Who Will Be a Bystander? An Exploratory Study of First-Person Perception Effects on Campus Bystander Behavioral Intentions
The purpose was to explore the underlying mechanisms that drive relationships between knowledge, attitudes and intervening bystander behavior to improve bystander violence prevention program effectiveness. Perceptual effects theory was used to understand third-person and first-person perceptions (TPP and FPP) as related to bystander intervention programs and to what extent perceptual gaps influence one’s intention to intervene. A web-based survey was conducted with 379 undergraduate students recruited from a large, Northeastern University. The survey covered demographics, previous bystander training, self-efficacy to engage in bystander behavior, social desirability of bystander intervention training programs, and perceived effects on self and others. Participants indicated how they would act in six hypothetical dating violence/bullying and sexual violence scenarios, and how they thought an average student on campus would act. Perceived ambiguity and risk for each of the scenarios were also measured. Descriptive statistics, paired-sample t-tests, and multilevel model analyses were conducted. Results showed that a robust first-person perception effect existed (i.e., the student perceived themselves being more influenced by bystander interventions/messages than their peers). The magnitude of FPP was increased by sex (significantly larger gap among female students) and previous training. Results show promise to further tailor and refine bystander interventions and provide directions to improve program effectiveness. Despite study limitations, the results indicate the first-person effect warrants further consideration for programming and messaging. Tailoring bystander training or repeated exposure may increase bystander behaviors. More research is needed to fully uncover TPP/FPP effects, predictors, and impacts on bystander intervention programs.
KeywordsBystander intervention Third-person effect First-person effect Intention to intervene
Compliance with Ethical Standards
The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
- Basile, K. C., Smith, S. G., Breiding, M. J., Black, M. C., & Mahendra, R. (2014). Sexual violence surveillance: Uniform definitions and recommended data elements. Version 2.0. Google Scholar
- Basile, K. C., DeGue, S., Jones, K., Freire, K. E., Dills, J., Smith, S. G., & Raiford, J. L. (2016). STOP SV: A technical package to prevent sexual violence. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Retrieved from: https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/sv-prevention-technical-package.pdf.
- Breiding, M., Basile, K. C., Smith, S. G., Black, M. C., & Mahendra, R. R. (2015). Intimate partner violence surveillance: uniform definitions and recommended data elements, Version 2.0. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.Google Scholar
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2016). Youth online: High school YRBS. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Retrieved from: http://www.cdc.gov/ healthyyouth/data/yrbs.
- Coker, A. L. & Bush, H. M. (2016). Survey items from multi college bystander efficacy evaluation. Unpublished survey items.Google Scholar
- Coker, A. L., Cook-Craig, P. G., Williams, C. M., Fisher, B. S., Clear, E. R., Garcia, L. S., & Hegge, L. M. (2011). Evaluation of green dot: An active bystander intervention to reduce sexual violence on college campuses. Violence Against Women, 17(6), 777–796. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801211410264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Coker, A. L., Bush, H. M., Fisher, B. S., Swan, S. C., Williams, C. M., Clear, E. R., & DeGue, S. (2016). Multi-college bystander intervention evaluation for violence prevention. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 50(3), 295–302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2015.08.034.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Coker, A. L., Bush, H. M., Cook-Craig, P. G., DeGue, S. A., Clear, E. R., Brancato, C. J., et al. (2017). RCT testing bystander effectiveness to reduce violence. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 52(5), 566–578. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2017.01.020.
- Dillard, J. P., & Shen, L. (Eds.). (2013). The SAGE handbook of persuasion: Developments in theory and practice. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
- Fass, D. F., Benson, R. I., & Leggett, D. G. (2008). Assessing prevalence and awareness of violent behaviors in the intimate partner relationships of college students using internet sampling. Journal of College Student Psychotherapy, 22, 66–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/87568220801952248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Gladden RM, Vivolo-Kantor AM, Hamburger ME, Lumpkin CD. (2013). Bullying Surveillance Among Youths: Uniform Definitions for Public Health and Recommended Data Elements, Version 1.0. Atlanta, GA; National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from: http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/bullying-definitions-final-a.pdf
- Gunther, A. C., & Storey, J. D. (2003). The influence of presumed influence. Journal of Communication, 53(2), 199–215. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2003.tb02586.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Krebs, C. P., Lindquist, C. H., Warner, T. D., Fisher, B. S., & Martin, S. L. (2007). The campus sexual assault (CSA) study. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice.Google Scholar
- Krebs, C. P., Lindquist, C. H., Warner, T. D., Fisher, B. S., & Martin, S. L. (2009). College women's experiences with physically forced, alcohol-or other drug-enabled, and drug-facilitated sexual assault before and since entering college. Journal of American College Health, 57(6), 639–649. https://doi.org/10.3200/jach.57.6.639-649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Menard, S. (2002). Short- and long-term consequences of adolescent victimization. Youth violence research bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Retrieved from: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/191210.pdf. Retrieved on June 16, 2017.
- Milletich, R. J., Kelley, M. L., Doane, A. N., & Pearson, M. R. (2010). Exposure to interparental violence and childhood physical and emotional abuse as related to physical aggression in undergraduate dating relationships. Journal of Family Violence, 25, 627–637. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-010-9319-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- No More. (2017). Bystander Scenarios. Retrieved from https://nomore.org/learn/bystander-scenarios/
- Niolon, P. H., Kearns, M., Dills, J., Rambo, K., Irving, S., Armstead, T. L., & Gilbert, L. (2017). Preventing intimate partner violence across the lifespan: A technical package of programs, policies, and practices. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Retrieved from: https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/ipv-technicalpackages.pdf.
- Perloff, R. M. (2009). Mass media, social perception, and the third-person effect. In J. Bryant & M. B. Oliver (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (3rd ed., pp. 252–268). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Polanin, J. R., Espelage, D. L., & Pigott, T. D. (2012). A meta-analysis of school-based bullying prevention Programs' effects on bystander intervention behavior. School Psychology Review, 41(1), 47–65.Google Scholar
- Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
- Rospenda, K. M., Richman, J. A., Wolff, J. M., & Burke, L. A. (2013). Bullying victimization among college students: Negative consequences for alcohol use. Journal of Addictive Diseases, 32(4), 325–342. https://doi.org/10.1080/10550887.10552013.10849971.
- Smith SG, Chen J, Basile KC, et al. The National Intimate Partner and sexual violence survey (NISVS): 2010–2012 state report. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Retrieved from: https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/NISVS-StateReportBook.pdf. Published 2017.
- Spybrook, J., Bloom, H., Gongdon, R., Hill, C., Martinez, A., & Raudenbush, S. (2011). Optimal Design Plus Empirical Evidence: Documentation for the “Optimal Design” software. Retrieved at: http://hlmsoft.net/od/
- Sun, Y. (2013). When presumed influence turns real: An indirect route of media influence. In J. P. Dillard & L. Shen (Eds.) The Sage handbook of persuasion: Developments in theory and practice (2nd. Ed.) (pp. 371–387). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
- Yzer, M. (2013). Reasoned action theory: Persuasion and belief-based behavior change. In J. P. Dillard & L. Shen (Eds.), The Sage handbook of persuasion: Developments in theory and practice (2nd. ed., pp. 120–136). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.Google Scholar