step 5. At the final step, choosing to act, the main factor that
may stymie intervention behavior is audience inhibition, or the fear
of negative evaluation from others (Burn, 2009; Latané & Nida,
1981). This barrier is likely more common among men due to
gender norms that prevent men from intruding in another man’s
“sexual conquest” (Burn, 2009; Carlson, 2008; Fabiano et al.,
2003), or the fear of losing respect from male peers if they
intervene (Carlson, 2008). Further, men exposed to male confed-
erates who promoted misogynistic, relative to ambiguous, peer
norms were significantly less likely to intervene in SV (Leone,
Parrott, & Swartout, 2017). Though the power of peer influence is
often identified as a barrier to intervention, social context can be
harnessed to increase engagement in prosocial behavior. In cases
of interpersonal violence that require multiple interveners, individ-
uals are more likely to engage in prosocial behavior when they first
see others intervene (Christy & Voigt, 1994).

We believe that these social context effects are exacerbated by
the myopic effects of alcohol, which focus a bystander’s attention
onto highly salient norms and the presence of others rather than SV
or its consequences. Although the combined effects of alcohol and
audience inhibition have yet to be studied, research that examines
general aggression indicates intoxicated, compared with sober,
participants administered higher levels of electric shocks to an
ostensible opponent within an experimental task when they were
observed by peer-confederates who applied social pressure (Taylor
& Sears, 1988). In this study, the myopic effects of alcohol likely
facilitated participants’ attention to aggression-promoting peer
norms and, as a result, facilitated aggressive behavior.

Alternatively, in a situation in which peer norms that condemn
SV are most salient, or others engage in helping behavior first, the
narrowed attentional capacity of the inebriate will be focused more
so on those prointervention cues, leaving little working memory
space to focus on less salient, and potentially intervention-
inhibiting, cues. As a result, intoxicated bystanders should be more
likely to intervene than nonintoxicated bystanders in SV situations.
Thus, this barrier may be attenuated by prosocial peers, particu-

642 LEONE, HAIKALIS, PARROTT, AND DILILLO

larly for intoxicated persons who are likely to be myopically
focused on that norm.

Limitations and Recommendations of Current
Research and Programming Efforts

Measurement of Opportunities and Behavior

Although bystander programs are informed by basic research
about helping behavior, little is known about how often bystanders
have an opportunity to intervene. Victims of SV have reported that
someone “saw what happened to (them)” in 18% of sexual assaults
(Hamby, Weber, Grych, & Banyard, 2016). However, this rate is
likely higher after accounting for those who witness preassault
behaviors (Burn, 2009). It is also unknown whether bystanders’
likelihood of witnessing opportunities to intervene in preassault or
assault behaviors is influenced by the presence of alcohol (e.g.,
setting involving drinking and bystander intoxication). Though
much SV occurs in private settings without bystander witnesses,
heavy drinkers may be more likely to witness SV because they are
often present in the public places SV is likely to occur (e.g., bars
and parties; Thompson & Cracco, 2008). Relatedly, bystander
presence, alone, does not equate to bystander opportunity to inter-
vene. For example, some situations involve high risk for potential
backlash effects of bystander behavior (e.g., physical harm to
bystander and “ruining the party”), which would make it difficult
or dangerous for bystanders to intervene when they witness sexual
risk cues. Given that alcohol use is a contributing cause of aggres-
sion (Parrott & Eckhardt, 2017), it is likely that the potential for
backlash effects is greater when bystanders and those with whom
they are intervening are intoxicated.

It is essential that future efforts to examine the effect of alcohol
on bystander behavior move beyond attitudes and intent to exam-
ine bystander behaviors. Further, it is not known whether skills
learned in bystander training programs are effectively imple-
mented by intoxicated bystanders. As such, behavioral outcomes
should be assessed in a way that allows researchers to parse out
training effects among intoxicated versus sober bystanders as well
as within alcohol versus nonalcohol contexts.

Measurement Method

When bystander behaviors are assessed, studies have relied
largely on self-report methods to measure primary outcomes (i.e.,
efforts to intervene). Perhaps this is because no validated measure
of bystander behavior existed until recently (see Banyard, Moyni-
han, Cares, & Warner, 2014). However, responses to these ques-
tions are likely susceptible to overreporting of bystander behaviors
by participants who want to appear to have “done the right thing.”
Biased reporting may be especially common among individuals
who underwent bystander training and therefore know the “right”
answers to bystander questions. Moreover, simply participating in
bystander training can increase individuals’ awareness of the be-
haviors that they already perform, potentially inflating differences
between those who have and have not completed training. Addi-
tionally, because respondents cannot report about opportunities to
intervene that they did not notice, these measures cannot assess the
total number of opportunities an individual has to intervene in SV.
Measures are needed to elucidate whether low rates of bystander

behavior are a result of a lack of opportunity or barriers in
intervention.

Multiple methods should be used to assess the proximal effects
of alcohol on SV intervention to combat the aforementioned lim-
itations of existing research, as well as to examine the full range of
bystander decision-making. There is an urgent need for researchers
to modify self-report measures (Banyard et al., 2014; Burn, 2009)
to examine intoxicated SV intervention. Specifically, new instru-
ments or adaptations of current instruments are needed to capture
the effects of distal and proximal alcohol use on opportunity to
intervene, and effectiveness of those interventions. For example,
intensive longitudinal methods, such as daily diary and ecological
momentary assessment, would be fruitful in identifying how often
intoxicated bystanders notice SV, whether they intervene, and
what barriers may have prevented them from engaging in prosocial
behavior. Daily dairy designs are more appropriate when assessing
behavior (e.g., alcohol use and SV intervention), whereas ecolog-
ical momentary assessment, which aims to minimize recall bias
and maximize ecological validity by repeatedly sampling partici-
pants in real time (Shiffman, Stone, & Hufford, 2009), is advan-
tageous to assess intrapersonal experiences (e.g., mood states).
This approach would be especially useful in examining percep-
tions of in-the-moment barriers to intervention while bystanders
are consuming alcohol.

The limitations of self-report could be addressed via comple-
mentary laboratory-based methods that are less susceptible to
reporting biases and afford experimental control over situational
predictors of SV intervention. Bystander analogue tasks (Leone et
al., 2017; Parrott et al., 2012) and virtual reality paradigms
(Jouriles, Kleinsasser, Rosenfield, & McDonald, 2016) allow re-
searchers to observe and quantify bystander behaviors directly.
Another benefit of these techniques, as well as written vignettes for
assessing bystander behaviors (Davis et al., 2012), is the ability to
manipulate various aspects of a given sexual risk situation (e.g.,
victim characteristics) and to examine the unique and interactive
effects of intoxication and bystander training on observable be-
havior. Because each laboratory paradigm has distinct advantages
and disadvantages, the strongest conclusions will be possible when
lab-based proxies are implemented in conjunction with self-report
measures.

Analytic Approach

Given the low base rates of SV intervention (Hamby et al.,
2016), it is critical that researchers use appropriate analytic tech-
niques to model these data accurately. Experimental and survey-
based research indicate �72–75% of bystanders do not engage in
SV intervention (Leone et al., 2017; Moschella, Bennett, & Ban-
yard, 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. Count-based analytic methods based on the Poisson
family are recommended, in line with recent calls to apply these
methods to SV perpetration data (for a review, see Swartout,
Thompson, Koss, & Su, 2015).

Proposed Research Agenda

Research examining SV intervention has grown considerably in
the past 15 years despite the absence of a theoretical framework for

643BYSTANDER ALCOHOL INTOXICATION

understanding the proximal effects of alcohol on bystander behav-
ior. Our integrative framework directly addresses this need and
provides a blueprint for future research to address the identified
gaps in the extant literature. In the following text, we review the
most critical gaps to consider in this work.

Examine Alcohol as a Barrier to Intervention

Research is needed to elucidate the extent to which intoxicated
bystanders witness behaviors along the SV continuum. Studies should
focus on capturing both the distal effects of heavy drinking patterns
and the proximal effects of acute alcohol use on bystanders’ oppor-
tunity to intervene, identification of SV behavior as high risk, and
prosocial behavior. In this work, it is critical to use methods that can
overcome the limitations of self-report, which include potential inac-
curacy in bystanders’ identification and interpretation of SV.

Research is also needed to understand the social-ecological context
in which the pharmacological effects of alcohol impair bystander
behavior. A variety of factors, including peer groups, cultures and
subcultures, fraternity or athletic team norms, social status, or neigh-
borhoods, may all impact this relation, and these factors need to be
considered to better understand the complexity of bystander decision-
making. For example, research indicates alcohol outlet density is
related to assault rates in unstable, poor, minority, and rural middle-
income areas (Gruenewald, Freisthler, Remer, LaScala, & Treno,
2006). Yet, nothing is known about how alcohol outlet density, or
other social-ecological factors, influence bystander decision-making.
Similarly, environmental factors common in social drinking contexts
(e.g., dark lighting and loud music) may thwart one’s ability to notice
or intervene in SV, and studies are needed to understand how by-
stander intoxication exacerbates these effects.

It is crucial to determine if and how diffusion of responsibility is
exacerbated under alcohol intoxication. A variety of contextual fac-
tors need to be considered when determining how diffusion of re-
sponsibility may come to fruition. For example, bystanders report
more responsibility to help if the victim is a friend, rather than a
stranger (Katz, Pazienza, Olin, & Rich, 2015). Thus, intoxicated
individuals, compared with sober individuals, conceivably focus at-
tention toward their friends in distress, rather than other potential
interveners. Research is also needed to determine if alcohol narrows
intoxicated bystanders’ attention on a victim worthiness, and if this is
influenced by individual-level characteristics (e.g., hostile sexism).

Little is known about the proximal effects of alcohol on the exe-
cution of behavioral skills to prevent SV. It is particularly important
to identify whether some skills (e.g., distraction) are more susceptible
to the impairing effects of alcohol than others (e.g., enlisting a friend’s
help). Methods of intervention that require multiple or complex skills
would be difficult for intoxicated bystanders to implement. Findings
that alcohol is also associated with increased physical aggression
(Giancola et al., 2010) suggest that bystanders who are intoxicated
could become overzealous in their attempts to intervene, potentially
leading to aggressive altercations.

Empirical evidence is needed to identify how audience inhibi-
tion serves as a barrier across various situational contexts. Risky
environments (e.g., fraternity parties) and social networks (e.g.,
athletic teams), which have higher rates of alcohol-related SV
(Foubert, Newberry, & Tatum, 2007), should be examined to
determine how the myopic effects of alcohol focus bystander’s
attention onto salient SV risk cues or peer group norms minimizing

SV risk in these contexts. Relatedly, understanding the interactive
effects of individual- and situational-level factors on intoxicated
bystander’s decision-making is needed.

Work is also needed to identify the specific components of by-
stander training programs that are most responsible for change. Dis-
mantling studies would allow for investigation into the unique effects
of alcohol-specific training related to each step of Latané and Darley’s
(1970) decision-making model (e.g., noticing risk in party settings).
Further, the outcomes measured in training programs’ efficacy studies
should be specific; rather than examining increases in bystander
behavior broadly, it will be important to examine intervention in
drinking settings and while intoxicated to determine if the effects of
training are maintained under these conditions.

It is vital that researchers examine gender differences across the
decision-making model. Research suggests men are more likely to
exhibit helping behaviors than women (Eagly & Steffen, 1986);
however, this work may not apply to SV intervention (Brown,
Banyard, & Moynihan, 2014). Indeed, barriers to intervention and
mechanisms may vary by gender (Brown et al., 2014). For exam-
ple, men report more barriers than women (Burn, 2009) and fewer
bystander behaviors (Banyard & Moynihan, 2011). It is crucial to
identify how barriers and intervention behaviors differ between
men and women, and whether alcohol use explains any differ-
ences. Given these gaps in the literature, it is not surprising that
research on SV intervention among nongender-conforming indi-
viduals is nonexistent and merits investigation.

The intersection of social identities such as race/ethnicity, gen-
der, socioeconomic status, and sexuality (see Cole, 2009, for
review) of the victim, perpetrator, and bystander should be con-
sidered to examine how privilege and oppression impact interven-
tion. For example, students of color could not feel safe intervening
in SV on predominantly White campuses without peer support
(Brown et al., 2014). Alcohol could impact this effect in a variety
of ways depending on the salience of cues in the environment. For
example, alcohol could lead to either mitigated safety concerns and
increased “liquid courage,” or increased anxiety about safety or
peers’ reactions to helping behavior and decreased likelihood of
intervening. The effects of acute alcohol intoxication on anxiety
depend on the temporal relationship between alcohol consumption
and exposure to anxiogenic cues (Sayette, 1993). For example, if
an individual has safety concerns before attending a party and
consuming alcohol, these concerns are likely exacerbated and
inhibit intervention. However, if safety concerns arise following
intoxication, they may be overlooked. Research aimed at increas-
ing SV intervention should investigate if, and under what condi-
tions (e.g., minority status in a situation), alcohol intoxication
leads to increased “liquid courage” or “liquid fear” in the face of
bystander opportunity. Similarly, the combined effects of racism
and sexism may influence attributions of “victim worthiness.”
Given evidence that exposure to alcohol cues primes racial bias
(Stepanova, Bartholow, Saults, & Friedman, 2012), it is possible
that alcohol intoxication and/or contexts inhibit intervention by
eliciting biased attributions of victim worthiness.

SV intervention research has overwhelmingly focused on col-
lege undergraduates (Carlson, 2008) or students in their first se-
mester (Bennett et al., 2014). Thus, research is needed across all
years in college, as well as with high school and young adult
community samples. Indeed, the majority of youth have consumed
alcohol by grade nine and one third of high school students report

644 LEONE, HAIKALIS, PARROTT, AND DILILLO

consuming alcohol in the previous 30 days (Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, 2016), and research indicates comparable
rates of SV (Finkelhor, Shattuck, Turner, & Hamby, 2014).

Can Proximal Alcohol Use Promote Intervention?

Although we argue that alcohol predominately inhibits SV inter-
vention, as noted earlier, AMT makes the counterintuitive prediction
that alcohol can also increase prosocial behavior in situations in which
prointervention cues (e.g., support of peers) are more salient than
barrier-related cues. In this manner, it is possible to harness alcohol’s
myopic effects to promote prosocial bystander behaviors. Thus, in-
terventions aimed at enhancing the salience and immediacy of proin-
tervention cues could prompt intoxicated persons to intervene. Re-
search indicates intoxicated individuals were faster, but not more
likely, to come to the aid of an experimenter who dropped items (van
Bommel, van Prooijen, Elffers, & Van Lange, 2016), likely because
individuals have less attentional capacity to focus on both the benefits
and costs of helping than sober individuals. Research is needed to
determine how alcohol can help attenuate the bystander effect, and
what cues (e.g., consequences of not intervening) are most effective to
increase SV intervention.

Recommendations for Bystander
Training Programming

As reviewed, few findings address the role of alcohol consump-
tion in SV intervention, and thus, our goal is to provide recom-
mendations that should be considered in developing theory-
informed prevention strategies before evidence exists. Until an
evidence base exists, which can support this framework, any
modifications to current efforts should be implemented with cau-
tion and ongoing evaluation.

First, bystander training programs should attend to how alcohol-
intoxication impacts bystanders themselves, rather than just vic-
tims and perpetrators of SV. Specifically, efforts are needed to (a)
reduce heavy drinking, (b) educate bystanders on the potential
impairing effects of alcohol on intervention, and (c) train bystand-
ers how to be effective interveners when drinking. Training pro-
grams should promote awareness of the influence of alcohol and
encourage problem-solving strategies to compensate for potential
alcohol-specific barriers and maximize the likelihood that proxi-
mal alcohol use can actually promote SV intervention.

Reflecting the notion that bystander training should target outer
levels of the social ecology (Banyard, 2011), social marketing
campaigns have also emerged as a means of disseminating the
bystander message more widely (Potter & Stapleton, 2012; Bor-
sky, McDonnell, Turner, & Rimal, 2016). Exposure to these cam-
paigns is associated with more positive attitudes toward bystander
behavior and self-reported increases in SV intervention (Potter &
Stapleton, 2012). These campaigns allow for easy incorporation of
information about alcohol’s potential impact on bystander behav-
ior. For example, a campaign depicting a split-screen sexual risk
scenario with an intoxicated and a sober bystander on each side of
the screen could raise awareness about the potential for alcohol to
inhibit one’s ability to effectively intervene to help a friend.

Next, laws and policies at the community level should be closely
examined and altered to reduce heavy drinking and encourage
bystander behavior. If, in fact, sober individuals encounter fewer

barriers to intervention than intoxicated individuals, evidence-
based efforts to reduce heavy alcohol use—including college bans
or limits on alcohol or restricting alcohol outlet density (for a
review, see Toomey, Lenk, & Wagenaar, 2007)—may in turn
increase SV intervention. Similarly, laws that encourage and pro-
mote SV intervention should be considered, including those that
require witnesses to inform law enforcement of crimes (see Swan,
2015) and those that protect reporters of crimes from punishment
for underage alcohol use.

The next wave of prevention programming should move beyond
college campuses and consider other “hotspots” for SV where
bystanders are often present (e.g., alcohol-serving establishments,
house parties, and military bases). For example, bars and clubs
play an important role in bystander decision-making by creating a
safe environment for patrons to engage in intervention behavior.
Environmental antecedents of SV such as misogynistic music or
sexual décor (Graham, 2009) may set SV norms that become
salient among intoxicated patrons and thwart intervention. Amend-
ing such contextual cues will help to transform local SV norms
and, if replaced with prosocial or feminist messages, will help to
ultimately promote SV intervention. Moreover, because bars and
parties are not the only places SV is likely to be witnessed,
interventions could also target peer groups that are a greater risk
for witnessing SV (e.g., fraternities, student-athletes, and attendees
at music festivals). These groups could be targeted in various
ways, including through social media via targeted messages that
aim to change norms and behaviors. Ultimately, addressing the
role of alcohol use on SV intervention at multiple levels of the
social ecology will have the greatest likelihood of increasing
bystander behavior and helping to reduce rates of SV.

References

Abbey, A. (2002). Alcohol-related sexual assault: A common problem
among college students. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 14, 118 –128.
http://dx.doi.org/10.15288/jsas.2002.s14.118

Abbey, A., Zawacki, T., & Buck, P. O. (2005). The effects of past sexual
assault perpetration and alcohol consumption on men’s reactions to
women’s mixed signals. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 24,
129 –155. http://dx.doi.org/10.1521/jscp.24.2.129.62273

Abbey, A., Zawacki, T., Buck, P. O., Testa, M., Parks, K., Norris, J., . . .
Martell, J. (2002). How does alcohol contribute to sexual assault?
Explanations from laboratory and survey data. Alcoholism: Clinical and
Experimental Research, 26, 575–581. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-
0277.2002.tb02576.x

Banyard, V. L. (2011). Who will help prevent sexual violence: Creating an
ecological model of bystander intervention. Psychology of Violence, 1,
216 –229. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0023739

Banyard, V. L., & Moynihan, M. M. (2011). Variation in bystander
behavior related to sexual and intimate partner violence prevention:
Correlates in a sample of college students. Psychology of Violence, 1,
287–301. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0023544

Banyard, V. L., Moynihan, M. M., Cares, A. C., & Warner, R. (2014). How
do we know if it works? Measuring outcomes in bystander-focused
abuse prevention on campuses. Psychology of Violence, 4, 101–115.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0033470

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. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1002/jcop.10078

Bennett, S., Banyard, V. L., & Garnhart, L. (2014). To act or not to act, that
is the question? Barriers and facilitators of bystander intervention. Jour-

645BYSTANDER ALCOHOL INTOXICATION

http://dx.doi.org/10.15288/jsas.2002.s14.118

http://dx.doi.org/10.1521/jscp.24.2.129.62273

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-0277.2002.tb02576.x

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0023739

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0023544

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0033470

http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jcop.10078

nal of Interpersonal Violence, 29, 476 – 496. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
0886260513505210

Borsky, A. E., McDonnell, K., Turner, M. M., & Rimal, R. (2016). Raising
a red flag on dating violence: Evaluation of a low-resource, college-
based bystander behavior intervention program. Journal of Interper-
sonal Violence. Advance online publication. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
0886260516635322

Brown, A. L., Banyard, V. L., & Moynihan, M. M. (2014). College
students as helpful bystanders against SV: Gender, race, and year in
college moderate the impact of perceived peer norms. Psychology of
Women Quarterly, 38, 350 –362. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0361684314
526855

Burn, S. M. (2009). A situational model of sexual assault prevention
through bystander intervention. Sex Roles, 60, 779 –792. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1007/s11199-008-9581-5

Carlson, M. (2008). I’d rather go along and be considered a man: Mascu-
linity and bystander intervention. The Journal of Men’s Studies, 16,
3–17. http://dx.doi.org/10.3149/jms.1601.3

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2016). Youth risk behavior
surveillance—United States, 2015. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/
healthyyouth/data/yrbs/pdf/2015/ss6506_updated

Christy, C. A., & Voigt, H. (1994). Bystander responses to public episodes
of child abuse. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24, 824 – 847.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1994.tb00614.x

Clifasefi, S. L., Takarangi, M. K., & Bergman, J. S. (2006). Blind drunk:
The effects of alcohol on inattentional blindness. Applied Cognitive
Psychology, 20, 697–704. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acp.1222

Coker, A. L., Fisher, B. S., Bush, H. M., Swan, S. C., Williams, C. M.,
Clear, E. R., & DeGue, S. (2015). Evaluation of the Green Dot bystander
intervention to reduce interpersonal violence among college students
across three campuses. Violence Against Women, 21, 1507–1527. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1177/1077801214545284

Cole, E. R. (2009). Intersectionality and research in psychology. American
Psychologist, 64, 170 –180. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0014564

Curtin, J. J., & Fairchild, B. A. (2003). Alcohol and cognitive control:
Implications for regulation of behavior during response conflict. Journal
of Abnormal Psychology, 112, 424 – 436. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
0021-843X.112.3.424

Davis, K. C., Schraufnagel, T. J., Jacques-Tiura, A. J., Norris, J., George,
W. H., & Kiekel, P. A. (2012). Childhood sexual abuse and acute alcohol
effects on men’s sexual aggression intentions. Psychology of Violence, 2,
179 –193. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0027185

DeGue, S., Valle, L. A., Holt, M. K., Massetti, G. M., Matjasko, J. L., &
Tharp, A. T. (2014). A systematic review of primary prevention strate-
gies for sexual violence perpetration. Aggression and Violent Behavior,
19, 346 –362. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2014.05.004

Eagly, A. H., & Steffen, V. J. (1986). Gender and aggressive behavior: A
meta-analytic review of the social psychological literature. Psychologi-
cal Bulletin, 100, 309 –330. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.100.3
.309

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, 105–112. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0744848030
9595732

Farris, C., Treat, T. A., & Viken, R. J. (2010). Alcohol alters men’s
perceptual and decisional processing of women’s sexual interest. Jour-
nal of Abnormal Psychology, 119, 427– 432. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
a0019343

Finkelhor, D., Shattuck, A., Turner, H. A., & Hamby, S. L. (2014). The
lifetime prevalence of child sexual abuse and sexual assault assessed in
late adolescence. Journal of Adolescent Health, 55, 329 –333. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2013.12.026

Fischer, P., Krueger, J. I., Greitemeyer, T., Vogrincic, C., Kastenmüller,
A., Frey, D., . . . Kainbacher, M. (2011). The bystander-effect: A
meta-analytic review on bystander intervention in dangerous and non-
dangerous emergencies. Psychological Bulletin, 137, 517–537. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1037/a0023304

Fleming, W. M., & Wiersma-Mosley, J. D. (2015). The role of alcohol
consumption patterns and pro-social bystander interventions in contexts
of gender violence. Violence Against Women, 21, 1259 –1283. https://
doi.org/10.1177/1077801215592721

Foubert, J. D., Newberry, J. T., & Tatum, J. (2007). Behavior differences
seven months later: Effects of a rape prevention program. NASPA
Journal, 44, 728 –749.

Giancola, P. R. (2000). Executive functioning: A conceptual framework for
alcohol-related aggression. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharma-
cology, 8, 576 –597. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1064-1297.8.4.576

Giancola, P. R., Josephs, R. A., Parrott, D. J., & Duke, A. A. (2010).
Alcohol myopia revisited: Clarifying aggression and other acts of dis-
inhibition through a distorted lens. Perspectives on Psychological Sci-
ence, 5, 265–278. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1745691610369467

Graham, K. (2009). They fight because we let them! Applying a situational
crime prevention model to barroom violence. Drug and Alcohol Review,
28, 103–109. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-3362.2008.00038.x

Graham, K., Bernards, S., Wayne Osgood, D., Abbey, A., Parks, M.,
Flynn, A., . . . Wells, S. (2014). “Blurred lines?” Sexual aggression and
barroom culture. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 38,
1416 –1424. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/acer.12356

Gross, A. M., Bennett, T., Sloan, L., Marx, B. P., & Juergens, J. (2001).
The impact of alcohol and alcohol expectancies on male perception of
female sexual arousal in a date rape analog. Experimental and Clinical
Psychopharmacology, 9, 380 –388. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1064-1297
.9.4.380

Grubb, A., & Turner, E. (2012). Attribution of blame in rape cases: A
review of the impact of rape myth acceptance, gender role conformity
and substance use on victim blaming. Aggression and Violent Behavior,
17, 443– 452. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2012.06.002

Gruenewald, P. J., Freisthler, B., Remer, L., Lascala, E. A., & Treno, A.
(2006). Ecological models of alcohol outlets and violent assaults: Crime
potentials and geospatial analysis. Addiction, 101, 666 – 677. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2006.01405.x

Hamby, S., Weber, M. C., Grych, J., & Banyard, V. (2016). What differ-
ence do bystanders make? The association of bystander involvement
with victim outcomes in a community sample. Psychology of Violence,
6, 91–102. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0039073

Jouriles, E. N., Kleinsasser, A., Rosenfield, D., & McDonald, R. (2016).
Measuring bystander behavior to prevent SV: Moving beyond self-
reports. Psychology of Violence, 6, 73– 81. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
a0038230

Jouriles, E. N., McDonald, R., Rosenfield, D., Levy, N., Sargent, K.,
Caiozzo, C., & Grych, J. H. (2016). TakeCARE, a video bystander
program to help prevent sexual violence on college campuses: Results of
two randomized, controlled trials. Psychology of Violence, 6, 410 – 420.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/vio0000016

Katz, J., & Moore, J. (2013). Bystander education training for campus
sexual assault prevention: An initial meta-analysis. Violence and Vic-
tims, 28, 1054 –1067. http://dx.doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.VV-D-12-
00113

Katz, J., Pazienza, R., Olin, R., & Rich, H. (2015). That’s what friends are
for bystander responses to friends or strangers at risk for party rape
victimization. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 30, 2775–2792. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1177/0886260514554290

Koelsch, L. E., Brown, A. L., & Boisen, L. (2012). Bystander perceptions:
Implications for university sexual assault prevention programs. Violence
and Victims, 27, 563–579. http://dx.doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.27.4
.563

646 LEONE, HAIKALIS, PARROTT, AND DILILLO

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0886260513505210

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0886260516635322

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0361684314526855

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11199-008-9581-5

http://dx.doi.org/10.3149/jms.1601.3

https://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/data/yrbs/pdf/2015/ss6506_updated

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1994.tb00614.x

http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acp.1222

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1077801214545284

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0014564

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.112.3.424

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0027185

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2014.05.004

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.100.3.309

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07448480309595732

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0019343

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2013.12.026

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0023304

https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801215592721

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1064-1297.8.4.576

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1745691610369467

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-3362.2008.00038.x

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/acer.12356

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1064-1297.9.4.380

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2012.06.002

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2006.01405.x

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0039073

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0038230

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/vio0000016

http://dx.doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.VV-D-12-00113

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0886260514554290

http://dx.doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.27.4.563

Latané, B., & Darley, J. M. (1970). The unresponsive bystander: Why
doesn’t he help? New York, NY: Meredith Corporation.

Latané, B., & Nida, S. (1981). Ten years of research on group size and
helping. Psychological Bulletin, 89, 308 –324. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
0033-2909.89.2.308

Leone, R. M., Parrott, D. J., & Swartout, K. M. (2017). When is it “manly”
to intervene? Examining the effects of misogynistic peers on bystander
behavior for sexual aggression. Psychology of Violence, 7, 286 –295.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/vio0000055

Mack, A., & Rock, I. (1998). Inattentional blindness. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.

Marx, B. P., Gross, A. M., & Juergens, J. (1997). The effects of alcohol
consumption and expectancies in an experimental date rape analogue.
Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 19, 281–302.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02229022

Moschella, E. A., Bennett, S., & Banyard, V. L. (2016). Beyond the
situational model bystander action consequences to intervening in situ-
ations involving SV. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. Advance online
publication. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0886260516635319

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 1 year
later? Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 30, 110 –132. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1177/0886260514532719

Orchowski, L. M., Berkowitz, A., Boggis, J., & Oesterle, D. (2016).
Bystander intervention among college men: The role of alcohol and
correlates of sexual aggression. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 31,
2824 –2846. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0886260515581904

Parks, K. A., Levonyan-Radloff, K., Dearing, R. L., Hequembourg, A., &
Testa, M. (2016). Development and validation of a video measure for
assessing women’s risk perception for alcohol-related sexual assault.
Psychology of Violence, 6, 573–585. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0039846

Parrott, D. J., & Eckhardt, C. I. (2017). Effects of alcohol on human
aggression. Current Opinion in Psychology. Advance online publication.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.03.023

Parrott, D. J., Tharp, A. T., Swartout, K. M., Miller, C. A., Hall, G. C., &
George, W. H. (2012). Validity for an integrated laboratory analogue of
sexual aggression and bystander intervention. Aggressive Behavior, 38,
309 –321. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ab.21429

Potter, S. J., & Stapleton, J. G. (2012). Translating sexual assault preven-
tion from a college campus to a United States military installation:
Piloting the know-your-power bystander social marketing campaign.
Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27, 1593–1621. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1177/0886260511425795

Potter, S. J. S., Stapleton, J. G., & Moynihan, M. M. (2008). Designing,
implementing, and evaluating a media campaign illustrating the by-
stander role. Journal of Prevention and Intervention in the Community,
36, 39 –55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10852350802022308

Pugh, B., Ningard, H., Ven, T. V., & Butler, L. (2016). Victim ambiguity:
Bystander intervention and sexual assault in the college drinking scene.
Deviant Behavior, 37, 401– 418. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01639625
.2015.1026777

Salazar, L. F., Vivolo-Kantor, A., Hardin, J., & Berkowitz, A. (2014). A
web-based sexual violence bystander intervention for male college stu-
dents: Randomized controlled trial. Journal of Medical Internet Re-
search, 16, e203. http://dx.doi.org/10.2196/jmir.3426

Sayette, M. A. (1993). Heart rate as an index of stress response in alcohol
administration research: A critical review. Alcoholism: Clinical and
Experimental Research, 17, 802– 809. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-
0277.1993.tb00845.x

Sayette, M. A., Reichle, E. D., & Schooler, J. W. (2009). Lost in the sauce:
The effects of alcohol on mind wandering. Psychological Science, 20,
747–752. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02351.x

Shiffman, S., Stone, A. A., & Hufford, M. R. (2009). Ecological momen-
tary assessment. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 4, 1–32.

Simons, D. J., & Chabris, C. F. (1999). Gorillas in our midst: Sustained
inattentional blindness for dynamic events. Perception, 28, 1059 –1074.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1068/p281059

Söchting, I., Fairbrother, N., & Koch, W. J. (2004). Sexual assault of
women: Prevention efforts and risk factors. Violence Against Women,
10, 73–93. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1077801203255680

Steele, C. M., & Josephs, R. A. (1990). Alcohol myopia. Its prized and
dangerous effects. American Psychologist, 45, 921–933. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1037/0003-066X.45.8.921

Stepanova, E. V., Bartholow, B. D., Saults, J. S., & Friedman, R. S. (2012).
Alcohol-related cues promote automatic racial bias. Journal of Experi-
mental Social Psychology, 48, 905–911. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp
.2012.02.006

Storer, H. L., Casey, E., & Herrenkohl, T. (2016). Efficacy of bystander
programs to prevent dating abuse among youth and young adults: A
review of the literature. Trauma, Violence and Abuse, 17, 256 –269.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1524838015584361

Stout, K. D., & McPhail, B. (1998). Confronting sexism and violence
against women: A challenge for social work. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice Hall.

Swan, S. L. (2015). Bystander interventions. Wisconsin Law Review, 2015,
975–1047. Retrieved from http://wisconsinlawreview.org/wp-content/
uploads/2015/12/1-Swan-Final

Swartout, K. M., Thompson, M. P., Koss, M. P., & Su, N. (2015). What is
the best way to analyze less frequent forms of violence? The case of
sexual aggression. Psychology of Violence, 5, 305–313. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1037/a0038316

Taylor, S. P., & Sears, J. D. (1988). The effects of alcohol and persuasive
social pressure on human physical aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 14,
237–243. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/1098-2337(1988)14:4�237::AID-
AB2480140402�3.0.CO;2-G

Testa, M. (2002). The impact of men’s alcohol consumption on perpetra-
tion of sexual aggression. Clinical Psychology Review, 22, 1239 –1263.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0272-7358(02)00204-0

Testa, M., Livingston, J. A., & Collins, R. L. (2000). The role of women’s
alcohol consumption in evaluation of vulnerability to sexual aggression.
Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 8, 185–191. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1037/1064-1297.8.2.185

Thompson, E. H., & Cracco, E. J. (2008). Sexual aggression in bars: What
college men can normalize. The Journal of Men’s Studies, 16, 82–96.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3149/jms.1601.82

Toomey, T. L., Lenk, K. M., & Wagenaar, A. C. (2007). Environmental
policies to reduce college drinking: An update of research findings.
Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 68, 208 –219. http://dx.doi
.org/10.15288/jsad.2007.68.208

van Bommel, M., van Prooijen, J. W., Elffers, H., & Van Lange, P. A.
(2016). Booze, bars, and bystander behavior: People who consumed
alcohol help faster in the presence of others. Frontiers in Psychology, 7,
128. http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00128

Whatley, M. A. (2005). The effect of participant sex, victim dress, and
traditional attitudes on causal judgments for marital rape and victims.
Journal of Family Violence, 20, 191–200. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
s10896-005-3655-8

Workman, J. E., & Freeburn, E. W. (1999). An examination of date rape,
victim dress, and perceiver variables within the context of attribution
theory. Sex Roles, 41, 261–278. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:10188
58313267

Received February 6, 2017
Revision received July 6, 2017

Accepted August 9, 2017 �

647BYSTANDER ALCOHOL INTOXICATION

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.89.2.308

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/vio0000055

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02229022

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0886260516635319

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0886260514532719

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0886260515581904

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0039846

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.03.023

http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ab.21429

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0886260511425795

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10852350802022308

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2015.1026777

http://dx.doi.org/10.2196/jmir.3426

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-0277.1993.tb00845.x

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02351.x

http://dx.doi.org/10.1068/p281059

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1077801203255680

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.45.8.921

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2012.02.006

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1524838015584361

http://wisconsinlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/1-Swan-Final

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0038316

http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/1098-2337%281988%2914:4%3C237::AID-AB2480140402%3E3.0.CO;2-G

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0272-7358%2802%2900204-0

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1064-1297.8.2.185

http://dx.doi.org/10.3149/jms.1601.82

http://dx.doi.org/10.15288/jsad.2007.68.208

http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00128

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10896-005-3655-8

http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1018858313267

Bystander Intervention to Prevent Sexual Violence: The Overlooked Role of Bystander Alcohol Into …

Review of Bystander Training Programming
An Integrative Framework for the Proximal Effect of Alcohol on SV Intervention
Alcohol Myopia Theory
Bystander Decision-Making: Alcohol as a Barrier to Intervention
Step 1
Step 2
Step 3
Step 4
Step 5

Limitations and Recommendations of Current Research and Programming Efforts
Measurement of Opportunities and Behavior
Measurement Method
Analytic Approach
Proposed Research Agenda
Examine Alcohol as a Barrier to Intervention
Can Proximal Alcohol Use Promote Intervention?
Recommendations for Bystander Training Programming
References

Review Manuscrip

Who, When, How, and Why Bystanders
Intervene in Physical and Psychological
Teen Dating Violenc

Katrina J. Debnam
1

and Victoria Mauer
2

Abstract
Teen dating violence victimization is associated with a host of adverse mental and physical health problems. A number of
bystander-focused interventions have been developed to mitigate the occurrence of abuse but with varying effectiveness. There
remains a need to understand more about bystander behaviors used by adolescents to ensure that existing intervention com-
ponents match with bystanders’ attitudes and behaviors about intervening. The current study is a scoping review of existing
literature on adolescents’ use of bystander behaviors to determine who, when, how, and why adolescents intervene. Seventee

articles met inclusion criteria, the majority of which used qualitative or observational survey designs. Adolescents who either feel
a sense of responsibility and confidence to intervene or are directly involved with or know the individuals involved in the dating
violence are more likely to intervene. Adolescents intervene when they are able to define an act as dating violence and tend to
intervene when the victim is female and when they have a supportive relationship with at least one teacher in their school. The
various ways how bystander intervention is engaged in ranges from verbally or physically confronting the abuser, distracting the
abuser, seeking support from an adult, to passively accepting the abuse. Reasons why adolescents intervene include believing the
abuse is wrong and that intervening will diffuse the situation and help the victim. A number of barriers to bystander intervention
emerged from analysis including individual attitudes and school climate factors. Implications for strengthening bystander inter-
vention programs are discussed

Keywords
dating violence, adolescents, relationship abuse, bystanders

In recent years, researchers and service providers have increas-

ingly focused on how to increase bystander intervention in teen

dating violence (TDV). A number of bystander-focused inter-

ventions have been developed to mitigate the occurrence of

abuse and assault but with varying effectiveness (Storer, Casey,

& Herenkohl, 2016). There remains a need to understand more

about actual adolescent bystander behaviors in order to ensure

that interventions are targeting the correct persons and direct-

ing intervention components in a manner that matches with

attitudes and behaviors about intervening. The current study

examines existing literature on bystander behaviors to uncover

who, when, how, and why adolescent bystanders intervene in

dating violence.

TDV

TDV or teen dating violence is defined as the physical, sexual,

or psychological/emotional violence within a romantic or dat-

ing relationship, including stalking. Physical TDV is defined as

the intentional or purposeful pushing, hitting, shoving, or kick-

ing by a dating partner. Data from the national Youth Risk

Behavior Survey reveal that 9.6% of high schools students who

dated or went out with someone during the 12 months before

the survey (11.7% of female students and 7.2% of male stu-
dents) report being physically hurt on purpose by that person

(Kann, 2016). Sexual violence has similar national prevalence

rates. 10.6% of students (15.6% of female students and 5.4% of
male students) had been forced to do sexual things (i.e., kissed,

touched, or physically forced to have sexual intercourse) they

did not want to do by someone they were dating or going out

with one or more times (Kann, 2016). Emotional abuse is char-

acterized as threatening a partner or harming his or her self-

worth. This type of abuse can come in the form of name calling,

making a partner feel guilty, purposeful embarrassment, or

controlling behaviors such as keeping him or her away from

friends and family. Although national prevalence of

1
School of Nursing, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA

2 Department of Psychology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA

Corresponding Author:

Katrina J. Debnam, School of Nursing, University of Virginia, P. O. Box 800782,

Charlottesville, VA 22908, USA.

Email: kjd2m@virginia.edu

TRAUMA, VIOLENCE, & ABUSE
2021, Vol. 22(1) 54-67
ª The Author(s) 2019
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1524838018806505
journals.sagepub.com/home/tva

mailto:kjd2m@virginia.edu

https://sagepub.com/journals-permissions

https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838018806505

http://journals.sagepub.com/home/tva

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1177%2F1524838018806505&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2019-01-22

psychological or emotional abuse are not currently collected,

studies estimate that emotional TDV prevalence ranges from

24% (Haynie et al., 2013) to 96% (Jouriles, Garrido, Rosen-
field, & McDonald, 2009).

TDV victimization has been shown to be associated with a

host of adverse mental and physical health problems including

depression, substance use, suicidal ideation, risky sexual beha-

vior, and drug use (Exner-Cortens, Eckenrode, & Rothman,

2013; Nahapetyan, Orpinas, Song, & Holland, 2014; Parker,

Debnam, Pas, & Bradshaw, 2016; Shorey et al., 2015). These

risky behaviors are not limited to adolescence; 5 years after

experiencing TDV, young adults reported increased heavy epi-

sodic drinking, depressive symptomatology, antisocial beha-

viors, suicidal ideation, smoking, marijuana use, and adult

intimate partner victimization (Exner-Cortens et al., 2013).

Moreover, a recent report commissioned by the Centers for

Disease Control found that approximately 7% of adult women
and 4% of adult men who ever experienced rape, physical
violence, or stalking by an intimate partner first experienced

some form of partner violence by a partner before 18 years of

age (Black et al., 2011).

Help-Seeking Behaviors

Given the potential and long-lasting effects of TDV, seeking

assistance from others has many benefits to victims (Carlson,

McNutt, Choi, & Rose, 2002; Goodman, Dutton, Vankos, &

Weinfurt, 2005; Waldrop & Resick, 2004). Help seeking can

provide emotional support in the form of concern and encour-

agement to leave the relationship (Carson et al., 2002; Weisz &

Black, 2009). Information or advice from others can assist in

problem-solving, conflict negotiation, and additional knowl-

edge about healthy relationships (Weisz & Black, 2009).

Finally, help seeking can result in additional resources, protec-

tion from the abuser, and potentially reduce the severity or

frequency of the abuse (Weisz & Black, 2009).

However, the majority of adolescents experiencing dating

violence do not seek help (Ashley & Foshee, 2005). Victims

are often afraid the severity or frequency of abuse will be

increased by their abusers, as a result of speaking out (Martin,

Houston, Mmari, & Decker, 2012). Of those victims of TDV

who do seek help, the majority seek informal or nonprofes-

sional help, such as family or friends (Ahrens & Campbell,

2000; Ashley & Foshee, 2005; Banyard, Moynihan, Walsh,

Cohn, & Ward, 2010; Martin et al., 2012). Ashley and Foshee

(2005) reported that after experiencing dating violence, only

40% of adolescent victims sought help: 89% from a friend,
40% from a sibling or extended family, and 13–30% from a
parent. Black and Weisz (2003) found that, within a sample of

African American middle schoolers, more than 50% of youth
reported that they would be willing to seek help from their

parents, grandparents, and other adults in issues related to vio-

lence in their dating relationships.

Research also suggests that educating peer groups on how to

respond to friends asking for help when experiencing TDV

could be helpful (Ashley & Foshee, 2005). Indeed, Banyard,

Moynihan, Walsh, Cohn, and Ward (2010) found that friends of

sexual violence survivors felt they were able to be a good

source of help and support for the friend. Furthermore, a recent

study (Van Camp, Hébert, Guidi, Lavoie, & Blais, 2014) also

found that many adolescents feel confident in their ability to

deal with dating violence, reporting greater self-efficacy in

helping someone else. Yet there remains little research regard-

ing the role of friends and the disclosure process in physical and

psychological TDV.

Bystander Theoretical Underpinnings

Latané and Darley’s (1969) situational model of bystander

behavior (SMBB) is typically used to understand bystander

behaviors as related to adult intimate partner violence. The

SMBB posits that the decision to intervene in an emergency

is based on sequential choices by the individual (Hoefnagels &

Zwikker, 2001): (1) notice that something is happening, (2

)

interpret the event as an emergency, (3) decide that it is his

or her personal responsibility to intervene, (4) decide how he or

she wants to intervene, and (5) implement the planned inter-

vention. This decision process may be especially relevant to

understanding adolescent bystander behaviors. Key aspects of

adolescents’ psychosocial development at this developmental

stage include increasing autonomy and peer affiliation. The

SMBB is consistent with adolescents desire to make indepen-

dent choices and consider peer affiliation when deciding how

they want to intervene. Indeed, Nickerson, Aloe, Livingston,

and Feeley (2014), in a study of U.S. youth, found each deci-

sion point in the SMBB significantly predicted willingness to

intervene in the context of bullying and sexual harassment.

Recently, Casey, Lindhorst, and Storer (2017) proposed a new

theoretical model that seeks to further elucidate adolescent use

of bystander behaviors as related to TDV and bullying. This

model incorporates the theory of planned behavior (TPB;

Ajzen, 1991) with the SMBB to explain the broad range of

adolescent attitudes and beliefs (i.e., cognitive factors) that

may play a role in this decision process. While research sug-

gests that SMBB is helpful for understanding the decision-

making process, TPB could help differentiate interveners from

noninterveners. The TPB, a social cognitive theory, posits that

adolescents’ behaviors can be predicted by their intention to

perform the behavior. However, adolescents’ intentions are

influenced by their attitude toward the specific behavior, social

norms regarding what important referrents (i.e., peers, family)

would want them to do, and perceived behavioral control or

self-efficacy to intervene. For example, adolescents, with their

increasing levels of peer affiliation, may be more likely to be

influenced by the perceived social norms regarding violence

among their peers. If adolescents perceive that their peers

would look positively upon intervening in a violence situation,

they may be more likely to make that decision. Casey, Lind-

horst, et al. (2017) found that adolescents’ qualitative descrip-

tion of their bystander decision-making process supports the

integration of SMBB and TPB to form a “situational-cognitive

model of bystander behavior.” While quantitative tests are

Debnam and Mauer 55

needed to further validate this emerging model, it is clear that

adolescent bystander behavior is complex and more research is

needed to advance intervention programming.

Bystander Interventions for Preventing TDV

Bystander-based prevention programs have been introduced as

an innovative strategy to prevent partner violence. These pro-

grams generally focus on arming adolescents or young adults

with the necessary skills and self-efficacy to safely intervene

when they witness dating violence and sexual violence. The

programs do not assume that the bystanders know or are famil-

iar with the abuser or victim but are built on the assumption that

“when community members ignore or fail to respond to beha-

viors across this spectrum, they tacitly reinforce the behavior”

(Storer, Casey, & Herrenkohl, 2016, p. 257). The goals of these

programs are to increase the likelihood that specific instances

of violence or abuse are disrupted and to foster a peer and

community environment that discourages aggressive or violent

behavior. This is particularly relevant to adolescents as there is

evidence that approximately half of all dating violence happens

in the presence of others (Molidor & Tolman, 1998). In fact,

existing bystander-focused programs, such as Bringing in the

Bystander, Coaching Boys Into Men and Green Dot, have

shown that changing social norms can result in a reduction in

sexual assault (Banyard, Moynihan, & Plante, 2007; Coker

et al., 2015, 2016; Miller et al., 2013).

However, research also suggests that bystander decisions to

intervene are contextual, contingent on individual characteris-

tics and form of violence (Weitzman, Cowan, & Walsh, 2017).

For example, Weitzman, Cowan, and Walsh (2017) found that,

within an adult sample, bystanders were more likely to inter-

vene in partner violence when compared to sexual assault. This

study also found that the method of intervention bystanders

chose was different for sexual assault and partner violence

(Weitzman et al., 2017). Furthermore, a study among college

students showed that men had the highest probability of

directly intervening in sexual assault, whereas women had the

highest probability of indirectly intervening in partner violence

(Palmer, Nicksa, & McMahon, 2018). Results also showed that

students who knew neither the victim nor the perpetrator

tended to choose to delegate the intervention to someone else

(Palmer et al., 2018). While emerging research suggests that

bystander intervention is an effective strategy for preventing

interpersonal violence (Banyard, Plante, & Moynihan, 2004;

Coker et al., 2017; Palm Reed, Hines, Armstrong, & Cameron,

2015), more research is needed to evaluate the contextual fac-

tors (i.e., individual characteristics, form of violence, and type

of intervention method) influencing the use of this strategy for

adolescents (Casey & Ohler, 2012; Storer et al., 2016; Taylor,

Stein, Mumford, & Woods, 2013).

Overview of Current Study

The number of bystander-based programs has grown substan-

tially in the last decade, with a recent systematic review

documenting 15 programs since 2007 (Storer et al., 2016).

However, it is important to note only 2 of those 15 programs

have been tested with an adolescent population. Storer and

colleagues’ review showed that bystander programs show

promise in increasing bystanders’ willingness to positively

intervene in situations that could become violent, but note that

results are mixed and there are limitations in our understanding

actual bystander behaviors. In addition, the bystander studies

evaluated in the review focused almost exclusively on sexual

violence (i.e., 12 of 15 studies). Comparatively, little is known

regarding the use of bystander interventions and bystander

behavior specifically related to physical or psychological dat-

ing violence. Therefore, the current review focused on unco-

vering empirical research exploring adolescent bystander

behaviors in response to physical and psychological dating

violence. The following question guided this review of litera-

ture: Who, when, how, and why do adolescent bystanders inter-

vene in physical and psychological teen dating violence?

Method

This scoping review was conducted in three stages: (a) devel-

opment of criteria for inclusion and literature search, (b) extrac-

tion and coding of study characteristics and findings, and (c)

data analysis and aggregation of findings.

Inclusion Criteria and Literature Search

To be included in the review articles needed to describe bystan-

der behaviors of TDV, specifically related to physical and psy-

chological (emotional) abuse. Empirical studies were selected

for inclusion in the review if they fulfilled the following cri-

teria: (a) published in English, (b) included in a peer-reviewed

journal, and (c) included outcome data on adolescent bystander

behavior related to TDV. Articles were excluded if they only

included data related to persons college-aged or older (18 and

above) or only examined sexual violence, sexual assault, and/or

rape without mention of physical and/or emotional/psycholo-

gical dating violence. Studies that examined physical and/or

emotional/psychological dating violence along with forms of

sexual violence were retained in

the review.

The authors worked with a professional research librarian to

create a list of search teams for the search. The search was

conducted in the following databases: PsycINFO, PubMed,

SocIndex (with Full text), and ERIC (ProQuest). The search

terms as they were searched were (“bystander behavior” OR

“bystander behavior” OR bystander) AND (“physical abuse”

OR “dating violence” OR “sexual violence” OR “psychological

abuse” OR “emotional abuse” OR “psychological aggression”

OR “physical aggression” OR “physical violence” OR

“psychological violence” OR “adolescent relationship abuse”)

AND (adolescent OR adolescence OR teenager OR teen). There

was no limit on the date of publication and the search was

conducted on July 1, 2017. See Figure 1 for a depiction of the

steps included in the scoping review. A total of 17 articles met

the selection criteria and are included in this review.

56 TRAUMA, VIOLENCE, & ABUSE 22(1)

Data Extraction and Analysis

As the focus of this review was to better understand the beha-

viors of adolescent bystanders as related to physical and psy-

chological TDV, data analysis and extraction concentrated on

these data in the articles. Specifically, the second author

extracted data from the articles on who intervenes, when do

they intervene or decide to intervene, how do the bystanders

intervene (i.e., what does the intervention behavior look like),

and why bystanders do or do not intervene. In addition, data

regarding the study design, participants, and measures used

was extracted to better understand the range of included

studies. Table 1 includes a summary of the data extracted for

the review.

Results

A total of 17 articles are included in this review (see Table 1).

The majority of the articles (n ¼ 10) were descriptive and
collected qualitative data (n ¼ 8) to explore dating violence.
Other study designs included were randomized control trials

(n ¼ 4) and quasi-experimental design (n ¼ 3). Of the articles
that contained postintervention data (n ¼ 6), three examined
the Coaching Boys Into Men (CBIM) intervention or an adapta-

tion of CBIM. The majority of the studies included in the review

were at least partially obtained from school-based samples (n ¼
15). Participants surveyed were all middle or high school aged,

with the oldest age reported being 19 years old.

Who Intervenes

In examining results from the included empirical articles, we

gathered information on who engages in bystander interven-

tion. In general, adolescents who directly know the individuals

involved in the dating violence are most likely to intervene

(Casey, Lindhorst, & Storer, 2017). In particular, those youth

who are friends with the involved individuals, especially the

victim, are more likely to intervene (Edwards, Rodenhizer-

Stämpfli, & Eckstein, 2015).

A number of attitudes and beliefs were associated with

engaging in bystander intervention strategies. These include

feeling a moral sense of responsibility to intervene (Casey,

Lindhorst, et al., 2017), having a sense of self-efficacy and

confidence around their ability to effectively intervene (Casey,

Lindhorst, et al., 2017; Herbert et al., 2014; Jouriles, Rosen-

field, Yule, Sargent, & McDonald, 2016), believing that inter-

vening would help make the situation better and help the abuser

reflect on their actions (Casey, Lindhorst, et al., 2017), and

believing intervening would foster self-respect (Casey, Lind-

horst, et al., 2017). Conversely, Hébert, Van Camp, Lavoie,

Blais, and Guerrier (2014) showed that adolescents experien-

cing sexual abuse and dating violence in the past 12 months

reported lower self-efficacy to help others when witnessing

dating violence. Finally, feeling that situations of dating vio-

lence are not their business or that they should not be the ones

to intervene makes adolescents less inclined to utilize bystander

intervention (Casey, Lindhorst, et al., 2017).

Sc
re
en

n
g

In
cl
ud

ed
El
ig
i

b
ili

Id
en

�fi
ca
�o

Records iden�fied through
database searching

(n = 620)

Records screened for
exclusion criteria

(n = 556)

Full-text ar�cles assessed
for eligibility

(n = 76)

Studies included in
systema�c review

(n = 17)

480 ar�cles were excluded a�er a review of ar�cle
abstracts determined they met exclusion criteria

Full-text ar�cles were reviewed. 56 were excluded.
• 4 Systema�c Reviews
• 1 Descrip�ve Study
• 51 did not assess adolescent roman�c

rela�onships or adolescents’ bystander behaviors

63 duplicates were removed

Figure 1. Flow chart of studies selected for scoping review adolescent bystander behaviors.

Debnam and Mauer 57

T
a
b

le
1
.

S
tu

d
ie

s
E
x
p
lo

ri
n
g

d
o
le

sc
e
n
t

B
ys

ta
n

e
r

B
e
h
av

io
rs

in
A

d
o
le
sc
e
n
t

R
e
la

o
n

ip
A

b
u
se

R
e
fe

n
ce

s
S
tu

d
y

D
e
si

gn
D

at
a

C
o
lle

ct
io

n
T

im
e
p
o
in

t
N

am
e

o
f

In
te

rv
e
n
ti
o
n

S
am

p
le

S
am
p
le

S
iz

e
an

P
ar

ti
ci

p
an

t
G

e
n
d
e
r

T
D

V
F

o
rm

s
M

e
as

u
re

s
W

h
o

In
te

rv
e
n

e
s

H
o
w

D
o

T
h

e
y

In
te

rv
e
n
e
?

W
h
e
n

D
o
T
h
e
y
In
te
rv
e
n
e
?

W
h
y

D
o
T
h
e
y
In
te
rv
e
n
e
?

B
ar

ri
e
rs

to
B
ys

ta
n
d
e
r

In
te
rv
e
n
ti
o
n

B
ak

e
r

an
d

C
ar

re
n
o

0
1
6
)

D
e
sc

ri
p

ti
ve

(

u
al

it
at

iv
e

)

N
A

C
o
m

m
u
n
it
y

N
¼

3
9
;

4
6
%

e
m

al
e

E
V

F
o
cu

s
gr

u
p

p
ro

to
co

l
(F

G
P
)

e
ga

ti
ve

X
X

B
ak
e
r

0
1
7
)

D
e
sc

ri
p
ti
ve

(q
u
al

it
at

iv
e
)

N
A
N
A
C
o
m
m
u
n
it
y
N
¼
3
9
;
4
6
%

fe
m

al
e
E
V

P
V

F
G

P
X

N
e
ga

ti
ve

d
ir

e
ct

X
X

C
as

e
y,

L
in

d
h
o
rs

,
an

S
to

re
r

(2
0
1
7
)

D
e
sc
ri
p
ti
ve
(q
u
al
it
at
iv
e
)
N
A
N
A

S
ch

o
o
l,

co
m

m
u
n
it
y
an
d

o
n
lin

e
–

b
as

e
d

N
¼

1
3

;

6
5
%

fe
m
al
e
E
V

,
P
V

,
S
V

F
G
P
X

D
ir

e
ct

,
in

d
ir
e
ct
X
X
X
C
as
e
y,
S
to

e
r,

&
H

e
rr

e
n
k
o
h
l,

(2
0
1
7
)
D
e
sc
ri
p
ti
ve
(q
u
al
it
at
iv
e
)
N
A
N
A
S
ch
o
o
l,
co
m
m
u
n
it
y
an
d
o
n
lin
e
–
b
as
e
d
N
¼

1
1
3
;

6
5
%
fe
m
al
e
E
V
,
P
V
,
S
V
F
G

P
D

ir
e
ct

,
n
e
ga

ti
ve
,
in
d
ir
e
ct

,
d
is

tr
ac

t
X
X

E
d
w

ar
d
s,

R
o
d
e
n
h
iz

e
r-

S
tä

m
p
fl
i,

an
d

E
ck

st
e
in

(2
0
1
5
)

D
e
sc
ri
p
ti
ve

u
an

ti
ta

ti
ve
an
d
q
u
al
it
at
iv
e
)
N
A
N
A
S
ch

o
o
l-
b
as

e
d
N
¼

2
1
8
;

4
4
%

fe
m
al
e
P
V
,
S
V
F
G

P
;
M

o
d
if
ie

d
B
ys

ta
n
d
e
r
B
e
h
av

io
r

S
ca

le
(M

B
S

;

B
an

ya
rd

,
2
0
0
8
);

Y
R

B
S

(C
D

C
,
2
0
1
3
);

A
cc

e
p
ta

n
ce

o
f
D

t
in

g
A

b
u
se
S
ca

le
(F

o
sh

e
e

&
L
an

gw
ic

k
,
2
0
1
0
);

Il
lin

o
is

R
ap

e
M

yt
h

A
cc
e
p
ta
n
ce
S
ca
le
(M

cM
ah

o
n

&
F
ar

m
e
r,

2
0
1
1
)

X
D

ir
e
ct
,
n
e
ga
ti
ve
,
in
d
ir
e
ct
,
d
is
tr
ac
t
X
X
X

F
ry

e
t

al
.

0
1
4
)

D
e
sc
ri
p
ti
ve
(

q
u
an

ti
ta
ti
ve

)
N

A
N

A
S
ch

o
o
l-
b
as
e
d
N
¼

1
,3

1
1
;

5
6
%

fe
m
al
e
E
V
,
P
V
,
S
V

In
ve

st
ig

at
o
r

D
e
ve

lo
p
e
d

M
e
as

u
re

s
(I

D
M

)
X

D
ir
e
ct
,
in
d
ir
e
ct

H
é
b
e
rt

,
V

an
C

p
,

L
av

o
ie

,
B
la

is
,

an
d

G
u
e
rr

ie
r

(

2
0
1
4
)

D
e
sc
ri
p
ti
ve

(q
u
an

ti
ta
ti
ve
)
N
A
N
A
S
ch
o
o
l-
b
as
e
d
N
¼

6
,5

4
0
;

5
8
%

fe
m
al
e
E
V
,
P
V
,
S
V

S
e
lf
-e

ff
ic

ac
y

to
D

e
al

w
it
h

V
io

e
n
ce

S
ca

le
(S

E
D

V
;

C
am

e
ro

n
e
t

al
.,

2
0
0
7
)

Jo
u
ri

le
s,

R
o
se

n
fi
e
ld

,
Y

u
le

S
ar

ge
n
t,

an
d

M
cD

o
n
al

d
(2

0
1
6
)

Q
u
as

i-
e
x
p
e
ri

m
e
n

l
(q

u
an
ti
ta
ti
ve
)
N
A
N
A
S
ch
o
o
l-
b
as
e
d
N
¼

8
0
;

5
3
%

fe
m
al
e
E
V
,
P
V
,
S
V

ID
M

;
R

e
sp

o
n
si

b
ili

ty
fo

r
in

te
rv

e
n
in

g
sc

al
e

(B
u
rn

2
0
0
9
);

M
B
B
S
;

D
e
ci

si
o
n
al

b
al

an
ce

sc
al

e
/P

e
rc

e
iv

e
d

b
e
n
e
fi
ts

fo
r

in
te

rv
e
n
in

g
(B

an
ya

rd
e
t

al
.,

2
0
0
4
)

K
e
rv

in
an

d
O

b
in

n
a

(2
0
1
0
)

Q
u
as

E
x
p
e
ri

m
e
n
ta

l
(q
u
al
it
at
iv
e
an
d
q
u
an
ti
ta
ti
ve
)

P
o
st

in
te
rv
e
n
ti
o
n

Y
o
u

A
d
vi

so
ry

C
o
m

m
it
te

e
S
ch
o
o
l-
b
as
e
d
N
¼

4
8
*

E
V
,
P
V
,
S
V
ID
M
D
ir
e
ct
X

(c
o
n
ti
n
u
ed

)

T
a
b
le
1
.

(c
o
n
ti
n
u
e
d
)

R
e
fe

re
n
ce

s
S
tu
d
y
D
e
si
gn
D
at
a
C
o
lle
ct
io
n
T
im
e
p
o
in
t
N
am
e
o
f
In
te
rv
e
n
ti
o
n
S
am
p
le
S
am
p
le
S
iz
e
an
d
P
ar
ti
ci
p
an
t
G
e
n
d
e
r
T
D
V

F
o
rm

s
M
e
as
u
re
s
W
h
o
In
te
rv
e
n
e
s
H
o
w
D
o
T
h
e
y
In
te
rv
e
n
e
?
W
h
e
n
D
o
T
h
e
y
In
te
rv
e
n
e
?
W
h
y
D
o
T
h
e
y
In
te
rv
e
n
e
?
B
ar
ri
e
rs
to
B
ys
ta
n
d
e
r
In
te
rv
e
n
ti
o
n

M
cC

au
le

y
e
t

al
.

(2
0
1
3
)

D
e
sc
ri
p
ti
ve
(q
u
an
ti
ta
ti
ve

)
P
re

in
te
rv
e
n
ti
o
n

C
o
ac

h
in

g
b
o
ys

n
to

m
e
n
S
ch
o
o
l-
b
as
e
d
N
¼

1
,6

9
9

(

m
al

e
s

o
n
ly

)
E
V
,
P
V
,
S
V
ID
M

;
C

o
n
fl
ic

t
T

ac
ti
cs

S
ca

le
–
M

o
d
if
ie

d
(C

T
S
–

M
;
S
tr

au
s,

H
am

b
y,

B
o
n
e
y-

M
cC

o
y,

&
S
u
ga

m
an

,
1
9
9
6
;

G
e
n
d
e
r-

E
q
u
it
ab

le
N

o
rm

s
S
ca

le
-M

o
d
if
ie

d
(G

E
N

;
P
u
le

rw
it
z

&
B
ar

k
e
r,

2
0
0
8
)

D
ir
e
ct
,
in
d
ir
e
ct
X

M
ill

e
r
e
t
al
.
(2
0
1
4
)
E
x
p
e
ri
m
e
n
ta
l
(q
u
an
ti
ta
ti
ve

)
P
o
st

in
te
rv
e
n
ti
o
n
P
ar

iv
ar

ta
n

(a
d
ap

ta
ti
o
n

o
f
co

ac
h
in

g
b
o
ys

In
to

m
e
n
)

S
ch
o
o
l-
b
as
e
d
N
¼

3
0
9

(m
al
e
s
o
n
ly
)
E
V
,
P
V
,
S
V
ID
M
X
M
ill
e
r
e
t
al
.
(2
0
1
3
)
E
x
p
e
ri
m
e
n
ta
l
(q
u
an
ti
ta
ti
ve
)
P
o
st
in
te

rv
e
n
ti
o
n
,

1
-y

e
ar

fo
llo

w
–

u
p
C
o
ac
h
in
g
b
o
ys
in
to
m
e
n
S
ch
o
o
l-
b
as
e
d
N
¼

1
,5

1
3
(m
al
e
s
o
n
ly
)
E
V
,
P
V
,
S
V
ID
M

;
re

co
gn

it
io

n
o
f

ab
u
si

b
e
h
av

io
r

(R
A

B
;

R
o
th

m
an

,
D

e
ck

e
r,

&
S
ilv

e
rm

an
,
2
0
0
6
);

G
E
N

;
C

T
S
-M

X
X
M
ill
e
r
e
t
al
.

(2
0
1
2
)

E
x
p
e
ri
m
e
n
ta
l
(q
u
an
ti
ta
ti
ve
)
P
o
st
in
te
rv
e
n
ti
o
n
C
o
ac
h
in
g
b
o
ys
in
to
m
e
n
S
ch
o
o
l-
b
as
e
d
N
¼

2
,
0
0
6

(m
al
e
s
o
n
ly
)
E
V
,
P
V
,
S
V
ID
M
;
R

A
B
;
G

E
N
;
C
T
S
-M
X
D
ir
e
ct
,
in
d
ir
e
ct

P
lo

u
rd

e
e
t

al
.

(2
0
1
6
)

Q
u
as

i-
E
x
p
e
ri

m
e
n
ta
l
(q
u
al
it
at
iv
e
an
d
q
u
an
ti
ta
ti
ve
)
P
o
st
in
te
rv
e
n
ti
o
n
Y
o
u

th
e

m
an

(Y
T

M
)

S
ch
o
o
l-
b
as
e
d
N
¼

1
,2

6
9
;

4
9
%

fe
m
al
e
E
V
,
P
V
,
S
V
ID
M

,
F
G

P
D
ir
e
ct
,
in
d
ir
e
ct
S
ar
ge
n
t,
Jo
u
ri
le
s,
R
o
se
n
fi
e
ld
,
an

d
M

cD
o
n
al

d
(2
0
1
7
)
E
x
p
e
ri
m
e
n
ta
l
(q
u
an
ti
ta
ti
ve
)
P
o
st
in
te
rv
e
n
ti
o
n

T
ak

e
C

A
R

E
S
ch

o
o
l-
b
as
e
d
N
¼
1
,2

9
5
;

5
3
%
fe
m
al
e
E
V
,
P
V
,
S
V

F
ri

e
n
d
s

P
ro

te
ct

in
g
F
ri
e
n
d
s
B
ys
ta
n
d
e
r
B
e
h
av
io
r
S
ca

le
(B

an
ya

rd
,

M
o
yn

ih
an

,
C

ar
e
s,

&
W

ar
n
e
r,

2
0
1
4
)
X
X
S
to

re
r,

C
as
e
y,
an
d

H
e
rr

e
n
k
o
h
l

(2
0
1
7
)
D
e
sc
ri
p
ti
ve
(q
u
al
it
at
iv
e
)
N
A
N
A
S
ch
o
o
l,
co
m
m
u
n
it
y
an
d

O
n
lin

e
–
b
as
e
d
N
¼
1
1
3
;
6
5
%
fe
m
al
e
E
V
,
P
V
F
G
P
X
X
X

V
an

C
am
p
,
H
é
b
e
rt

,
G

u
id

i,
L
av

o
ie
,
an

d
B
la

is
(2

0
1
4
)
D
e
sc
ri
p
ti
ve
(q
u
an
ti
ta
ti
ve
)
N
A
N
A
S
ch
o
o
l-
b
as
e
d
N
¼

2
5
9
,

5
9
.5

%
fe

m
al
e
E
V
,
P
V
,
S
V

S
E
D

V
;
C

o
n
fl
ic
t
in

A
d
o
le

sc
e
n
t

D
at

in
g
R
e
la

ti
o
n
sh

ip
s

In
ve
n
to

ry
–

S
h
o
rt

F
o
rm

,
M

o
d
if
ie

d
(W

e
k
e
rl

e
e
t
al
.,
2
0
0
9
);

S
e
x
u
al

E
x
p
e
ri
e
n
ce

s
S
u
rv

e
y

(K
o
ss

&
O

ro
s,

1
9
8
2
)

X
D
ir
e
ct
X

N
o
te

.
N

A
¼

n
o
t

ap
p
lic

ab
le

;
E
V
¼

e
m

o
ti
o
n
al

vi
o
le

n
ce

,
P
V
¼

p
h
ys

ic
al

vi
o
le
n
ce

,
S
V
¼

se
x
u
al

vi
o
le
n
ce

;
“X

”
in

d
ic

at
e
s

th
at

th
is

st
u
d
y

p
ro

vi
d
e
d

d
at

a
re

ga
rd

in
g
th
is

as
p
e
ct

o
f
b
ys

ta
n
d
e
r
b
e
h
av
io
rs

.
*

st
u
d
y

is
m

is
si

n
g

b
re

ak
d
o
w

n
o
f
fe
m
al
e
an
d
m
al

e
p
ar

ti
ci
p
an

ts
.

Some studies found differences in bystander intervention

based on youth demographic characteristics. Three studies

showed that female youth are more likely to intervene and more

optimistic about their intervention abilities (Edwards et al.,

2015; Fry et al., 2014; Hébert, Van Camp, Lavoie, Blais, &

Guerrier 2014; Van Camp et al., 2014). Moreover, Fry and

colleagues (2013) and Sargent and colleagues (2017) found

that Hispanic adolescents were more likely to use bystander

intervention than non-Hispanic adolescents. They also found

that adolescents born in the United States were more likely to

talk to their friends about dating violence and give their friends

advice related to dating violence than foreign-born adolescents

(Fry et al., 2014).

Studies found that participation in bystander training pro-

gramming impacted engagement in bystander behaviors. For

instance, students exposed to the TakeCARE bystander pro-

gram reported engagement in more “helpful” bystander beha-

viors at a 3-month follow-up (Sargent, Jouriles, Rosenfield, &

McDonald, 2017). While athletes participating in Coaching

Boys Into Men (CBIM) intervention reported initial increases

in bystander intervention (Jaime et al., 2015; Miller et al., 2012,

2013), the 12-month follow-up study of CBIM found that the

effects of the intervention on athletes’ utilization of and will-

ingness to use bystander behavior were no longer significant

(Miller et al., 2013). In addition,“Parivartan” an adaptation of

CBIM for adolescent male athletes in India found that athletes

who participated in the program reported significantly fewer

“negative” bystander behaviors (e.g., laughing at or going

along with peers’ abusive behaviors) at the 12-month follow-

up (Miller et al., 2014). However, this study did not find sig-

nificant differences between intervention and nonintervention

athletes in terms of positive bystander behaviors or abuse per-

petration (Miller et al., 2014).

When Do Adolescents Intervene

Our examination of results from the included empirical articles

also included an exploration of time and spaces in which ado-

lescents utilize or feel comfortable engaging in bystander inter-

vention. The studies revealed that adolescents’ ability to

determine whether an act constitutes abuse impacts when they

intervene. Casey, Lindhorst, et al. (2017) found that adoles-

cents use a number of factors to determine whether an act

constitutes abuse, including the victim’s reaction to the beha-

vior. Two studies showed that adolescents are more likely to

intervene when the victim of the abuse is female and in situa-

tions of physical abuse, especially if it causes injury or signif-

icant distress to the victim (Casey, Lindhorst, et al., 2017;

Edwards, Haynes, & Rodenhizer-Stämpfli, 2016). Another

study found that adolescents are more likely to intervene in

situations that do not include the presence of a perpetrator

(Sargent et al., 2017). Adolescents are also more likely to inter-

vene when they observe controlling behaviors in their peers’

romantic relationships (Edwards et al., 2015). For example, if

they overhear a friend insulting their partner, or saying things

like, “she deserved to be raped” (Edwards et al., 2015, p.223).

Yet Sargent and colleagues (2017) found that adolescents most

often intervene after situations of abuse have occurred, as

opposed to interrupting abuse that is occurring in the moment

or before it occurs.

A few studies discussed contextual issues that facilitate

when adolescents’ intervene. For instance, Edwards, Rodenhi-

zer-Stämpfli, and Eckstein (2015) found that adolescents are

less likely to intervene when they observe abusive behaviors

over social media as opposed to observing abuse in person.

Additionally, Storer, Casey, and Herrenkohl (2017) showed

that adolescents who report having social support in school

(i.e., at least one supportive relationship with a teacher in

school) were more likely to intervene.

How Do Adolescents Intervene/What Does It Look Like

We also examined the articles, for examples, of how adoles-

cents engage in bystander intervention. From this analysis, we

found five trends in the description of bystander behavior used

by adolescents: (1) direct verbal confrontation, (2) direct phys-

ical confrontation, (3) distraction, (4) indirect intervention, and

(5) passive or active acceptance.

Direct verbal confrontation was discussed in 11 of the

reviewed studies. Direct verbal confrontation describes beha-

viors in which adolescents directly address the abuse with the

perpetrator and/or victim using a verbal response. It can look

like adolescents verbally interrupting the abuse as it is occur-

ring and saying things such as “Stop” or “Knock it off” (Casey,

Lindhorst, et al., 2017; Casey, Storer, & Herrenkohl, 2017;

Edwards et al., 2015) or correcting problematic language and

reacting negatively to sexist jokes (Jaime et al., 2015; Kervin &

Obinna, 2010). Direct verbal confrontation also includes ado-

lescents having conversations with a member of the couple,

especially the victim (Edwards et al., 2015; Fry et al., 2014;

Miller et al., 2012). In such conversations, adolescents

described providing emotional support (Baker, 2017; Casey,

Storer, et al., 2017; Plourde et al., 2016) and advice to the

victim (Baker, 2017; Casey, Storer, et al., 2017; Fry et al.,

2014; Plourde et al., 2016; Van Camp et al., 2014). Advice

included such things as encouraging the victim to disclose the

abuse to a trusted adult (Fry et al., 2014; Van Camp et al., 2014)

or hotline (Fry et al., 2014) and encouraging the victim to leave

their abusive partner (Casey, Storer, et al., 2017; Fry et al.,

2014; Plourde et al., 2016). In two of the reviewed studies,

adolescents also discussed having conversations with the per-

petrator (Casey, Storer, et al., 2017; Fry et al., 2014). In the

Casey, Storer, and Herrenkohl study (2017), adolescents dis-

cussed having a private conversation with the perpetrator to

express disapproval for the abusive behavior and attempt to

educate the abuser.

Direct physical confrontation was discussed in three of the

reviewed studies (Casey, Storer, et al., 2017; Edwards et al.,

2015; Weisz & Black, 2009). We use the description of phys-

ical confrontation to describe the physical nature of adolescent

bystanders, most often male adolescents’, attempts to interrupt

abuse, which is distinct from verbal confrontation. Such

60 TRAUMA, VIOLENCE, & ABUSE 22(1)

physical confrontations include stepping in between the couple

(Casey, Storer, et al., 2017), using physical aggression

(Edwards et al., 2015), and fighting the perpetrator (Casey,

Storer, et al., 2017; Weisz & Black, 2009).

Distraction, as an intervening method, was also often phys-

ical in nature but describes adolescents’ attempts to interrupt

the behavior and have parties focus on something else. Distrac-

tion was discussed by three of the reviewed articles (Casey,

Lindhorst, et al., 2017; Casey, Storer, et al., 2017; Edwards

et al., 2015). Distraction included efforts to interrupt abusive

behavior as it occurred by creating a distraction, ignoring the

perpetrator, and removing the victim from the moment (Casey,

Lindhorst, et al., 2017; Casey, Storer, et al., 2017). More spe-

cifically, in one study, male adolescents described their efforts

to use distraction by asking the victim to dance or starting a

conversation with the victim (

Edwards et al., 2015).

Indirect methods of intervention, which were discussed in

six of the reviewed articles, included adolescents’ attempts to

enlist support for addressing the abuse. All of the articles that

discussed indirect methods described ways adolescents enlisted

the support of an adult (i.e., parents, school staff; Casey, Lind-

horst, et al., 2017; Casey, Storer, et al., 2017; Edwards et al.,

2015; Fry et al., 2014; Miller et al., 2013; Plourde et al., 2016).

Indirect methods also included accompanying a friend to speak

with an adult or get support services (Casey, Storer, et al., 2017;

Fry et al., 2014) and calling a support or crisis hotline (Fry

et al., 2014; Plourde et al., 2016).

Finally, passive or active acceptance of the abuse describes

bystander behaviors that do not seek to support the victim or stop

the abuse. The nature of these actions has the potential to com-

municate acceptance of the abusive behavior. Passive or active

acceptance of the abuse was discussed in two of the reviewed

articles. Casey, Storer, et al. (2017) found that these include not

doing anything when observing abuse, withdrawing from the

victim, and attempting to diagnose the victim in order to figure

out what would make them accepting of such abusive treatment.

Furthermore, Edwards and colleagues (2015) found that adoles-

cents sometimes ignore the abuse as a way to avoid “drama.”

Why Do Adolescents Intervene

Few studies provided reasons why adolescents do or do not

intervene in dating violence (Baker & Carreno, 2016; Casey,

Lindhorst, et al., 2017; Casey, Storer, et al., 2017; Edwards

et al., 2015). Casey, Lindhorst, et al. (2017) found that adoles-

cents intervene because they see the abuse as serious. In this

study (Casey, Lindhorst, et al., 2017), the seriousness of the

abuse was determined by adolescents’ examination of the vic-

tim’s distress, whether or not the abuse is part of a repeated

pattern (i.e., more likely to intervene), and whether it is mutual

(i.e., less likely to intervene). Consistent with a sense of per-

sonal responsibility described in “who” intervenes, interven-

tion occurs because adolescents feel that relationship abuse is

wrong and should be stopped. Simply stated; adolescents must

believe that intervening is the right thing to do (Casey, Lind-

horst, et al., 2017). Furthermore, there is a need to believe that

intervening as a bystander can help diffuse the situation and

will help improve things for the victim. In contrast, some ado-

lescents may decide to intervene for negative reasons. Two

studies showed that some adolescents may intervene because

they desire to fuel the “drama” within the relationship, which

often occurs through social media (Baker & Carreno, 2016;

Edwards et al., 2015).

Barriers to Bystander Intervention

In reviewing the studies included in this review, a number of

barriers that inhibit adolescents’ use of bystander intervention

emerged. First, as adolescents become more uncertain about

whether a couple’s acts constitute abuse they are less able to

determine how to safely intervene (Casey, Lindhorst, et al.,

2017). Three studies described attitudes that impede interven-

ing including: (1) sensing that intervention would somehow

make the situation more risky for the victim, (2) feeling inter-

vening would risk their own physical safety, (3) believing inter-

vention will not permanently make a difference, and (4)

considering abuse to be a private matter and that if they inter-

vene they will be considered intrusive (Casey, Lindhorst, et al.,

2017; Edwards et al., 2015; Storer, Casey, & Herrenkohl,

2017). Adolescents who are of a lower social status (e.g.,

younger, less popular) than the abuser or abused often feel that

intervention will not be successful (Casey, Lindhorst, et al.,

2017) and fear social repercussions for their actions (Edwards

et al., 2015). Moreover, adolescents are less likely to intervene

in situations more likely to be characterized as harassment

(e.g., sexist jokes, catcalls; Edwards et al., 2015).

Just as factors in schools can facilitate adolescents’ use of

bystander intervention, school climate factors can also inhibit

intervention. Such factors include (1) feeling teachers and

administrators are more equipped to intervene, and (2) perceiv-

ing that schools do not take adolescent dating abuse seriously

and lack awareness of the issue (Storer et al., 2017). Addition-

ally, school cultures that reinforce “slut-shaming” and other

sexist attitudes can diminish the likelihood that students will

intervene (Storer et al., 2017). Finally, students are often hesi-

tant to report abuse to teachers and other school officials for a

number of reasons including (1) concerns that they will be

considered a “snitch,” (2) lack of comfort discussing sensitive

topics with teachers they are not close to, and (3) perceptions

that teachers are not concerned about dating and sexual aggres-

sion among students (Edwards et al., 2015).

Discussion

To date, little research has explored how adolescents intervene

in situations of physical and psychological dating violence.

This scoping review sought to describe who, when, how, and

why adolescents intervene in the context of TDV. The review

provides evidence that adolescents can and do use bystander

behaviors when faced with situations of TDV. This review also

shows that contextual factors influence whether or not adoles-

cents feel capable of using such behaviors, and researchers

Debnam and Mauer 61

have described a number of barriers that prevent adolescents

from feeling they can effectively intervene.

Adolescents intervene when it is a close friend who is

involved in the violent relationship and when they feel confi-

dent about their ability to contribute to a positive outcome both

for the victim and for themselves. This finding is consistent

with social cognitive model of adolescent bystander behavior

in that adolescents’ self-efficacy or confidence to intervene

plays a role in their decision-making process. Results suggest

more research is needed to identify how often and what factors

might positively impact adolescents’ confidence in intervening

with peers who they do not share a close relationship with. It is

clear that an adolescent’s sense of the utility of bystander inter-

vention when observing dating violence must override any

sense that the violence is none of their business (Casey, Lind-

horst, et al., 2017). Some sexual assault prevention program-

ming has been successful at encouraging bystander

intervention through social norm campaigns (Gidycz, Orch-

owski, & Berkowitz, 2011).

In line with the SMBB which suggests that defining the

situation as an emergency is important to the decision-

making process, the current study found that adolescents

must be able to define an act as abusive if they are to

actually intervene. Adolescents define acts as abusive by

observing such factors as the gender of the victim and the

types of abusive behaviors. In fact, adolescents’ uncertainty

about whether acts can be considered abusive impacts their

likelihood of intervening (Casey, Lindhorst, et al., 2017).

Continuing to educate adolescents about the different forms

of dating violence and how they may manifest themselves in

their friends’ relationships may increase their likelihood of

intervening. It is important to provide modern examples of

dating violence that speak to the real lives of adolescents to

translate the definitions of abuse (Sears, Byers, Whelan, &

Saint-Pierre, 2006).

This review explored how bystander intervention is car-

ried out when adolescents observe physical and psychologi-

cal dating violence. Direct verbal confrontation was most

often used to intervene. While adolescents utilize such con-

frontation in a number of ways, more research is need to

determine whether it is the most effective intervention strat-

egy for physical and psychological TDV. Some studies

found that when adolescents confronted their friends in abu-

sive relationships, telling them they should break up with

their abusive partner because they deserved to be treated

better, their friends pulled away from the friendship (Baker,

2017). It is possible that there is a strategically effective

manner in which adolescents can utilize verbal confronta-

tion; however, adolescents may need additional training and

support for how to engage in these conversations with their

friends (Kim, Weinstein, & Selman, 2017). Furthermore,

adolescents’ ability to discern the proper time to utilize such

interventions is potentially limited. Encouraging friends to

leave an abusive relationship may be best completed using

specific motivational language over the course of several

conversations (Cunningham et al., 2013). TDV prevention

programming should seek to provide adolescents with the

skills necessary to effectively and sensitively respond to

observed abuse.

The reviewed articles discussed a number of barriers to

adolescent bystander intervention. A number of these barriers

described the ways school culture and climate can be a major

barrier to disclosures about abuse. This review highlights the

important role teachers, school support staff, and school admin-

istrators can play in creating and fostering school climates that

deem TDV a serious matter that is not tolerated and that stu-

dents are expected to aid in the prevention of such abuse. This

finding further lends credibility to the social cognitive model of

adolescent bystander behavior which theorizes that social

norms about intervening could be vital to increasing positive

bystander behaviors. Such school and social climates would

also encourage adolescent disclosure of abuse by fostering pos-

itive connections between students and teachers and adminis-

trators. Indeed, Storer et al. (2017) found that adolescents were

more willing to intervene in dating violence when they per-

ceived the school personnel had expertise to respond effec-

tively, the school environment was intolerant of abuse, and

when students had trusted the relationships with teachers.

Existing school-based interventions will be more effective if

they are able to cultivate a whole school response to abuse and

violence (Storer et al., 2017; Taylor et al., 2013). For example,

efforts to strengthen student connectedness to the school, staff,

and other students may increase their likelihood of reporting

dating abuse (Debnam, Johnson, & Bradshaw, 2014).

Consistent with the recent review of bystander intervention

programs (Storer et al., 2016) and the social cognitive model of

adolescent bystander behavior, study findings show there is a

need for bystander-based interventions to consider the context

in which adolescents operate in. Engaging in bystander beha-

viors is contingent on a myriad of situational and cognitive

factors, which then may be affected by the social norms of that

environment. For example, even if adolescents endorse a sense

of personal responsibility to intervene in witnessed dating vio-

lence, they still may be less likely to engage in an indirect

intervention if they don’t perceive support from trusted adults

in their community. Thus, attention to setting-level policies and

norms is important component of bystander programming.

In addition, the current study extends the review of bystan-

der programs by considering specific traits of bystanders.

Examining these traits across studies, in aggregate, makes it

easier to see the gaps in our current knowledge and contributes

to our understanding of the necessary components of bystander

interventions. Specifically, few studies provided information of

when and why adolescents intervene. Future research that con-

siders these factors may see a greater impact on bystander

behavior. For instance, coaches in the CBIM intervention dis-

cussed the fact that many youth need time to grapple with the

idea of intervening against their peers. CBIM found that ath-

letes are often hesitant to intervene with their teammates and

feared retaliation (Jaime et al., 2015). The push toward bystan-

der intervention programming like CBIM as a means to prevent

dating violence by promoting awareness of and intervention in

62 TRAUMA, VIOLENCE, & ABUSE 22(1)

situations of TDV continues to increase (Banyard, Edwards, &

Seibold, 2016; Kaukinen et al., 2018). However, such program-

ming requires an understanding of how and when adolescents

utilize bystander behaviors. This review can be used to inform

efforts to enhance researchers’ and service providers’ under-

standing of adolescent bystander intervention. For instance,

adolescents noted concern for their own physical safety as a

barrier to bystander intervention. Service providers may con-

sider alternative ways (e.g., anonymous or confidential help

lines) for adolescents to report their concerns about dating

abuse that protects the reporter.

Limitations of our review should be noted. Given that

the search uncovered only 17 studies meeting the review

criteria, many findings are based on a small number (i.e.,

2–3) of peer-reviewed articles. In addition, the review

includes only those articles written in English and pub-

lished studies. However, the review did benefit from using

a professional research librarian consultation in the search

of online databases. Data for this review were extracted

from data available in the published article. Thus, addi-

tional data that might be available through other sources

were not obtained, and no input was sought from the indi-

vidual authors. This review focuses on results from studies

that explicitly included physical and psychological dating

violence. As a result, the findings do not readily generalize

to programs targeting only sexual harassment, assault, or

abuse. Moreover, this review did not include articles that

described intervening behaviors by adults or parents. There

is an emerging literature base regarding the role of parents

in response to dating abuse that is also important for future

bystander intervention development (Black & Preble,

2016). This review intentionally included studies that pro-

vided both qualitative and quantitative data as well as data

collected pre- and postintervention. Thus, the heterogeneity

of outcomes and assessment methods precluded performing

a formal meta-analysis and bystander data may have been

influenced by the study intervention. It is also important

note that there was adequate diversity across study partici-

pants. While the majority of data were collected from

school-based samples, participants were diverse in race and

ethnicity (i.e., five samples were majority Black, five sam-

ples were majority White, and two samples were majority

Hispanic or Latino). In addition, three of the studies (Her-

bert et al., 2014; Miller et al., 2014; Van Camp et al.,

2014) were conducted with adolescents outside of the

United States.

As demonstrated in our findings who engages in bystander

intervention and how they engage in these behaviors varies

widely. Through this review, we demonstrated that there are

many factors to consider in increasing adolescents willingness

and ability to intervene on a peer’s behalf. Findings from the

study can be used to strengthen our bystander programming

and prevention efforts particularly as related to physical and

psychological abuse. Future research must also examine the

effectiveness of this approach in reducing the overall occur-

rence of dating violence.

Critical Findings

� Consistent with bystander intervention literature, the
findings of this review reveal that adolescents do utilize

bystander behaviors in response to TDV, especially

when they feel confident that their intervention will be

effective and positively contribute to a friend’s well-

being. Additionally, adolescents’ ability to intervene is

impacted by their capacity to define an act as abusive.

Adolescents’ efficacy in defining acts as abuse remains

unclear, but many adolescents use factors like gender

and the type of abusive behavior to determine whether

they should intervene.

� When observing TDV, adolescents use bystander inter-
vention in a number of ways including: direct verbal

confrontation, direct physical confrontation, distraction,

and indirect intervention (e.g., soliciting the help of an

adult). However, not all adolescents effectively inter-

vene when faced with TDV and some studies show that

adolescents exhibit passive or active acceptance when

observing TDV.

� This review revealed a number of barriers adolescents
face against using bystander intervention. Adolescents’

own attitudes toward bystander intervention can get in

the way. Feeling that the intervention would be too

risky, both socially and physically, and that abuse is a

private matter between the couple stops adolescents

from utilizing bystander behaviors. Further, the culture

and climate of an adolescent’s school can inhibit bystan-

der intervention, especially in schools that do not com-

municate that TDV is a serious matter that will be

effectively dealt with by school officials.

� While little is known about why adolescents intervene as
bystanders, the findings of this review show that adoles-

cents intervene when they perceive abusive behaviors to

be serious, which may be based on victim’s level of

distress and the pattern of abuse. Adolescents who inter-

vene to stop violence do so because they believe that

dating violence is not okay and that intervening will

diffuse the situation and help the victim.

Recommendations and Implications for Practice,
Policy, and Research

� This scoping review highlights the need for relevant
examples to teach adolescents ways to identify different

forms of dating violence with consideration of how the

forms manifest in adolescent relationships.

� This study revealed the strong influence context plays in
supporting or inhibiting bystander behaviors. Because

adolescents spend much of their time in school, school

officials may need to create and foster school climates

that communicate that TDV is not okay, students are

encouraged to disclose abuse when they observe it, and

Debnam and Mauer 63

further cultivate school-wide response to abuse. Adoles-

cents are sensitive to adult responses to abuse and

schools must exhibit that they can effectively respond

to TDV.

� Bystander intervention programming may benefit from
more information about how and when adolescents actu-

ally use bystander behaviors. Such programs can strive

to provide adolescents with intervention strategies that

both effectively and sensitively respond to TDV. Fur-

ther, when training adolescents to respond, program

operators may dedicate time to allowing adolescents to

consider and discuss any barriers they perceive in inter-

vening with their peers.

� This scoping review highlights the need for additional
research to understand what factors impact adolescents’

confidence and understanding of when it is appropriate

and useful to use bystander behaviors. Moreover,

research should strive to understand what bystander

intervention strategies are most effective for physical

and psychological TDV and when is the proper time to

utilize such interventions. Finally, continued research is

needed to determine how effective bystander interven-

tion programming is in reducing the occurrence of TDV.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Chloe Grinage for her early help in

conducting this review.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to

the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for

the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The

research reported here was supported by the Institute of Education

Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, through Grant

#R305B140026 to the Rectors and Visitors of the University of

Virginia.

References

(*Denotes studies included in the scoping review.)

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational

Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179–211.

doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T

Ahrens, C. E., & Campbell, R. (2000). Assisting rape victims as they

recover from rape: The impact on friends. Journal of Interpersonal

Violence, 15, 959–986.

Ashley, O. S., & Foshee, V. A. (2005). Adolescent help-seeking for

dating violence: Prevalence, sociodemographic correlates, and

sources of help. Journal of Adolescent Health, 36, 25–31.

*Baker, C. K. (2017). What role do peers play in adolescent dating?

Insights from adolescents with a history of dating violence. Vio-

lence Against Women, 23, 178–201.

*Baker, C. K., & Carreño, P. K. (2016). Understanding the role of

technology in adolescent dating and dating violence. Journal of

Child and Family Studies, 25, 308–320.

Banyard, V. L. (2008). Measurement and correlates of prosocial

bystander behavior: The case of interpersonal violence. Violence

and Victims, 23, 83.

Banyard, V. L., Edwards, K. M., & Seibold, W. (2016). Involving

community in sexual violence prevention: Engaging bystanders.

In R. P. Sturmey (Ed.), Handbook of violence and aggression,

Volume 3: Societal interventions (pp. 1–13). Malden, MA: John

Wiley.

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.

Banyard, V. L., Moynihan, M. M., Cares, A. C., & Warner, R. (2014).

How do we know if it works? Measuring outcomes in bystander

focused abuse prevention on campuses. Psychology of Violence, 4,

101–115. doi:10.1037/a0033470

Banyard, V. L., Moynihan, M. M., Walsh, W. A., Cohn, E. S., &

Ward, S. (2010). Friends of survivors: The community impact of

unwanted sexual experiences. Journal of Interpersonal Violence,

25, 242–256.

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.

Black, B., & Preble, K. (2016). Parental responses to youths’ reports

of teen dating violence: Recommendations from parents and youth.

Journal of Adolescence, 51, 144–155.

Black, B. M., & Weisz, A. N. (2003). Dating violence: Help-seeking

behaviors of African American middle schoolers. Violence Against

Women, 9, 187–206.

Black, M. C., Basile, K. C., Breiding, M. J., Smith, S. G., Walters, M.

L., Merrick, M. T., . . . Stevens, M. R. (2011). The National Inti-

mate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2010 Sum-

mary Report. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention

and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Burn, S. M. (2009). A situational model of sexual assault prevention

through bystander intervention. Sex Roles, 60, 779–792.

Cameron, C. A., Byers, E. S., Miller, S. A., McKay, S. L., Pierre, M. S.,

& Glenn, S. (2007). Dating violence prevention in New Brunswick.

New Brunswick: Muriel McQueen Fergusson Centre for Family

Violence Research, 1, 1.

Carlson, B. E., McNutt, L. A., Choi, D. Y., & Rose, I. M. (2002).

Intimate partner abuse and mental health: The role of social sup-

port and other protective factors. Violence Against Women, 8,

720–745.

*Casey, E. A., Lindhorst, T., & Storer, H. L. (2017). The situational-

cognitive model of adolescent bystander behavior: Modeling

bystander decision-making in the context of bullying and teen

dating violence. Psychology of Violence, 7, 33.

Casey, E. A., & Ohler, K. (2012). Being a positive bystander: Male

antiviolence allies’ experiences of “stepping up”. Journal of Inter-

personal Violence, 27, 62–83.

*Casey, E. A., Storer, H. L., & Herrenkohl, T. I. (2017). Mapping a

continuum of adolescent helping and bystander behavior within the

64 TRAUMA, VIOLENCE, & ABUSE 22(1)

context of dating violence and bullying. The American Journal of

Orthopsychiatry. doi:10.1037/ort0000245

Coker, A. L., Bush, H. M., Cook-Craig, P. G., DeGue, S. A., Clear, E.

R., Brancato, C. J., . . . Recktenwald, E. A. (2017). RCT testing

bystander effectiveness to reduce violence. American Journal of

Preventive Medicine, 52, 566–578.

Coker, A. L., Bush, H. M., Fisher, B. S., Swan, S. C., Williams, C. M.,

Clear, E. R., & DeGue, S. (2016). Multi-college bystander inter-

vention evaluation for violence prevention. American Journal of

Preventive Medicine, 50, 295–302.

Coker, A. L., Fisher, B. S., Bush, H. M., Swan, S. C., Williams, C. M.,

Clear, E. R., & DeGue, S. (2015). Evaluation of the green dot

bystander intervention to reduce interpersonal violence among col-

lege students across three campuses. Violence Against Women, 21,

1507–1527.

Cunningham, R. M., Whiteside, L. K., Chermack, S. T., Zimmerman,

M. A., Shope, J. T., Raymond Bingham, C., . . . Walton, M. A.

(2013). Dating violence: Outcomes following a brief motivational

interviewing intervention among at-risk adolescents in an urban

emergency department. Academic Emergency Medicine, 20,

562–569.

Debnam, K. J., Johnson, S. L., & Bradshaw, C. P. (2014). Examining

the association between bullying and adolescent concerns about

teen dating violence. Journal of School Health, 84, 421–428.

doi:10.1111/josh.12170

De Koker, P., Mathews, C., Zuch, M., Bastien, S., & Mason-Jones, A.

J. (2014). A systematic review of interventions for preventing

adolescent intimate partner violence. Journal of Adolescent

Health, 54, 3–13.

Edwards, K. M., Haynes, E. E., & Rodenhizer-Stämpfli, K. A. (2016).

High school youth’s reactions to participating in mixed-

methodological dating violence research. Journal of Empirical

Research on Human Research Ethics, 11, 220–230.

*Edwards, K. M., Rodenhizer-Stämpfli, K. A., & Eckstein, R. P.

(2015). Bystander action in situations of dating and sexual aggres-

sion: A mixed methodological study of high school youth. Journal

of Youth and Adolescence, 44, 2321–2336.

Exner-Cortens, D., Eckenrode, J., & Rothman, E. (2013). Longitudi-

nal associations between teen dating violence victimization and

adverse health outcomes. Pediatrics, 131, 71–78.

Foshee, V., & Langwick, S. (2010). Safe dates: An adolescent dating

abuse prevention curriculum (2nd ed.). Center City, MN:

Hazelden.

*Fry, D. A., Messinger, A. M., Rickert, V. I., O’Connor, M. K.,

Palmetto, N., Lessel, H., & Davidson, L. L. (2014). Adolescent

relationship violence: Help-seeking and help-giving behaviors

among peers. Journal of Urban Health, 91, 320–334.

Gidycz, C. A., Orchowski, L. M., & Berkowitz, A. D. (2011). Pre-

venting sexual aggression among college men: An evaluation of a

social norms and bystander intervention program. Violence

Against Women, 17, 720–742.

Goodman, L., Dutton, M. A., Vankos, N., & Weinfurt, K. (2005).

Women’s resources and use of strategies as risk and protective

factors for reabuse over time. Violence Against Women, 11,

311–336.

Haynie, D. L., Farhat, T., Brooks-Russell, A., Wang, J., Barbieri, B.,

& Iannotti, R. J. (2013). Dating violence perpetration and victimi-

zation among US adolescents: Prevalence, patterns, and associa-

tions with health complaints and substance use. Journal of

Adolescent Health, 53, 194–201.

*Hébert, M., Van Camp, T., Lavoie, F., Blais, M., & Guerrier, M.

(2014). Understanding the hesitancy to disclose teen dating vio-

lence: Correlates of self-efficacy to deal with teen dating violence.

Temida: Casopis O Viktimizaciji, Ljudskim Pravima I Rodu, 17,

43.

Hoefnagels, C., & Zwikker, M. (2001). The bystander dilemma and

child abuse: Extending the Latané and Darley model to domestic

violence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31, 1158–1183.

doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2001.tb02668.x

Jaime, M. C. D., McCauley, H. L., Tancredi, D. J., Nettiksimmons, J.,

Decker, M. R., Silverman, J. G. . . . Miller, E. (2015). Athletic coa-

ches as violence prevention advocates. Journal of Interpersonal

Violence, 30, 1090–1111.

Jouriles, E. N., Garrido, E., Rosenfield, D., & McDonald, R. (2009).

Experiences of psychological and physical aggression in adoles-

cent romantic relationships: Links to psychological distress. Child

Abuse & Neglect, 33, 451–460.

*Jouriles, E. N., Rosenfield, D., Yule, K., Sargent, K. S., & McDo-

nald, R. (2016). Predicting high-school students’ bystander beha-

vior in simulated dating violence situations. Journal of Adolescent

Health, 58, 345–351.

Kann, L. (2016). Youth risk behavior surveillance—United States,

2015. MMWR. Surveillance Summaries, 65, 1–174.

Kaukinen, C., Anderson, K., Jasinski, J. L., Mustaine, E. E., Powers,

R. A., Hughes Miller, M., . . . Yegidis, B. (2018). The direction of

violence against women research and evaluation. Women & Crim-

inal Justice, 28, 189–211.

*Kervin, D., & Obinna, J. (2010). Youth action strategies in the pri-

mary prevention of teen dating violence. Journal of Family Social

Work, 13, 362–374.

Kim, J. E., Weinstein, E. C., & Selman, R. L. (2017). Romantic

relationship advice from anonymous online helpers: The peer sup-

port adolescents exchange. Youth & Society, 49, 369–392.

Koss, M. P., & Oros, C. J. (1982). Sexual experiences survey: A

research instrument investigating sexual aggression and victimiza-

tion. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 50, 455.

Latané, B., & Darley, J. M. (1969). Bystanders “apathy”. American

Scientist, 57, 244–268.

Martin, C. E., Houston, A. M., Mmari, K. N., & Decker, M. R. (2012).

Urban teens and young adults describe drama, disrespect, dating

violence and help-seeking preferences. Maternal and Child Health

Journal, 16, 957–966.

*McCauley, H. L., Tancredi, D. J., Silverman, J. G., Decker, M. R.,

Austin, S. B., McCormick, M. C., . . . Miller, E. (2013). Gender-

equitable attitudes, bystander behavior, and recent abuse perpetra-

tion against heterosexual dating partners of male high school

athletes. American Journal of Public Health, 103, 1882–1887.

McMahon, S., & Farmer, G. L. (2011). An updated measure for asses-

sing subtle rape myths. Social Work Research, 35, 71–81.

*Miller, E., Das, M., Tancredi, D. J., McCauley, H. L., Virata, M. C.

D., Nettiksimmons, J., . . . Verma, R. (2014). Evaluation of a

Debnam and Mauer 65

gender-based violence prevention program for student athletes in

Mumbai, India. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 29, 758–778.

*Miller, E., Tancredi, D. J., McCauley, H. L., Decker, M. R., Virata,

M. C. D., Anderson, H. A., . . . Silverman, J. G. (2012). “Coaching

boys into men”: A cluster-randomized controlled trial of a dating

violence prevention program. Journal of Adolescent Health, 51,

431–438.

*Miller, E., Tancredi, D. J., McCauley, H. L., Decker, M. R., Virata,

M. C. D., Anderson, H. A., . . . Silverman, J. G. (2013). One-year

follow-up of a coach-delivered dating violence prevention pro-

gram: A cluster randomized controlled trial. American Journal of

Preventive Medicine, 45, 108–112.

Molidor, C., & Tolman, R. M. (1998). Gender and contextual factors

in adolescent dating violence. Violence Against Women, 4,

180–194.

Nahapetyan, L., Orpinas, P., Song, X., & Holland, K. (2014).

Longitudinal association of suicidal ideation and physical

dating violence among high school students. Journal of Youth

and Adolescence, 43, 629–640. doi:10.1007/s10964-013-

0006-6

Nickerson, A. B., Aloe, A. M., Livingston, J. A., & Feeley, T. H.

(2014). Measurement of the bystander intervention model for

bullying and sexual harassment. Journal of Adolescence, 37,

391–400.

Palmer, J. E., Nicksa, S. C., & McMahon, S. (2018). Does who you

know affect how you act? The impact of relationships on bystander

intervention in interpersonal violence situations. Journal of Inter-

personal Violence, 33, 2623–2642.

Palm Reed, K. M., Hines, D. A., Armstrong, J. L., & Cameron, A. Y.

(2015). Experimental evaluation of a bystander prevention pro-

gram for sexual assault and dating violence. Psychology of Vio-

lence, 5, 95.

Parker, E. M., Debnam, K., Pas, E. T., & Bradshaw, C. P. (2016).

Exploring the link between alcohol and Marijuana use and teen

dating violence victimization among high school students: The

influence of school context. Health Education & Behavior, 43,

528–536.

*Plourde, C., Shore, N., Herrick, P., Morrill, A., Cattabriga, G.,

Bottino, L., . . . Stromgren, C. (2016). You the man: Theater as

bystander education in dating violence. Arts & Health, 8,

229–247.

Pulerwitz, J., & Barker, G. (2008). Measuring attitudes toward gender

norms among young men in Brazil: Development and psycho-

metric evaluation of the GEM Scale. Men and Masculinities, 10,

322–338.

Rothman, E. F., Decker, M. R., & Silverman, J. G. (2006). Evaluation

of a teen dating violence social marketing campaign: Lessons

learned when the null hypothesis was accepted. New Directions

for Evaluation, 2006, 33–44.

*Sargent, K. S., Jouriles, E. N., Rosenfield, D., & McDonald, R.

(2017). A high school-based evaluation of TakeCARE, a video

bystander program to prevent adolescent relationship violence.

Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 46, 633–643.

Sears, H. A., Byers, E. S., Whelan, J. J., & Saint-Pierre, M. (2006). “If

it hurts you, then it is not a joke” Adolescents’ ideas about girls’

and boys’ use and experience of abusive behavior in dating rela-

tionships. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 21, 1191–1207.

Shorey, R. C., Fite, P. J., Choi, H., Cohen, J. R., Stuart, G. L., &

Temple, J. R. (2015). Dating violence and substance use as long-

itudinal predictors of adolescents’ risky sexual behavior. Preven-

tion Science, 16, 853–861.

Storer, H. L., Casey, E., & Herrenkohl, T. (2016). Efficacy of bystan-

der programs to prevent dating abuse among youth and young

adults: A review of the literature. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse,

17, 256–269.

*Storer, H. L., Casey, E. A., & Herrenkohl, T. I. (2017). Developing

“whole school” bystander interventions: The role of school-

settings in influencing adolescents responses to dating violence

and bullying. Children and Youth Services Review, 74, 87–95.

Straus, M. A., Hamby, S. L., Boney-McCoy, S., & Sugarman, D. B.

(1996). The revised conflict tactics scales (CTS2) development and

preliminary psychometric data. Journal of Family Issues, 17,

283–316.

Taylor, B. G., Stein, N. D., Mumford, E. A., & Woods, D. (2013).

Shifting Boundaries: An experimental evaluation of a dating vio-

lence prevention program in middle schools. Prevention science,

14, 64–76.

*Van Camp, T., Hébert, M., Guidi, E., Lavoie, F., & Blais, M. (2014).

Teens’ self-efficacy to deal with dating violence as victim, perpetra-

tor or bystander. International Review of Victimology, 20, 289–303.

Waldrop, A. E., & Resick, P. A. (2004). Coping among adult female

victims of domestic violence. Journal of Family Violence, 19,

291–302.

Weisz, A. N., & Black, B. M. (2009). Help-seeking and help-giving

for teen dating violence. The Prevention Researcher, 16, 12–17.

Weitzman, A., Cowan, S., & Walsh, K. (2017). Bystander interven-

tions on behalf of sexual assault and intimate partner violence

victims. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. doi:10.1177/

0886260517696873

Wekerle, C., Leung, E., Wall, A. M., MacMillan, H., Boyle, M.,

Trocme, N., & Waechter, R. (2009). The contribution of childhood

emotional abuse to teen dating violence among child protective

services-involved youth. Child Abuse & Neglect, 33, 45–58.

Author Biographies

Katrina J. Debnam is an assistant professor in the Schools of Nursing

and Education at the University of Virginia. She holds an MPH in

health behavior and health education and a doctorate in behavioral and

community health. For over 10 years, Dr. Debnam led numerous

school-based randomized-controlled trials at Johns Hopkins Bloom-

berg School of Public Health strengthening her expertise in mixed-

methods research, including hierarchical linear modeling and the

conduct and analysis of data from focus groups and interviews. Her

research focuses on the intersection of health and education with a

strong concentration on conditions that disproportionately affect com-

munities of color. Specifically, her research interests include adoles-

cent violence prevention and dating abuse, school climate, health

disparities, and faith-based programs for positive youth development.

She is currently the Co-I/Co-PI on multiple-funded studies, including

one to evaluate the effectiveness of an intervention designed to

66 TRAUMA, VIOLENCE, & ABUSE 22(1)

address the overrepresentation of students of color in discipline and

exclusionary practices.

Victoria Mauer is a doctoral student in community psychology at the

University of Virginia and an Institute for Education Sciences (IES)

predoctoral fellow in the Virginia Education Science Training pro-

gram. She received a bachelor of arts in psychology from New York

University in 2011 and a master of arts in counseling psychology from

Northwestern University in 2014. Victoria conducts community-based

research on prevention of gender-based violence, disproportionate

minority contact in the juvenile justice system, and school-based pro-

gramming to increase prosocial connections among adolescents. Her

work is dedicated to researching community and school-based pro-

gramming targeting problematic racial and gender norms that

marginalize youth.

Debnam and Mauer 67

<< /ASCII85EncodePages false /AllowTransparency false /AutoPositionEPSFiles true /AutoRotatePages /None /Binding /Left /CalGrayProfile (Gray Gamma 2.2) /CalRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1) /CalCMYKProfile (U.S. Web Coated \050SWOP\051 v2) /sRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1) /CannotEmbedFontPolicy /Warning /CompatibilityLevel 1.3 /CompressObjects /Off /CompressPages true /ConvertImagesToIndexed true /PassThroughJPEGImages false /CreateJobTicket false /DefaultRenderingIntent /Default /DetectBlends true /DetectCurves 0.1000 /ColorConversionStrategy /LeaveColorUnchanged /DoThumbnails false /EmbedAllFonts true /EmbedOpenType false /ParseICCProfilesInComments true /EmbedJobOptions true /DSCReportingLevel 0 /EmitDSCWarnings false /EndPage -1 /ImageMemory 1048576 /LockDistillerParams true /MaxSubsetPct 100 /Optimize true /OPM 1 /ParseDSCComments true /ParseDSCCommentsForDocInfo true /PreserveCopyPage true /PreserveDICMYKValues true /PreserveEPSInfo true /PreserveFlatness false /PreserveHalftoneInfo false /PreserveOPIComments false /PreserveOverprintSettings true /StartPage 1 /SubsetFonts true /TransferFunctionInfo /Apply /UCRandBGInfo /Remove /UsePrologue false /ColorSettingsFile () /AlwaysEmbed [ true ] /NeverEmbed [ true ] /AntiAliasColorImages false /CropColorImages false /ColorImageMinResolution 266 /ColorImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleColorImages true /ColorImageDownsampleType /Average /ColorImageResolution 175 /ColorImageDepth -1 /ColorImageMinDownsampleDepth 1 /ColorImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50286 /EncodeColorImages true /ColorImageFilter /DCTEncode /AutoFilterColorImages true /ColorImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG /ColorACSImageDict << /QFactor 0.40 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >>
/ColorImageDict << /QFactor 0.76 /HSamples [2 1 1 2] /VSamples [2 1 1 2] >>
/JPEG2000ColorACSImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >>
/JPEG2000ColorImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >>
/AntiAliasGrayImages false
/CropGrayImages false
/GrayImageMinResolution 266
/GrayImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK
/DownsampleGrayImages true
/GrayImageDownsampleType /Average
/GrayImageResolution 175
/GrayImageDepth -1
/GrayImageMinDownsampleDepth 2
/GrayImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50286
/EncodeGrayImages true
/GrayImageFilter /DCTEncode
/AutoFilterGrayImages true
/GrayImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG
/GrayACSImageDict << /QFactor 0.40 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >>
/GrayImageDict << /QFactor 0.76 /HSamples [2 1 1 2] /VSamples [2 1 1 2] >>
/JPEG2000GrayACSImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >>
/JPEG2000GrayImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >>
/AntiAliasMonoImages false
/CropMonoImages false
/MonoImageMinResolution 900
/MonoImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK
/DownsampleMonoImages true
/MonoImageDownsampleType /Average
/MonoImageResolution 175
/MonoImageDepth -1
/MonoImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50286
/EncodeMonoImages true
/MonoImageFilter /CCITTFaxEncode
/MonoImageDict << /K -1 >>
/AllowPSXObjects false
/CheckCompliance [
/None
]
/PDFX1aCheck false
/PDFX3Check false
/PDFXCompliantPDFOnly false
/PDFXNoTrimBoxError true
/PDFXTrimBoxToMediaBoxOffset [
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
]
/PDFXSetBleedBoxToMediaBox false
/PDFXBleedBoxToTrimBoxOffset [
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
]
/PDFXOutputIntentProfile (U.S. Web Coated \050SWOP\051 v2)
/PDFXOutputConditionIdentifier (CGATS TR 001)
/PDFXOutputCondition ()
/PDFXRegistryName (http://www.color.org)
/PDFXTrapped /Unknown
/CreateJDFFile false
/Description << /ENU
>>
/Namespace [
(Adobe)
(Common)
(1.0)
]
/OtherNamespaces [
<< /AsReaderSpreads false /CropImagesToFrames true /ErrorControl /WarnAndContinue /FlattenerIgnoreSpreadOverrides false /IncludeGuidesGrids false /IncludeNonPrinting false /IncludeSlug false /Namespace [ (Adobe) (InDesign) (4.0) ] /OmitPlacedBitmaps false /OmitPlacedEPS false /OmitPlacedPDF false /SimulateOverprint /Legacy >>
<< /AllowImageBreaks true /AllowTableBreaks true /ExpandPage false /HonorBaseURL true /HonorRolloverEffect false /IgnoreHTMLPageBreaks false /IncludeHeaderFooter false /MarginOffset [ 0 0 0 0 ] /MetadataAuthor () /MetadataKeywords () /MetadataSubject () /MetadataTitle () /MetricPageSize [ 0 0 ] /MetricUnit /inch /MobileCompatible 0 /Namespace [ (Adobe) (GoLive) (8.0) ] /OpenZoomToHTMLFontSize false /PageOrientation /Portrait /RemoveBackground false /ShrinkContent true /TreatColorsAs /MainMonitorColors /UseEmbeddedProfiles false /UseHTMLTitleAsMetadata true >>
<< /AddBleedMarks false /AddColorBars false /AddCropMarks false /AddPageInfo false /AddRegMarks false /BleedOffset [ 9 9 9 9 ] /ConvertColors /ConvertToRGB /DestinationProfileName (sRGB IEC61966-2.1) /DestinationProfileSelector /UseName /Downsample16BitImages true /FlattenerPreset << /ClipComplexRegions true /ConvertStrokesToOutlines false /ConvertTextToOutlines false /GradientResolution 300 /LineArtTextResolution 1200 /PresetName ([High Resolution]) /PresetSelector /HighResolution /RasterVectorBalance 1 >>
/FormElements true
/GenerateStructure false
/IncludeBookmarks false
/IncludeHyperlinks false
/IncludeInteractive false
/IncludeLayers false
/IncludeProfiles true
/MarksOffset 9
/MarksWeight 0.125000
/MultimediaHandling /UseObjectSettings
/Namespace [
(Adobe)
(CreativeSuite)
(2.0)
]
/PDFXOutputIntentProfileSelector /DocumentCMYK
/PageMarksFile /RomanDefault
/PreserveEditing true
/UntaggedCMYKHandling /UseDocumentProfile
/UntaggedRGBHandling /UseDocumentProfile
/UseDocumentBleed false
>>
]
/SyntheticBoldness 1.000000
>> setdistillerparams
<< /HWResolution [288 288] /PageSize [612.000 792.000] >> setpagedevice

2020-11-13T13:46:16+0530
Preflight Ticket Signature

Turn in your highest-quality paper
Get a qualified writer to help you with

“ Discussion: Sexual Violence and Bystander Intervention ”

Get high-quality paper

NEW! AI matching with writer

Order a unique copy of this paper

Type of paper needed:

Pages:

600 words

Academic level:

We'll send you the first draft for approval by September 11, 2018 at 10:52 AM

Total price:

$26

Our Services

Discussion: Sexual Violence and Bystander Intervention

Order a unique copy of this paper