Advertisement

Evaluation of a Bystander-Focused Interpersonal Violence Prevention Program with High School Students

  • Katie M. EdwardsEmail author
  • Victoria L. Banyard
  • Stephanie N. Sessarego
  • Emily A. Waterman
  • Kimberly J. Mitchell
  • Hong Chang
Article

Abstract

This study evaluated the effectiveness of a seven-session, bystander-focused, classroom-delivered curriculum (i.e., Bringing in the Bystander—High School Curriculum [BITB-HSC]) in reducing rates of interpersonal violence among high school students. High schools (N = 26) were randomly assigned to the treatment or control condition. In classrooms in treatment schools, students (n = 1081) completed a baseline survey, participated in the BITB-HSC, and completed an immediate post-test, a short-term post-test (approx. 2 months after intervention), and a long-term post-test (approx. 1 year after intervention). Youth in control schools (n = 1322) completed surveys at similar time points but did not participate in the BITB-HSC. Participants were 15.8 years old on average and largely White (85.1%) and heterosexual (84.5%). Students exposed to the BITB-HSC demonstrated significant short-term changes in victim empathy and bystander barriers/facilitators, and long-term changes in rape myths, media literacy, bystander readiness, and knowledge relative to youth in the control condition. Although the BITB-HSC had little long-term impact on actual bystander behavior, there were reductions in some forms of violence among students in the BITB-HSC condition relative to the control condition. Future research is needed to determine if, for whom, why, and in what contexts (e.g., classroom-based versus school-wide initiatives) bystander-focused violence prevention initiatives reduce violence.

Keywords

Dating violence Relationship abuse Sexual assault Prevention Bystander Cluster randomized control trial High school students Youth 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We owe a great deal of gratitude to our school and community partners and to the 50+ research assistants and program facilitators. Without these agencies and individuals, this project would not have been possible.

Funding

Funding for this study was provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Grant no. R01-CEO02524. The findings and implications presented in this paper do not represent the official views of the CDC.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Informed Consent

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

Supplementary material

11121_2019_1000_MOESM1_ESM.docx (17 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 14 kb)

References

  1. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179–211.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ahrens CE, Campbell R. (2000). Assisting Rape Victims as They Recover from Rape: The Impact on Friends. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 15(9):28.Google Scholar
  3. Banyard, V. L. (2008). Measurement and correlates of prosocial bystander behavior: The case of interpersonal violence. Violence and Victims, 23, 83–97.  https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.23.1.83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Banyard, V. L. (2011). Who will help prevent sexual violence: Creating an ecological model of bystander intervention. Psychology of Violence, 1, 216–229.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023739.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Banyard, V. L., & Cross, C. (2008). Consequences of teen dating violence understanding intervening variables in ecological context. Violence Against Women, 14, 998–1013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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, 13, 287–301.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Banyard, V. L., Moynihan, M. M., & Plante, E. G. (2007). Sexual violence prevention through bystander education: An experimental evaluation. Journal of Community Psychology, 35, 463–481.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.20159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Banyard, V. L., Moynihan, M. M., Cares, A., & Warner, R. (2014). How do we know if it works? Measuring outcomes in bystander-focused violence prevention on campuses. Psychology of Violence, 4, 101–115.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Banyard, V. L., Weber, M. C., Grych, J., & Hamby, S. (2016). Where are the helpful bystanders? Ecological niche and victims’ perceptions of bystander intervention. Journal of Community Psychology, 44, 214–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Capilouto, E. I., Beshear, J., Henry, R., Recktenwald, E., Follingstad, D., & Coker, A. L. (2014). “Green dot” effective at reducing sexual violence.Google Scholar
  11. Cares, A. C., Banyard, V. L., Moynihan, M. M., Williams, L. M., Potter, S. J., & Stapleton, J. G. (2015). Changing attitudes about being a bystander to violence translating an in-person sexual violence prevention program to a new campus. Violence Against Women, 21, 165–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Casey, E. A., Lindhorst, T. P., & Storer, H. L. (2016). 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, 33–44.  https://doi.org/10.1037/vio0000033.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2014). Understanding teen dating violence - Fact sheet 2014. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/teen-dating-violence-2014-a.pdf
  14. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2016). Evaluating practice-based sexual violence primary prevention approaches from CDC’s Rape Prevention and Education (RPE) Program. Retrieved from https://www.nsvrc.org/opportunities/funding/evaluating-practice-based-sexual-violence-primary-prevention-approaches-cdcs
  15. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2017). Teen dating violence. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/intimatepartnerviolence/teen_dating_violence.html
  16. 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, 777–796.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801211410264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2017.01.020.
  18. Cook-Craig, P. G. (2012). Evaluation of the Green Dot bystanding intervention program in Kentucky high schools. Paper presented at the The 6th Biennial National Conference on Health and Domestic Violence.Google Scholar
  19. Cook-Craig, P. G., Coker, A. L., Clear, E. R., Garcia, L. S., Bush, H. M., Brancato, C. J., ... Fisher, B. S. (2014). Challenge and opportunity in evaluating a diffusion-based active bystanding prevention program green dot in high schools. Violence Against Women, 20, 1179–1202.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801214551288.
  20. DeGue, S. (2014). Preventing sexual violence on college campuses: Lessons from research and practice. Atlanta, GA: Division of Violence Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.Google Scholar
  21. DeGue, S., Valle, L. A., Holt, M. K., Massetti, G. M., Matjasko, J. L., & Tharp, A. T. (2014). A systematic review of primary prevention strategies for sexual violence perpetration. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 19, 346–362.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2014.05.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Eckstein, R. P., Moynihan, M. M., Banyard, V. B., & Plante, E. G. (2013). Bringing in the bystander: A prevention workshop for establishing a community of responsibility. In. Durham, NH, USA: Prevention Innovations, University of New Hampshire.Google Scholar
  23. Edwards, K. M. (2015). Incidence and outcomes of dating violence victimization among high school youth: The role of gender and sexual orientation. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 1–19.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260515618943.
  24. Edwards, K. M., Rodenhizer-Stämpfli, K., & Eckstein, R. (2014). Media Literacy Consumption Scale. Durham, NH: University of New Hampshire.Google Scholar
  25. Edwards, K. M., Rodenhizer-Stämpfli, K. A., & Eckstein, R. P. (2015). Bystander action in situations of dating and sexual aggression: A mixed methodological study of high school youth. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 44, 2321–2336.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-015-0307-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Edwards, K. M., Neal, A. M., & Rodenhizer-Stämpfli, K. A. (2017a). Domestic violence prevention. In B. Teasdale & M. Bradley (Eds.), Preventing crime and violence (1 ed.). New York City, NY: Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
  27. Edwards, K. M., Rodenhizer-Stämpfli, K. A., & Eckstein, R. P. (2017b). School personnel’s bystander action in situations of dating violence, sexual violence, and sexual harassment among high school teens: A qualitative analysis. Journal of Interpersonal Violence., 1, 886260517698821.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260517698821.Google Scholar
  28. Edwards, K. M., Banyard, V. L., Sessarego, S. N., Stanely, L. R., Mitchell, K. J., Echstein, R. P., et al. (2018). Measurement tools to assess relationship abuse and sexual assault prevention program effectiveness among youth. Psychology of Violence, 8, 537–545.  https://doi.org/10.1037/vio0000151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Edward, K. M., Waterman E. A., Lee K.D. M., Himlin, L., Parm K., Banyard V. L. (2019) Feasibility and Acceptability of a High School Relationship Abuse and Sexual Assault Bystander Prevention Program: School Personnel and Student Perspectives.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260518824655.
  30. Espelage, D. L., Low, S., Polanin, J. R., & Brown, E. C. (2015). Clinical trial of Second Step© middle-school program: Impact on aggression & victimization. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 37, 52–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Foshee, V. A., & Langwick, V. L. (2010). Safe Dates: An adolescent dating abuse prevention curriculum (2nd ed.). Center City, MI: Hazeldon.Google Scholar
  32. Foshee, V. A., Bauman, K. E., Ennett, S. T., Linder, G. F., Benefield, T. S., & Suchindran, C. (2004). Assessing the long-term effects of the Safe Dates program and a booster in preventing and reducing adolescent dating violence victimization and perpetration. American Journal of Public Health, 94, 619–624.  https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.94.4.619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Foshee, V. A., Bauman, K. E., Ennett, S. T., Suchindran, C., Benefield, T. S., & Linder, G. F. (2005). Assessing the effects of the dating violence prevention program “Safe Dates” using random coefficient regression modeling. Prevention Science, 6, 245–258.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-005-0007-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Gad, A. M., & Youssif, N. A. (2006). Linear mixed models of longitudinal data with nonrandom dropouts. Journal of Data Science, 4, 447–460.Google Scholar
  35. Leyva, C. P., & Eckstein, R. P. (2015). Bringing in the Bystander—high school curriculum. Durham, NH: University of New Hampshire.Google Scholar
  36. Mallinckrodt, C. H., Clark, W. S., & David, S. R. (2001). Accounting for dropout bias using mixed-effects models. Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics, 11, 9–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Manganello, J. A. (2008). Health literacy and adolescents: A framework and agenda for future research. Health Education Research, 23, 840–847.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Mazza, G. L., Enders, C. K., & Ruehlman, L. S. (2015). Addressing item-level missing data: A comparison of proration and full information maximum likelihood estimation. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 50, 504–519.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2015.1068157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. McMahon, S., & Farmer, G. L. (2011). An updated measure for assessing subtle rape myths. Social Work Research, 35, 71–81.  https://doi.org/10.1093/swr/35.2.71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 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.Google Scholar
  41. Moschella, E. A., Bennett, S., & Banyard, V. L. (2016). Beyond the situational model: Bystander action consequences to intervening in situations involving sexual violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 32, 682–702.Google Scholar
  42. Moynihan, M. M., Banyard, V. L., Arnold, J. S., Eckstein, R. P., & Stapleton, J. G. (2011). Sisterhood may be powerful for reducing sexual and intimate partner violence: An evaluation of the bringing in the bystander in-person program with sorority members. Violence Against Women, 17, 703–719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Moynihan, M. M., Banyard, V. L., Cares, A. C., Potter, S. J., Williams, L. M., & Stapleton, J. G. (2015). Encouraging responses in sexual and relationship violence prevention: What program effects remain one year later? Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 30, 110–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Payne, D. L., Lonsway, K. A., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (1999). Rape myth acceptance: Exploration of its structure and its measurement using the Ilinois rape myth acceptance scale. Journal of Research in Personality, 33, 27–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 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, 47–65.Google Scholar
  46. Potter, S. J., & Moynihan, M. M. (2011). Bringing in the bystander in-person prevention program to a US military installation: Results from a pilot study. Military Medicine, 176, 870–875.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Prochaska, J. O., & DiClemente, C. C. (1984). Self change processes, self efficacy and decisional balance across five stages of smoking cessation. Progress in Clinical and Biological Research, 156, 131–140.Google Scholar
  48. Prochaska, J. O., DiClemente, C. C., & Norcross, J. C. (1992). In search of how people change: Applications to addictive behaviors. American Psychologist, 47, 1102–1114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Rogers, E. M. (2002). Diffusion of preventive innovations. Addictive Behaviors, 27, 989–993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Rosenstock, I. M. (1974). Historical origins of the health belief model. Health Education & Behavior, 2, 328–335.Google Scholar
  51. Taylor, B. G., Stein, N. D., Mumford, E. A., & Woods, D. (2013). Shifting boundaries: An experimental evaluation of a dating violence prevention program in middle schools. Prevention Science, 14, 64–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Ttofi, M. M., & Farrington, D. P. (2011). Effectiveness of school-based programs to reduce bullying: A systematic and meta-analytic review. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 7, 27–56.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-010-9109-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Valente, T. W., & Pampuang, P. (2007). Identifying opinion leaders to promote behavior change. Health Education, 34, 881–896.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Society for Prevention Research 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Katie M. Edwards
    • 1
    Email author
  • Victoria L. Banyard
    • 2
  • Stephanie N. Sessarego
    • 3
  • Emily A. Waterman
    • 3
  • Kimberly J. Mitchell
    • 4
  • Hong Chang
    • 5
  1. 1.Departments of Psychology and Prevention Innovations Research CenterUniversity of New HampshireDurhamUSA
  2. 2.Rutgers University, School of Social WorkNew BrunswickUSA
  3. 3.Department of PsychologyUniversity of New HampshireDurhamUSA
  4. 4.Departments of Psychology and Crimes against Children Research CenterDurhamUSA
  5. 5.Tufts Medical Center, Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy StudiesBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations