An Exploratory Analysis of College Students’ Response and Reporting Behavior Regarding Intimate Partner Violence Victimization and Perpetration Among Their Friends

Abstract

Over the last several decades, an extensive literature has documented the prevalence of dating violence on college campuses. As a result, initiatives to promote awareness of dating violence on college campuses have proliferated and models of “bystander intervention” have been developed. Bystander intervention asserts that by giving all students information concerning the prevalence and warning signs of dating violence, these individuals will “say something” when they see problem behavior. However, a paucity of empirical research exists concerning whether students actually report their observation of dating violence among their peers. In the present study, a sample of college freshman (n = 275) was surveyed regarding their willingness to report dating violence behaviors among their friends. Findings indicate that a slight majority of respondents report that they would report dating violence victimization among their friends to university officials (54%) and/or law enforcement (56%) while fewer indicated they would report perpetration, 38% and 42%, respectively. Importantly, respondents overwhelmingly report that they would attempt to intervene in the dating violence victimization (87%) and perpetration (84%). Implications of these findings for campus safety initiatives and bystander education models are discussed.

Keywords

intimate partner violence college students bystander intervention

Dating Violence on the College Campuses

Research continues to show high rates of intimate partner violence (hereinafter IPV), including physical, emotional/psychological, and sexual violence among college students. In their seminal study, Bogal-Allbritten and Allbritten (1985) demonstrated that one in five college students reported personally experiencing relationship violence while three in five college students reported knowing someone involved in a violent relationship. Recent studies have focused on the widespread problem of IPV in college relationships. Findings suggest that physical aggression occurs in approximately 20% to 30% of college student relationships, psychological aggression occurs in 50% to 80%, and sexual aggression occurs in 15% to 25% of college student relationships (Gover, Kaukinen, & Fox, 2008; Shorey, Stuart, & Cornelius, 2011).

IPV has been associated with a myriad of negative consequences that may impact college student survivors’ overall well-being as well as their ability to be successful in their college career. Problems may include physical health effects such as chronic diseases and headaches (Koss, Koss, & Woodruff, 1991), eating disorders (Ackard & Neumark-Sztainer, 2002), and psychological conditions like Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (Foa & Rothbaum, 1998), depression (Callahan, Tolman, & Saunders, 2003), self-harming behaviors, suicidal ideation (Stepakoff, 1998; Coker et al., 2000), and sleep disorders (Norris & Feldman-Summers, 1981). In addition, survivors may suffer from adverse emotional consequences including feelings of ongoing fear, low self-esteem, self-blame, guilt, and shock (Petrak, 2002).

IPV not only affects the primary victim, but may also impact the broader college community. Research suggests that victims of IPV often disclose their victimization to someone and that many survivors disclose their victimization experience to informal support providers such as family, friends, and significant others (Golding, Siegel, Sorenson, Burnam, & Stein, 1989; Starzynski, Ullman, Filipas, & Townsend, 2005). Few survivors utilize formal support agencies (e.g., police or hospitals) and even fewer utilize only formal support providers (Golding et al., 1989; Starzynski et al., 2005). Research also suggests that victims of IPV may turn to school officials, specifically professors, for support post victimization (Richards, Branch, & Hayes, in press) with the majority of sampled faculty members reporting that they have received numerous student disclosures of sexual assault and/or IPV victimization throughout their careers (Branch, Hayes-Smith, & Richards, 2011). Finally, recent research regarding sexual violence among college students reveals that college student victims may disclose victimization to their friends, and that oftentimes friends do not know how to react to the disclosure (Ahrens & Campbell, 2000; Banyard, Moynihan, Walsh, Cohn, & Wards, 2010; Branch & Richards, 2013), and may therefore sustain secondary trauma in processing their friends’ victimization experience (Banyard et al., 2010; Branch & Richards, 2013).

Despite the high rate of victimization among college students, IPV may go unnoticed in the college community for several reasons. First, college students often arrive on campus with limited life experience and knowledge concerning romantic relationships. As a result, many college students may harbor uncertainty about what constitutes acceptable adult behavior, which contributes to the difficultly in recognizing physically or emotionally abusive/coercive behavior as IPV. In addition, given that college is a time of new-found independence, college students may not want to accept that they have experienced IPV victimization, because it may make them feel as if they have failed at taking care of themselves. To illustrate, results from the National College Women Sexual Victimization Study indicated 44% of sampled female students did not report a completed rape to police or the school because they did not want their family to know (Fisher, Cullen, & Turner, 2000; Fisher, Daigle, Cullen, & Turner, 2003).

There may also be an overall lack of general knowledge about how students can help themselves or others who experience dating violence. Results from a 2011 College Dating Violence and Abuse Poll of 508 college students indicated 38% of students in the sample did not know how to get help for themselves if they were ever the victim of dating violence. Perhaps more troubling, 58% of students stated they did not know how to help someone else who was a victim of dating abuse (Knowledge Networks, 2011). Previous studies indicate that people are more likely to intervene in serious situations (like witnessing dating violence) when they have seen others model this intervention behavior successfully (Bryan & Test, 1967; Rushton & Campbell, 1977; Coker et al., 2011). Bystander intervention programs aim to do just that.

Bystander Approach

The bystander approach suggests that individuals in a community can intervene when faced with situations involving interpersonal violence. Bystander intervention is well established in the field of social psychology, largely to explore individual’s reactions to witnessing medical emergencies (Latane & Darley, 1970). Universities and Colleges began to adopt this approach to address the prevention of campus violence around the 1990s (Coker et al., 2011). Bystander intervention shifts the focus of prevention efforts from potential victims or perpetrators to other individuals in the community (i.e., peers and community members). Specifically, this approach suggests an individual can intervene prior to an assault occurring (primary prevention), during the assault (secondary prevention), or after the assault has occurred (tertiary prevention) (McMahon & Banyard, 2012). In addition, the bystander approach has been utilized in the prevention of sexual violence on college campuses nationwide (Coker et al., 2011; McMahon, Postmus, & Koenick, 2011; McMahon & Banyard, 2012).

In an effort to spread awareness concerning IPV among college students, violence prevention and intervention experts have recently begun to develop models that utilize bystander intervention mechanisms in situations of IPV (Banyard, Plante, & Moynihan, 2004; McMahon et al., 2011). IPV has distinctive characteristics that differentiate it from medical emergencies and sexual assault. Specifically, IPV typically involves a pattern of abusive actions or behavior that is likely to escalate in frequency and intensity over time (Office of Justice Programs, 2011). As a result, there may be multiple opportunities for a bystander to observe abusive behaviors and intervene.

There are also several potential risks associated with bystander intervention. One such risk is the fear of social embarrassment. This fear is typically based in the belief that the bystander is not knowledgeable enough to determine whether the situation at hand is really an emergency that would warrant their intervention or assistance (McMahon & Banyard, 2012; Coker et al., 2011¹; Latane & Nida, 1981²). This risk is related to primary and secondary interventions. Fear of social embarrassment may be especially salient in college student populations. For example, according to a recent poll of college students, fear of various social consequences (e.g., that the abuser would make their life difficult, that people would know they were the reporter) was the most commonly cited reasons why students were reluctant to intervene in dating violence situations (Knowledge Networks, 2011). Another inherent risk occurs when the bystander influences the victim to take action before they are psychologically ready to do so. Perhaps this is best evidenced by a commonly cited frustration for law enforcement officers responding to IPV, “the infrequency with which victims prosecute or leave the abusive situation” (Toon, Hart, Welch, Coronado, & Hunting, 2005). Finally, previous research with adults and adolescents suggests that there is the real or perceived risk of physical intimidation or harm to the bystander for their intervention efforts in instances of IPV (Williams & Becker, 1999; Weisz & Black, 2008).

The bystander approach for IPV intervention on college campuses can be informed by the literature regarding the relationship of informal social control and collective efficacy on offending among community residents (Sampson, Raudenbush, & Earls, 1997). Sampson et al. (1997) defined collective efficacy as “social cohesion among neighbors” (p. 918) and scholars assert that such cohesion can be used to regulate community members’ behavior, including interpersonal crime (Sampson et al., 1997) and, specifically, IPV (Emery, Jolley, & Wu, 2010). Frye et al.’s (2012) investigation of informal social control and the prevention of IPV in neighborhoods demonstrated that community residents reported a willingness to reach out to their neighbors who were victims of IPV, make perpetrators aware that the violence was heard, and report victimization to the police. Likewise, the bystander intervention approach relies on harnessing the collective efficacy inherent in the college community to appeal for bystanders to intervene. If the standard becomes a violence-free campus, then bystanders are provided the “permission” to step in on behalf of victims and perpetrators are provided a “rational incentive against perpetration” (Emery et al., 2010).

Bystander intervention programs were designed to help students learn more about dating violence and afford them with examples of how they should intervene. The information these programs provide attempt to accomplish several goals. First, information about the dating violence continuum helps students properly identify dating violence behaviors. Second, bystander intervention campaigns provide students with examples of how to safely and effectively respond or intervene as a bystander to dating violence. Specifically, these campaigns provide students with videos and posters that “model” appropriate intervention behaviors. Another goal is to provide students with information concerning who they can contact for additional help. Education and information dissemination efforts are extremely important in light of the recent poll results that indicate that most students report confusion as to how to help someone experiencing dating violence (Knowledge Networks, 2011).

Present Study

Bystander intervention asserts that providing students adequate information about the prevalence and warning signs of IPV will empower them to “say something” and intervene when they witness such behavior occurring. However, the empirical research concerning a student’s willingness to report their observations of IPV among their peers is lacking. In the present study, a large sample of college freshman (N = 275) was surveyed regarding their willingness to report dating violence behaviors among their friends. The following research questions guided the current analysis:

Research Question 1: How do participants report they would respond to disclosures of IPV among their friends?

Research Question 2: How do participants report they would respond as bystanders to IPV among their friends?

Method

This study was reviewed and approved by the university’s Institutional Review Board prior to data collection. Participants were recruited through convenience sampling of first-year seminar classes at a private liberal arts university in a southern state from March 2012 to May 2012. A member of the research team contacted all professors (via their university email) who were scheduled to teach a first-year seminar class in the spring of 2012 about administering the survey in their courses. Upon the professors’ approval, a research team member administered the survey during regular class time. Participants were informed that the survey was voluntary and that their responses would remain anonymous; no identifying information was collected from participants. All participants were provided a pamphlet/debriefing sheet concerning IPV and local resources. The questionnaire consisted of 72 questions and took an average of 20 to 25 min to complete.

Results

The sample consisted of N = 275 undergraduate students who were enrolled in a first-year seminar in spring of 2012. The majority of respondents were female (62%) and freshmen (92%). A slight majority of respondents reported being 19 years old (53%), with the remaining sample reporting ages of 17 (<.1%), 18 (40%), 20 (3%), or 21 (1%). In regard to race/ethnicity, 66% of participants reported their race as White, 13% reported Hispanic, 8% reported African American, and 7% reported their race as “Other.”

First, participants were asked questions concerning their potential response(s) to disclosures of IPV among their friends. Results are presented in Table 1. Results demonstrate that the majority of respondents (98%) reported they would encourage a friend to get help, while 92% also indicated that they would encourage their friend to end the relationship. Very few participants (10%) agreed that if a friend disclosed IPV victimization, “all they could do was listen.” However, 25% of participants agreed that if a friend wanted help for their IPV victimization, they would ask for it. Finally, 25% of participants reported that they would not report IPV victimization to anyone unless their friend asked them to report.

Table 1.

IPV Disclosure Response Behaviors (N = 275).

Variable	n	%
If a friend tells me they are being abused by a partner . . .
I would encourage them to get help	270	98
I would encourage them to end the relationship	252	92
All I can do is listen	10	4
If my friend wanted help they would ask for it	70	25
I would not report it unless my friend asked me to	69	25

Note. IPV = intimate partner violence.

Next, participants were asked questions concerning whether they would report IPV victimization and/or perpetration if they witnessed it among their friends. Results are presented in Table 2. Beginning with IPV victimization, 54% of participants agreed that if they witnessed a friend being victimized by a partner they would report the victimization to the police. Comparatively, 38% of respondents agreed that if they witnessed a friend abusing a partner they would report it to police. Likewise, 56% of participants agreed that they would report IPV victimization among their friends to campus officials but only 42% agreed that they would report IPV perpetration. In addition, 87% of participants reported that they would try to stop IPV victimization themselves while 84% reported they would try to stop IPV perpetration.

Table 2.

IPV Bystander Reporting Behavior (N = 275).

	If I witnessed a friend being abused by a partner I would . . .		If I witnessed a friend being abusive toward a partner I would . . .
Variable	n	%	n	%
Report it to the police	149	54	104	38
Report it to campus officials	155	56	115	42
Try to stop it myself	239	87	231	84

Note. IPV = intimate partner violence.

Discussion and Future Research

IPV has been recognized as a significant problem on college campuses. As a result, universities have begun to implement programming to raise awareness about the issue. Traditional efforts focused on victims and perpetrators of such violence but more recently activists and scholars have begun to explore the potential effectiveness of bystanders in intervening and defusing forms of gendered violence. While bystander models for IPV have proliferated on college campuses, a dearth of empirical literature exists concerning college students’ responses as bystanders. Using a convenience sample of college students, the present exploratory research examined how college students reported they would react to IPV victimization and perpetration among their friends.

When participants were surveyed about their reactions to disclosures of IPV victimization, an overwhelming majority of respondents (98%) reported they would encourage a friend to get help. This finding is especially important given the growing body of literature that demonstrates victims of IPV are more likely to disclose to informal support providers rather than formal sources of support. Such results are encouraging given the years of efforts by scholars and grassroots activists to spread awareness concerning IPV among the college community and to provide students easy access to free, confidential services such as counseling centers, women’s centers, and court advocates to student victims. Clearly, resources must be easily identifiable/accessible so that students who receive disclosures from their friends can locate the resources and help victims navigate the process.

The overwhelming majority of respondents (92%) reported that they would encourage their friend to end the relationship. This is a significant finding given that research has documented that when victims of IPV leave an abuser their risk of deadly IPV increases (Campbell et al., 2003). Bystander intervention models must highlight the careful planning necessary for victims to safely leave an abuser. Safety planning may be even more important in the college community where victims and perpetrators may continue to share common space, such as dining halls, dormitories, and even classrooms, after a victim leaves. Safety planning must include a diverse group of campus officials and may require the cooperation of different campus actors/offices in situations where students need their academic schedules and/or residences altered.

While very few participants (10%) agreed that if a friend disclosed IPV victimization, “all they could do was listen” one quarter agreed that if a friend wanted help for their IPV victimization, they would ask for it. This finding indicates that students must be educated concerning what to do if a friend discloses victimization. Although victims should be empowered concerning their postvictimization behavior, they may not know how to proceed or be aware of the resources available to them. After all, disclosing victimization is often a victim’s first attempt in obtaining help.

Participants were also asked questions concerning whether they would report IPV victimization and/or perpetration if they witnessed it among their friends. A little more than half of respondents (54%) agreed that, as a bystander of IPV victimization, they would report the violence to law enforcement while less than 40% of respondents reported that they would inform law enforcement if they saw perpetration of IPV. In addition, a slight majority of respondents agreed that they would report IPV victimization and roughly 40% would report perpetration to school officials. These findings highlight the importance of educating students about their role as bystanders. Only slightly half indicated that they would report victimization and fewer students indicated they would report perpetration. Therefore, students may be witnessing IPV victimization and perpetration but are not necessarily “saying something.” Research is needed to clarify barriers to “saying something” about IPV that students identify. Such findings also demonstrate the importance of educating university faculty, staff, and administrators regarding local/campus resources for survivors of IPV.

Limitations

Although the present exploratory study adds to the literature concerning college students’ responses as bystanders, it is not without limitations. First, our findings are restricted to a sample of college students from one private liberal arts university in a southern state. Second, the researchers exclusively focused on students enrolled in first-year seminar classes during the spring semester of 2012. Thus, the results may not be generalizable to more senior students. Future studies must attempt to replicate the current study with more representative samples of college students. The prospective nature of the current survey may also present a limitation. More specifically, instead of asking students about past bystander intervention experiences or actions directly, questions were based on hypothetical situations that lent themselves to bystander interventions. Furthermore, students were asked specifically about how they would react to IPV victimization and perpetration among their friends. Future studies should include prospective and retrospective questioning that addresses bystander intervention. These studies should also examine victimization and perpetration among peers in general, in addition to “friends” specifically.

Prior literature has documented that campus officials are often confused as to their role in assisting students with “personal problems” as well as issues of liability in situations where students may be harmed (Hayes-Smith, Richards, & Branch, 2010). Thus, universities must develop clear definitions regarding student conduct as well as procedures for dealing with students who violate such policies. Information concerning such polices/procedures must be widely disseminated using divergent methods including faculty and student handbooks, student orientations, as well as face-to-face forums such as departmental faculty meetings and residential dorm meetings. Using such forums, faculty and students will have reoccurring opportunities to ask questions about the policies and may be consistently informed of any changes.

The current findings also demonstrate that the overwhelming majority of respondents report that they would personally attempt to stop IPV victimization and/or perpetration themselves. This represents a disconnect between “good intentions” by bystanders and proper procedures for campus safety. Universities must develop a chain of command within their campus administration and/or safety office to respond to IPV and disseminate these procedures within their bystander intervention education model.

Conclusion

The bystander approach shifts the focus of prevention and intervention responsibilities from a perpetrator/victim centered model to one that includes peers and the community as a whole. Bystander intervention campaigns attempt to help students assess relationships for IPV by providing information concerning the continuum of dating violence. The continuum describes the range of violence that often occurs in relationships where dating violence in present. With the guidance of such a continuum, opportunities for a bystander to intervene may be more readily apparent because bystanders may repeatedly observe abusive behavior in multiple forms (i.e., physical, verbal, psychological) over time. However, what is the expectation of bystanders in regard to intervention in IPV? The present research indicates that college respondents would be more likely to personally intervene rather than report behavior to a school official or law enforcement if they saw a friend engaging in or experiencing dating violence.

While most campaigns are specifically targeted at reaching college students, effective tools for bystander intervention should be expanded to include the entire college community. It is important to remember that professors tend to receive many disclosures of IPV victimizations throughout their careers (Branch et al., 2011). As such, it is essential that all members of the community know how to respond to reduce the occurrence of IPV on their campuses. Intervention efforts should provide all members of the community with knowledge to help them assess the dangerousness of each situation, as well as essential tools to help them determine the most appropriate level of intervention (primary, secondary, or tertiary). This includes providing them with training that assists them in better identifying abusive behaviors as well as modeling appropriate and safe intervention techniques. Knowing which level of intervention (primary, secondary, or tertiary) is most appropriate may help further reduce the potential risks of bystander intervention efforts.

Footnotes

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) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

Author Biographies

Kathryn A. Branch is an associate professor and internship coordinator in the Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice at the University of Tampa. Her current research focuses on the impact of sexual assault and dating violence on secondary victims such as faculty and friends of survivors. Her recent work can be found in Feminist Criminology, Journal of Interpersonal Violence, and Violence Against Women. She is an active participant in community efforts to raise awareness about sexual assault and dating violence. She is involved with the Red Flag initiative at the University of Tampa, is currently an Editorial Board Member for One Student, and has participated in Operation Freefall for the past 2 years. In 2012, she received an Outstanding Criminology Ambassador Alumni Award from the University of South Florida’s Department of Criminology.

Tara N. Richards is an assistant professor in the School of Criminal Justice at the University of Baltimore. She also holds a research coordinator position in the Department of Mental Health Law and Policy at the University of South Florida’s Louis de la Parte Mental Health Institute where she is involved in ongoing funded research on opioid abuse/treatment for Florida’s Agency for Health Care Administration. She earned her PhD in criminology from the University of South Florida in 2011. Her major research interests include violence against women; mental health, substance abuse, and trauma/violence; and evaluation research. Some of her most recent published work appears in Crime & Delinquency, Violence and Victims, and Women & Criminal Justice. She is the recipient of the 2011 American Society of Criminology Division of Women and Crime’s graduate scholar award and was honored by the University of South Florida’s Department of Criminology with an Outstanding Criminology Ambassador Alumni Award in 2012.

Elizabeth C. Dretsch is an assistant professor in the Department of Criminal Justice at Troy University. Her research interests include perceptions and responses to domestic violence, the response to mental illness within criminal justice agencies, perceptions of law enforcement careers, and cybercrimes. Some of her more recent research contributions can be found in Journal of Interpersonal Violence, Women and Criminal Justice, and International Journal of Cyber Criminology. She has also published several encyclopedia articles concerning various aspects of domestic violence in the Encyclopedia of Domestic Violence and the Encyclopedia of Police Science. She was recently honored with the 2011-2012 Teacher of the Year Award from Troy University.

References

Ackard

Neumark-Sztainer

(2002). Date violence and date rape among adolescents: Associations with disordered eating behaviors and psychological health. Child Abuse & Neglect, 26, 455-473.

Ahrens

Campbell

(2000). Assisting rape survivors as they recover from rape: The impact on friends. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 15, 959-986.

Banyard

Moynihan

Walsh

Cohn

Wards

(2010). Friends of survivors: The community impact of unwanted sexual experiences. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25, 242-256.

Banyard

Plante

Moynihan

(2004). Bystander education: Bringing a broader community perspective to sexual violence prevention. Journal of Community Psychology, 32, 61-79.

Bogal-Allbritten

R. B.

Allbritten

W. L.

(1985). The hidden victims: Courtship violence among college students. Journal of College Student Personnel, 26, 201-204.

Branch

K. A.

Richards

T. N.

(2013). The effects of receiving a rape disclosure: College friends’ stories. Violence Against Women, 19, 658-670.

Branch

Hayes-Smith

Richards

T. N.

(2011). Professors’ experiences with student disclosures of sexual assault and intimate partner violence: How “helping” students can inform teaching practices. Feminist Criminology, 6, 54-75.

Bryan

J. H.

Test

M. A.

(1967). Models and helping: Naturalistic studies in aiding behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 6, 400-407.

Callahan

Tolman

Saunders

(2003). Adolescent dating violence victimization and psychological well-being. Journal of Adolescent Research, 18, 664-681.

10.

Campbell

J. C.

Webster

Koziol-McLain

Block

Campbell

Curry

M. A.

. . . Laughon

(2003). Risk factors for femicide in abusive relationships: Results from a multi-site case control study. American Journal of Public Health, 93, 1089-1097.

11.

Coker

Cook-Craig

Williams

Fisher

Clear

Garcia

Hegge

(2011). Evaluation of Green Dot: An active bystander intervention to reduce sexual violence on college campuses. Violence Against Women, 17, 777-796.

12.

Coker

McKeown

Sanderson

Davis

Valois

Huebner

(2000). Severe dating violence and quality of life among South Carolina high school students. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 19, 220-227.

13.

Emery

C. R.

Jolley

J. M.

(2010). Desistance from intimate partner violence: The role of legal cynicism, collective efficacy, and social disorganization in Chicago neighborhoods. American Journal of Community Psychology, 48, 373-383.

14.

Fisher

Cullen

Turner

(2000). The sexual victimization of college women. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Programs, National Institute of Justice Research Report. Available from http://ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/182369.pdf

15.

Fisher

Daigle

Cullen

Turner

(2003). Reporting sexual victimization to the police and others: Results from a national-level study of college women. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 30, 6-38.

16.

Foa

Rothbaum

(1998). Treating the trauma of rape: Cognitive behavioral therapy for PTSD. New York, NY: Guilford.

17.

Frye

Paul

Todd

Lewis

Cupid

Coleman

O’Campo

(2012). Intimate partner violence against women: Results from a concept mapping study of urban neighborhoods. Journal of Community Psychology, 40, 828-844.

18.

Golding

Siegel

Sorenson

Burnam

Stein

(1989). Social support sources following sexual assault. Journal of Community Psychology, 17, 92-107.

19.

Gover

Kaukinen

Fox

(2008). The relationship between violence in the family of origin and dating violence among college students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23, 1667-1693.

20.

Hayes-Smith

Richards

T. N.

Branch

(2010). But I am not a counselor: The nature of role strain experienced by female professors when a student discloses sexual assault and intimate partner violence. Enhancing Learning in the Social Sciences, 3, SSN1756-SSN848X.

21.

Knowledge Networks (2011). 2011 College dating violence and abuse poll. Retrieved from http://www.loveisrespect.org/pdf/College_Dating_And_Abuse_Final_Study.pdf

22.

Koss

M. P.

Koss

P. G.

Woodruff

W. J.

(1991). Deleterious effects of criminal victimization on women’s health and medical utilization. Archives of Internal Medicine, 151, 342-347.

23.

Latane

Darley

(1970). The unresponsive bystander: Why doesn’t he help. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

24.

Latane

Nida

(1981). Ten years of research on group size and helping. Psychological Bulletin, 89, 308-324.

25.

McMahon

Banyard

(2012). When can I help? A conceptual framework for the prevention of sexual violence through bystander intervention. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 13, 3-14.

26.

McMahon

Postmus

Koenick

(2011). Conceptualizing the engaging bystander approach to sexual violence prevention on college campuses. Journal of College Student Development, 52, 115-130.

27.

Norris

Feldman-Summers

(1981). Factors related to the psychological impacts of rape on the victim. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 90, 562-567.

28.

Office of Justice Programs. (2011). Office of Justice programs fact sheet: Domestic violence. Retrieved from http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/newsroom/factsheets/ojpfs_domesticviolence.html

29.

Petrak

(2002). Rape: History, myths and reality. In Petrak

Hedge

(Eds.), The trauma of sexual assault: Treatment prevention and practice (pp. 1-18). London, England: Wiley.

30.

Richards

Branch

Hayes

(in press). An exploratory examination of college student to professor disclosures of crime victimization. Violence Against Women.

31.

Rushton

J. P.

Campbell

A. C.

(1977). Modeling, vicarious reinforcement and extraversion on blood donating in adults: Immediate and long-term effects. European Journal of Social Psychology, 7, 297-306.

32.

Sampson

R. J.

Raudenbush

S. W.

Earls

(1997). Neighborhoods and violent and crimes: A multi-level study of collective efficacy. Social Science, 277, 918-924.

33.

Shorey

Stuart

Cornelius

(2011). Dating violence and substance use in college students: A review of the literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 16, 541-550.

34.

Starzynski

L. L.

Ullman

S. E.

Filipas

H. H.

Townsend

S. M.

(2005). Correlates of women’s sexual assault disclosure to informal and formal support sources. Violence and Victims, 20, 417-432.

35.

Stepakoff

(1998). Effects of sexual victimization on suicidal ideation and behavior in U.S. college women. Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior, 28, 107-126.

36.

Toon

Hart

Welch

Coronado

Hunting

(2005). Layers of meaning: Domestic violence and law enforcement attitudes in Arizona. Morrison Institute for Public Policy, Arizona State University. Retrieved from http://morrisoninstitute.asu.edu/publications-reports/CJI4Az_LayersOfMeaning-DVandLawEnfAttitudes

37.

Weisz

Black

(2008). Peer intervention in dating violence: Beliefs of African-American middle school adolescents. Journal of Ethnic & Cultural Diversity in Social Work, 17, 177-196.

38.

Williams

Becker

(1999). Focus groups of African-American men: Perspectives on addressing domestic violence. Applied Research Forum of the National Electronic Network on Violence Against Women. Retrieved from http://www.mincava.umn.edu/documents/2oliver/2oliver.html