Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Measurement of Bystander Actions in Violence Intervention Evaluation: Opportunities and Challenges

  • Injury Epidemiology (S Marshall, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Epidemiology Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose of Review

This review discusses design and methodological challenges specific to measuring bystander actions in the evaluation of bystander-based violence prevention programming. “Bystanders” are defined as people who are present immediately before, during, and/or after a violent event, but are not a perpetrator nor the intended victim. Bystander-based violence prevention programs seek to prevent or mitigate violent events by empowering bystanders to intervene on acts of violence and social norms that promulgate violence.

Recent Findings

Effective bystander-based violence prevention programs demonstrate increased bystander intentions, actions, and attitudes [Bringing in the Bystander: Banyard et al. J Community Psychol. 2007;35:463-481; iSCREAM: McMahon et al. Health Education Research. 2015;30(4):554-568; The Men's Project: Gidycz et al. Violence Against Women. 2011;7(6):720-742; and Green Dot: Coker et al. Violence Against Women 2011;17:777-796] lowered violence acceptance scores (Coker et al. Violence Against Women 2011;17:777-796; Banyard et al. J Coll Stud Dev 2009;50(4)446-457; Cares et al. Violence Against Women. 2015;21:65-87; McMahon et al. Health Education Research. 2015;30(4):554-568; Moynihan et al. J Interper Viol. 2015;30:110-132) and reduce sexual violence perpetration and victimization (Coker et al. Am J Prev Med. 2017;52(5):566-578; Millet et al. Am J Prev Med 2013;45(1):108-112; Gidcyz et al. Violence Against Women. 2011;7(6):720-742). However, bystander-based violence prevention programs are methodologically challenging to evaluate, due to the wide diversity of programs being implemented and the multifactorial and contextual nature of acts of violence.

Summary

Measures of bystander actions temporally connected to specific, high-risk opportunities are recommended approaches to capture bystander experiences and address the methodological challenges in measuring bystander actions and evaluating violence prevention programming.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: •• Of major importance

  1. Banyard VL, Moynihan MM, Plante EG. Sexual violence prevention through bystander education: an experimental evaluation. J Community Psychol. 2007;35:463–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. McMahon S, Winter SC, Palmer JE, Postmus JL, Peterson NA, Zucker S, et al. A randomized controlled trial of a multi-dose bystander intervention program using peer education theater. Health Educ Res. 2015;30(4)544–568.

  3. Gidycz CA, Orchowski LM, Berkowitz AD. Preventing sexual aggression among college men: an evaluation of a social norms and bystander intervention program. Violence Against Women. 2011;17(6):720–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801211409727.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Coker AL, Cook-Craig PG, Williams CM, Fisher BS, Clear ER, Garcia LS, et al. Evaluation of green dot: an active bystander intervention to reduce sexual violence on college campuses. Violence Against Women. 2011;17:777–96.

  5. Banyard VL, Moynihan MM, Crossman MT. Reducing sexual violence on campus: the role of student leaders as empowered bystanders. J Coll Stud Dev. 2009;50(4):446–57.

  6. Cares AC, Banyard VL, Moynihan MM, Williams LM, Potter SJ, Stapleton JG. Changing attitudes about being a bystander to violence: translating an in-personal sexual violence prevention program to a new campus. Violence Against Women. 2015;21:65–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Moynihan MM, Banyard VL, Cares AC, Potter SJ, Williams LM, Stapleton JG. Encouraging responses in sexual and relationship violence prevention what program effects remain 1 year later? J Interpers Viol. 2015;30:110–32.

  8. •• Coker AL, Bush HM, Cook-Craig PG, et al. Randomized controlled trial testing bystander effectiveness to reduce violence. Am J Prev Med. 2017;52(5):566-578. Builds on the existing literature by providing effectiveness evidence for bystander intervention programming to reduce sexual violence used (perpetration). The school-randomized trial is the largest RCT to evaluate bystander program effectiveness in high school students. Data from 89,707 surveys were aggregated to make community-level comparisons for intervention (n=13) and control (n=13) schools. In an intent-to-treat analysis, the authors found that school-level reports of sexual violence and sexual harassment used (perpetration) and experienced (victimization) declined over time in intervention schools.

  9. Miller E, Tancredi DJ, McCauley HL, Decker MR, Virata MC, Anderson HA, et al. One-year follow-up of a coach-delivered dating violence prevention program: a cluster randomized controlled trial. Am J Prev Med. 2013;45(1):108–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Black MC, Basile KC, Breiding MJ, et al. The National Intimate Partner and sexual violence survey (NISVS): 2010 summary report. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Coker AL, Bush HM, Fisher BS, et al. Multi-college bystander intervention evaluation for violence prevention. Am J Prev Med. 2016;50:8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Krebs CP, Lindquist CH, Warner TD, Fisher BS, Martin SL. The campus sexual assault (CSA) study. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice; 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Krebs CP, Lindquist CH, Warner TD, Fisher BS, Martin SL. College women’s experiences with physically forced, alcohol- or other drug-enabled, and drug-facilitated sexual assault before and since entering college. J Am Coll Heal. 2009;57:639–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Sargent KS, Jouriles EN, Rosenfield D, McDonald R. A high school-based evaluation of TakeCARE, a video bystander program to prevent adolescent relationship violence. J Youth Adolesc. 2017;46(3):633–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Taylor BG, Mumford EA. A national descriptive portrait of adolescent relationship abuse: results from the National Survey on teen relationships and intimate violence. J Interpers Viol. 2016;31(6):963–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. •• Cantor D, Fisher WB. Report on the AAU campus climate survey on sexual assault and sexual misconduct: Association of American Universities; 2015. Contribution to the literature as the first large multi-college comparative survey to use the same methodology in measuring the incidence, prevalence, characteristics of incidents, and disclosure of nonconsensual sexual contact (penetration and sexual touching) by tactics (physical force, drugs and alcohol, coercion, absence of affirmative consent). Wide variation in rates were noted across colleges. Sexual assault and misconduct rates are highest among females, sexual minority students, and freshmen. Few incidents were reported to campus authorities. Opportunities for bystander actions were also evaluated. Almost half of the students have witnessed a drunk person heading for a sexual encounter yet most did not try to intervene.

  17. McMahon S, Postmus JL, Koenick RA. Conceptualizing the engaging bystander approach to sexual violence prevention on college campuses. J Coll Stud Dev. 2011;52:115–30. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2011.0002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault. Not Alone: The First Report of the White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault; 2014. https://www.justice.gov/ovw/page/file/905942/download. Accessed 12 Feb 2019.

  19. Banyard VL, Plante EG, Moynihan MM. Bystander education: bringing a broader community perspective to sexual violence prevention. J Community Psychol. 2004;32:61–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Berkowitz AD. Fostering men's responsibility for preventing sexual assault. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. In: Schewe PA, editor. Preventing violence in relationships: interventions across the life span. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 2002. p. 163–96.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  21. Moynihan MM, Banyard VL. Community responsibility for preventing sexual violence: a pilot study with campus Greeks and intercollegiate athletes. J Prev Interv Community. 2008;36:23–38.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Moynihan MM, Banyard VL, Arnold JS, Eckstein RP, Stapleton JG. Engaging intercollegiate athletes in preventing and intervening in sexual and intimate partner violence. J Am Coll Heal. 2010;59:197–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Potter SJ, Moynihan MM. Bringing in the bystander in-person prevention program to a US military installation: results from a pilot study. Mil Med. 2011;176(8):870–5. https://doi.org/10.7205/MILMED-D-10-00483.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Katz J. Reconstructing masculinity in the locker room: the mentors in violence prevention project. Harv Educ Rev. 1995;65(2):163–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Ahrens CE, Rich MD, Ullman JB. Rehearsing for real life: the impact of the InterACT sexual assault prevention program on self-reported likelihood of engaging in bystander interventions. Violence Against Women. 2011;17(6):760–76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Kleinsasser A, Jouriles EN, McDonald R, Rosenfield D. An online bystander intervention program for the prevention of sexual violence. Psychol Violence. 2015;5(3):227–35. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037393.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Salazar LF, Vivolo-Kantor A, Hardin J, Berkowitz A. A web-based sexual violence bystander intervention for male college students: randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res. 2014;16(9):203. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.3426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Elias-Lambert N, Black BM. Bystander sexual violence prevention program: outcomes for high-and low-risk university men. J Interpers Violence. 2016;31(19):3211–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Senn CY, Forrest A. And then one night when I went to class...: the impact of sexual assault bystander intervention workshops incorporated in academic courses. Psychol Violence. 2016 Oct;6(4):607–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. •• Banyard VL. Toward the Next Generation of Bystander Prevention of Sexual and Relationship Violence. In: Action coils to engage communities. Berlin: Springer; 2015. ISBN 978–3–319-23170-9. This book informs the current review by 1) providing a framework to inform bystander evaluation research toward violence prevention, 2) integrating research addressing who helps others and under what conditions, and 3) by outlining a strategic plan for new research approaches and practices.

  31. Banyard VL, Plante EG, Moynihan MM. Rape prevention through bystander education: bringing a broader community perspective to sexual violence prevention: US Department of Justice; 2005. p. 1–206.

  32. Barrett LF, Barrett DJ. An introduction to computerized experience sampling in psychology. Soc Sci Comput Rev. 2001 May;19(2):175–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. •• McMahon S, Palmer JE, Banyard V, Murphy M, Gidycz CA. Measuring bystander behavior in the context of sexual violence prevention: Lessons learned and new directions. J Interpers Violence. 2017;32(16):2396–418. Contributes to the literature as a compilation of four college-based evaluation experiences. The authors provide approaches, lessons learned, and recommendations for future directions for the evaluation of bystander intervention programming on campuses. The authors recommend that future evaluations must appropriately capture opportunity to intervene, action frequency, and situations and the context of those involved.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Krauss A, Jouriles EN, Yule K, Grych JH, Sargent KS, Banyard VL. Adverse consequences to assisting victims of campus violence: initial investigations among college students. J Interpers Viol. 2017;Dec 1. Epub ahead of print. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260517746944.

  35. Lindo JM, Siminski PM, Swensen ID. College party culture and sexual assault: Am Economics Journal: Applied Economics. 2018. 10(1):236-265.

  36. Scollon CN, Prieto CK, Diener E. Experience sampling: promises and pitfalls, strength and weaknesses. In: Assessing well-being 2009. Dordrecht: Springer. p. 157–80.

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to acknowledge the contributions of Professor Bonnie S. Fisher (University of Cincinnati, College of Criminal Justice) to this paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Public Health, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA

    Heather M. Bush

  2. College of Medicine, University of Kentucky, 800 Rose St., Pavilion H, Room C359, Lexington, KY, 40536, USA

    Samuel C. Bell

  3. College of Medicine, University of Kentucky, 800 Rose St., Pavilion H, Room C361, Lexington, KY, 40536, USA

    Ann L. Coker

Authors
  1. Heather M. Bush
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Samuel C. Bell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ann L. Coker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ann L. Coker.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

Heather M. Bush, Samuel C. Bell, and Ann L. Coker each declare no potential conflicts of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

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

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Injury Epidemiology

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bush, H.M., Bell, S.C. & Coker, A.L. Measurement of Bystander Actions in Violence Intervention Evaluation: Opportunities and Challenges. Curr Epidemiol Rep 6, 208–214 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40471-019-00196-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40471-019-00196-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation