What Helps and Hinders Students’ Intervening in Incidents of Dating Violence On Campus? an Exploratory Study Using Focus Groups

Abstract

Dating violence is a problem occurring on college campuses that requires unique prevention and intervention needs. Despite the widespread prevalence and pervasive impact of dating violence victimization, formal disclosure and utilization of on-campus support services for student survivors remain low and often survivors who do tell someone disclose to an informal source of support, most often a friend. Many current educational efforts on college campuses regarding dating violence, including bystander intervention programming, fail to increase students’ understanding of how to safely address a situation where a peer is experiencing an abusive relationship or to provide students with information about their role as potential responders to disclosures of violence from friends. In the present exploratory study, a series of qualitative focus groups were conducted to better understand students’ perspectives on dating violence on campus. Data were analyzed according to processes of thematic analysis to examine how students’ understanding and knowledge of dating violence impact their decision about whether to intervene as prosocial bystanders within their social networks using focus groups. Emergent findings reveal that students undergo a multistage process of intervening that relies heavily on their existing knowledge and attitudes toward dating violence. The findings from this article are consistent with Banyard’s Action Coils model. Suggestions for future research are also discussed.

Keywords

dating violence domestic violence intervention/treatment disclosure of domestic violence

Dating violence is a problem occurring on college campuses that requires unique prevention and intervention needs (Shorey et al., 2012; Wood et al., 2018). For the purpose of this article, dating violence is defined as controlling, abusive, or aggressive behaviors that occur within a romantic relationship for people who are 10–24 years old. Aggression can manifest in multiple forms which includes both physical and emotional aggression, as well as sexual, such as coercing a partner to engage in a sexual way that they do not want to or consent to (Vagi et al., 2013). Estimates suggest that between 14% and 31% of women and 10% of men experience some form of dating violence in college (Cantor et al., 2015; Wood et al., 2018). Dating violence is often a cause of physical and mental health problems, including depression, anxiety, injury, disability and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD; Banyard & Cross, 2008; Muñoz-Rivas et al., 2007). Additionally, college students who have experienced dating violence are more likely to face negative academic outcomes and social isolation as a result of their victimization (Banyard et al., 2017; Brewer et al., 2018; Wood et al., 2018).

Despite the widespread prevalence and pervasive impact of dating violence victimization, formal disclosure and utilization of on-campus support services for student survivors remains low (Henning & Klesges, 2002) and often survivors who do tell someone disclose to an informal source of support, most often a friend (see Sylaska & Edwards, 2014 for a review). Many current educational efforts on college campuses regarding dating violence, including bystander intervention programming, fail to increase students’ understanding of how to safely address a situation in which a peer is experiencing an abusive relationship or to provide students with information about their role as potential responders to disclosures of violence from friends (Amar et al., 2015; Shorey et al., 2012; Whitaker, 2006). Given that peers are often primary sources of support for students experiencing dating violence, and the complex challenges that exist to providing intervention, more information is needed about the barriers that exist when responding to dating violence from the perspective of potential bystanders. The current study is an exploratory examination of how students’ understanding and knowledge of dating violence impact their decision about whether or not to intervene as prosocial bystanders within their social networks.

Peer Intervention in Incidents of Dating Violence

There are several factors unique to college campuses that contribute to the responses to and prevention of dating violence (Amar et al., 2015). Those who commit acts of dating violence are usually within the survivor’s social network on campus and in close physical proximity to learning experiences, such as classes (Black et al., 2011; Fisher et al., 2005; Fisher et al., 2000). To further complicate dating violence incidents on campus, many of those involved are in the developmental stage of emerging adulthood, a time marked by recent separation from family, thereby limiting social networks and support systems. Further, students may have relocated to attend college, which can lead to isolation, and again, a smaller social network (specifically at the start of students’ academic careers). Emerging adults may also lack previous relationship experience and education to assess what constitutes healthy and unhealthy behaviors (Branch et al., 2013). Additionally dating violence, particularly among college students, often includes psychological or emotional abuse (Hines & Saudino, 2003; Lawrence et al., 2009). Research on dating violence has demonstrated that, often, individuals perceive physical dating violence as more negative and pervasive than emotional dating violence (Capezza & Arriaga, 2008; Hammock et al., 2015). Physical dating violence is typically more blatant and visible, and therefore easier for individuals both within a relationship as well as those observing a peer’s relationship to notice and understand as harmful compared to behaviors that constitute emotional abuse, such as belittling or threatening a partner (Capezza et al., 2021). As a result, emotional dating violence is often more difficult to label as problematic and therefore warrant intervention.

The rates of utilization of formal support services on campus remains extremely low, ranging from 0 to 15.8% (Branch et al., 2013; Chen & Ullman, 2010; Fisher et al., 2003; Halstead et al., 2017; Sabina & Ho, 2014; Orchowski & Gidycz, 2015; Orchowski et al., 2009), and less than 9% of dating violence survivors make a formal report to the police (Demers et al., 2017; Mahlstedt & Keeny, 1993). Many survivors are unable or unwilling to disclose to anyone, including informal support systems, with research showing that Black and Latina youth in particular disclose their experiences, even to family and friends, at very low rates (Ocampo et al., 2007; Sabina & Ho, 2014). This is particularly concerning as dating violence consists of a pattern of abusive actions or behaviors which may escalate in frequency over time and include those that can manipulate, coerce, threaten, blame, isolate, or injure someone (Branch et al., 2013; Office of Justice Programs, 2011). However, previous studies have found that others often know when a peer is experiencing abuse and several factors have been identified as barriers to individuals providing support to a survivor. For example, Belknap et al. (2009) found that all of the 158 survivors from a community sample interviewed in their study reported that someone within their social network knew about the abuse and this person was most often a friend or a relative. This study also found that survivors felt isolated from their friends and family because of an abusive partner’s actions and were hesitant to disclose to their social networks out of concerns of burdening them (Belknap et al., 2009). In examining college samples, Witte et al. (2017) found that 92% of the students in their study witnessed at least one of 19 listed risky situations related to dating violence in social settings. However, Branch et al. (2013) found that 25% of college students believed that if a friend wanted help for their dating violence victimization, they would ask for it. This represents a significant challenge to peers providing support to a student experiencing dating violence.

To date, most of the research on informal disclosure responses and subsequent impact has focused primarily on the experiences of sexual violence survivors, as well as on adolescent populations (Sabina & Ho, 2014), with less research available from the perspective of college dating violence survivors. Of the few studies that have examined the experience of college dating violence survivors who have disclosed to informal sources of support, findings indicate that often peers lack the information and skills needed to provide a helpful response and other research has shown that disclosure recipients report feelings of distress when receiving a disclosure of dating violence from a peer (Amar et al., 2010; Banyard et al., 2010; Garcia et al., 2012; Talbot et al., 2010). While additional research is needed on college dating violence survivors, the current body of research indicates the potential importance of students reacting supportively to disclosures of dating violence to mitigate such feelings of distress.

Since peers have the potential to play such an essential role in supporting those experiencing dating violence, it is crucial that they are informed about healthy and unhealthy relationships, can recognize harm, and have information about help-seeking services and campus reporting options. Most studies on violence disclosure have focused on the experiences of the survivors, with less research available from the perspective of the disclosure recipients, in particular for dating violence. This represents an important research gap given the widespread prevalence of campus dating violence and the role of peers in being the most likely disclosure source or the individuals most likely to witness dating violence behaviors (Banyard et al., 2010; Paul et al., 2013). One study found that the lack of formal policies and guidance that address ways in which students should assist a peer who is experiencing dating violence on campus is a prominent barrier to providing such assistance (Anderson & Danis, 2007). However, additional research is needed in order to understand the barriers students face as potential disclosure recipients and as support systems for students experiencing dating violence specifically.

Bystander Approach to Dating Violence Prevention and Response

Bystander intervention programming is increasingly common on college campuses and has demonstrated effectiveness in increasing students’ likelihood of intervening in occurrences of interpersonal violence (for reviews see Kettrey & Marx, 2018; Jouriles et al., 2018; Labhardt et al., 2017). While bystander approaches have most commonly been applied to sexual violence prevention on college campuses, they have also been expanded to include the prevention of dating violence (Coker et al., 2011; Peterson et al., 2018; McMahon & Dick, 2011). The role of bystanders to intervene in violence on college campuses has been explored substantially in the literature, resulting in tailored intervention approaches which encourage students’ response to harm in their environment using a main organizing framework first developed by Latane and Darley (1970). Latane and Darley’s (1970) situational model of bystander intervention is a multistage process that ultimately leads to an individual’s decision to intervene or not when someone is perceived to need help. The five stages include: (a) noticing the event; (b) interpreting the situation as intervention appropriate; (c) taking responsibility; (d) deciding how to help; and (e) acting to intervene (Burn, 2009; Latane & Darley, 1970). This five-step process suggests a fairly linear model of intervention. However, Banyard (2015) has put forth a revised decisional model based on “action coils,” in order to demonstrate that the process of bystander intervention is not necessarily linear and is influenced by a number of ecological factors including the situation and context. Research shows that students are more likely to intervene when they see others model intervention behavior successfully, which is a key premise underlying such bystander approaches (Banyard, 2015).

Researchers have identified a number of barriers throughout the decisional process that hinder bystanders from stepping in. For example, Burn (2009), using the Latane and Darley (1970) model, identified five types of barriers that bystanders might face: (a) absence of noticing the incident; (b) not identifying the incident as warranting intervention; (c) failing to take responsibility for intervening; (d) lack of intervention due to insufficient skills; and (e) not intervening due to fear of how the audience will perceive the intervener, resulting in negative emotions such as embarrassment or shame. However, incidents of dating violence offer specific and unique barriers to intervention that must be included in bystander models. For example, several studies have found that participants did not want to intervene in a situation which was “not their business” and/or that a fear of getting hurt or other concerns for their own safety inhibited action (Debnam & Mauer, 2021; O’Brien et al., 2021). Relatedly, having a personal relationship with the person who committed the act and/or the survivor may inhibit individuals from stepping in (Edwards et al., 2015; Exner-Cortens & Cummings, 2021). Finally, barriers to intervention include feeling that only violence of a certain level or an emergency is worthy of intervention (Edwards et al., 2015; O’Brien et al., 2019). These studies indicate that many factors influence bystanders’ behavior and greater work is needed to understand how such decisions are made by students addressing dating violence among their peers.

This exploratory study builds upon previous research on campus dating violence and bystander interventions to further explore the complex ways in which college students approach the decision of whether or not to intervene as a bystander in incidents of dating violence, particularly the factors that both help and hinder students’ intervention.

Method

This analysis is part of a larger campus climate initiative to assess students’ experiences, behaviors, and attitudes related to sexual and dating violence on campus. A series of qualitative focus groups were conducted to better understand students’ perspectives on and experiences in their social networks with dating violence. For the current analysis, the guiding research question was: What factors help or hinder students to intervene in situations of dating violence at college?

Research Participants and Recruitment

The participants for the study were undergraduate and graduate students attending a large public Mid-Atlantic university in the Spring 2017 semester. Students were recruited through flyers and e-mails, as well as through outreach to student organizations. Nine groups were held with undergraduate and graduate students, as well as specific subgroups of students from the cultural centers, athletics, Greek life, and the LGBTQI Center. Almost all groups were conducted as single-gender, except for the LGBTQI group and graduate student group, for a total of three all-male groups, four all-female groups, and two mixed-gender groups, were held at places on campus convenient to participants, such as student centers. All participants received $30 Amazon gift cards. All procedures were approved by the Rutgers University IRB.

A final sample of 43 students (36 undergraduate students, 7 graduate students) participated in the groups. 42% identified as White, 23% as Asian/Asian American, 28% as Black/ African American, and 26% as Latinx.¹

Students were able to select more than one racial/ethnic category.

Of the participants, 40% identified as men, 51% as women, and 9% as another gender. A total of 56% of participants were on-campus residents and 74% identified as heterosexual.

Procedures

A semi-structured guide was developed for the project after reviewing the literature and gathering input from various on-campus practitioners and professionals that work with students and used during each focus group. The guide started with a brief introduction, including a summary of the current study and detailed information about the consent form, disclosure, and confidentiality. The focus group protocol included questions about the following: general thoughts regarding dating violence on campus and how dating violence is defined by students; perceived university responsiveness to dating violence and peer supportiveness of victims; awareness of policies and resources regarding dating violence on campus; experiences with friends or peers that may have or are currently in abusive relationships on campus; and willingness to intervene as a prosocial bystander in potential situations of dating violence. For the purposes of this article, analyses focused on questions related specifically to bystander intervention. Each of the focus groups lasted between 60 and 75 minutes.

Focus group facilitators included individuals with a Master of Social Work or those in a program to obtain a similar degree or qualification. All facilitators received in-depth training on confidentiality, informed consent, and on a protocol specifically created to deal with any distressed students based on relevant research (Campbell et al., 2014). To further protect participants’ confidentiality, focus group participants were instructed to refrain from disclosing personal experiences and instead instructed to talk about personal experiences as something that happened to a “friend.” At the conclusion of each focus group, resources on interpersonal violence services available both on campus and in the surrounding community were distributed to all participants. Participants were also asked to fill out a short demographic form at the start of each focus group which included questions about students’ age, year in the program, involvement in student organizations, on- versus off-campus residency, race/ethnicity, and sexual orientation.

Data Analysis

Focus groups were transcribed verbatim. ATLAS.ti Version 7 qualitative analysis software was used to analyze the data using a thematic analysis approach as outlined by Braun and Clarke (2006). Thematic analysis is well suited for exploratory studies as it offers a flexible research approach that provides a rich and detailed account of data. In thematic analysis, data are analyzed to identify and analyze patterns that can highlight thematic findings through multiple coding procedures (Braun & Clarke, 2006). To increase credibility and validity of the analyses, the first author and third author completed all steps of the coding detailed further and the second author participated in the discussion throughout the process in addition to reading the transcripts. Following this process, we first familiarized ourselves with the data by reading through the transcripts independently and then developed initial codes through line-by-line analysis. Then we moved into a process of searching for themes, in which concepts are viewed in relation to one another to create themes and subthemes and resolve discrepancies through group discussion. The first, second, and third authors met to review overarching themes and their fit with initial codes. In the final phase, we named and defined themes and subthemes. This final phase also involved a check that thematic saturation had been achieved by reviewing coded data to ensure themes relevant to the area of inquiry were included. Saturation is an important concept as it is used to determine when there is adequate data from a study to develop a robust and valid understanding of a phenomenon and is reached when additional analysis fails to offer new insight to the concept of study (Corbin & Strauss, 2008).

To enhance data trustworthiness, researchers used a collaborative, iterative process of coding the focus group transcripts, which involved meeting to review codes and ensuring that overarching themes were congruent with the data prior to finalizing themes (Barusch et al., 2011; Patton, 2014). The research team also maintained a document to note all steps taken during both the coding and analyses (Shenton, 2004).

Findings

Data analysis revealed three main themes that emerged as guiding peers’ approach to intervening in dating violence: (a) Recognizing and identifying unhealthy and abusive behaviors; (b) Determining risk to their peers; and (c) Anticipating the possible consequences of intervening. Following the three main themes, and subthemes within, are articulated as part of a nonlinear process of bystander intervention, in which participants must take in information that they either receive from a peer or personally witness, determine whether such behaviors constitute dating violence, and assess the possible consequences of their helping behavior before deciding whether intervention is warranted. The findings further represent major themes that were found in all focus groups unless otherwise noted.

Recognizing and Identifying Unhealthy and Abusive Behaviors

A major theme related to how students process information they receive from a peer, or from what they have personally witnessed in a peer’s relationship, to identify (as well as, at times, misidentify) dating violence within their social networks. The majority of the dating violence cues that participants described included personally witnessing or hearing reports from their peer concerning behaviors in which someone exerts control over an intimate partner. A participant from focus group number two explained:

I feel like our generation, especially, it’s more than physical, it’s like mentally, just very controlling. People are like “Don’t talk to this person,” or like my friend told me her boyfriend was like “block all these guys on Facebook, I don’t want you talking to any guys, you can’t go out with any guys, you can’t go out with your friends.” Everybody just thinks that the person they’re dating just belongs to them and they can’t have people surrounding them.

A majority of participants explained that their peers do not explicitly label behaviors that that they are experiencing as “dating violence,” and rather describe details of an intimate partner’s behaviors without labeling them. Participants are then left to interpret the behaviors described to them as potentially abusive, part of a healthy relationship, or something in between the two, based on their understanding and conceptualization of relationships and what they know about dating violence. For example, this individual from focus group number one explained how she interpreted certain behaviors within a peer’s relationship as a cue for dating violence:

My friend has told me some things about her relationship that I personally find uncomfortable. For instance, he gets angry when he’s drunk … he hasn’t hit her as I, as I’m assuming. She, sometimes when she calls me she’s like in tears because she, oh he’s controlling. He looks at her phone calls, he looks at her text messages, and she’s friends with her ex-boyfriend and he doesn’t allow her to talk to him, he’s like you have to block his number. For me, I think that is an emotional abuse because you don’t have the power over someone and whoever she wants to talk to….

This process of identifying disclosed details of a peer’s relationship as abusive or unhealthy is often complicated by what participants discussed as the normalization of controlling behaviors within college relationships. A few participants explained that behaviors such as tracking a partners’ location, sharing passwords for various social media platforms, and the expectation that cell phones will be unlocked for a partner to look through, are viewed as dating norms by some students within relationships on campus. Participants are therefore left to interpret behaviors within their peers’ relationships as abusive or unhealthy amidst a campus dating culture that has normalized controlling, potentially problematic behaviors, such as the ones stated here by an individual in focus group number two:

I know girls that their boyfriends will be like don’t go out to this party or like they have their locations on, so they track their location and stuff or they want your Instagram password or Facebook password, everything they go through.

While these participants did not explicitly state that such behaviors occur in relationships that are abusive, it seems the expectations within some relationships on campus include tracking partners’ locations and dictating where and who partners are permitted to see and speak to, which is potentially problematic when participants are left to recognize behaviors within their peers’ relationships as abusive or unhealthy.

Determining Risk to Their Peers

Many participants explained that deciding whether a peer was in danger factored into their intervention decision. However, each participant’s perceived threshold of intervention is contingent upon the participant’s conceptualization of dating violence. For example, a participant from focus group number three explained the intersection between his broad conceptualization of dating violence and his threshold for whether intervention is warranted:

People mix up love with obsession, and love with controlling behavior, and love with abusive behavior. So, it’s just like there’s like a very fine line between love and loving someone and really caring about someone and then like trying to control someone and trying to be so obsessive about them and all this stuff. So, I do think that there needs to be more—I do think that we should tell people what the behavior is to look out for and when it’s not okay, because people could think he just wants to know where I am. He’s just worried about me.

Many participants, however, had fairly narrow conceptualizations of behaviors that constitute dating violence. Some participants discussed this by using the term “gray area” within their definitions of dating violence. The “gray area” as explained by one participant in focus group number four who referred to behaviors that constitute emotional and psychological abuse as “less serious or legally punishable” as compared to physical dating violence.” While participants described these “gray areas” as being left up to one’s own interpretation of whether the behaviors are worthy of intervention, participants described behaviors that did often constitute emotional abuse. Some participants perceived a number of gray areas related to dating violence, which influenced whether they believed the situation was intervention-worthy. Another participant from focus group number four explained:

…I think with, especially with emotional abuse and maybe verbal abuse, that’s kind of like a gray area because law enforcement, like what are you gonna do, like law enforcement can’t, you can’t really do much if there’s no physical or sexual violence that is documented. Like emotional abuse is just kind of I feel, is that gray area because there’s not much that the law enforcement, or law enforcement can do to protect against that.

Emergency situations. A small number of participants explained that a factor that promotes their decision to intervene is the belief that a peer is in immediate physical danger, which is explained further under the subtheme emergency situation. In addition to narrow conceptualizations of dating violence, some participants explained that intervention is warranted only in situations when physical violence is clearly and continually occurring within a peer’s relationship. An individual from focus group number five explained the desire to have concrete confirmation that abuse is frequently occurring before deciding whether or not to intervene:

This is tricky, not because being a friend isn’t something I want to do, but it’s just we don’t see what happens behind closed doors. What we may think is dating violence may genuinely just be a rare occurrence where one party just had a terrible week and it just all escalated to that moment in front of us, or it could be an ongoing thing that we happened to witness one time. I think the best thing we can all do is talk to our friend or acquaintance and just find out how much they’ll tell us about their relationship, if this is continuous, if this is the first time it’s ever happened….

However, a few participants noted that waiting for concrete evidence that physical abuse is occurring in a peer’s relationship can prolong necessary intervention, and be potentially dangerous for their peer. For example, a participant from focus group number six detailed:

And I don’t think that any part of someone’s situation, no matter how complex it could be, should cloud the fact that there is something wrong with the situation. I think that yes, it’s important to understand a situation, but taking too much time and taking the ample amount to “understand a situation” may lead to a normalization…I think that if someone’s in a dire situation, if someone is being abused, I don’t think that they should be left abused.

A motivation to intervene for some participants was therefore the presence of clear, convincing evidence that physical violence is overtly and continually occurring within a peer’s relationship.

Anticipating the Possible Consequences of Intervening

Some findings emerged regarding participants’ contemplating the potential consequences of their intervention, for both themselves and their peer, often complicating their decisions of whether or not to intervene. Most of the participants determined it was ultimately not their responsibility to intervene. Their primary reasons for not intervening were the concerns that they could be incorrectly identifying dating violence within a peer’s relationship or providing intervention before the peer was ready to acknowledge that they were experiencing dating violence—both resulting in their peer becoming upset with them. A majority of participants also noted that a lack of expertise on how to safely and effectively assist a peer prevented them from intervening.

Intervening before a peer is ready to acknowledge. A subtheme that emerged from a large number of participants was the fear of speaking with a peer about dating violence within their relationship before the peer was ready to “acknowledge” the occurrence of dating violence themselves. A participant from focus group number two explained the possible hesitancy that those who experiencing dating violence may feel about acknowledging the occurrence of abuse:

I could say there’s [service provider on campus], like I’ll go with you, you know, but there’s only so much that we can do. It’s up to the person so. And, you know, in those kind of situations it can be like scary, and you don’t want to speak out. You don’t even want to acknowledge it sometimes. People suppress the emotions and act like it never even happened. So, there’s like only so much that we can do.

Very often participants’ decision to assist a peer was therefore based upon a belief that the peer must first acknowledge that they were in an abusive relationship. A participant from focus group number six further explained:

So, I guess there’s always that like back-thinking of like okay, great, I made a call, but like nothing’s happening, there’s no immediate change. Especially if the person or friend doesn’t want to acknowledge the situation, it’s sort of like hard to get someone else to act on their behalf if they’re not even willing to like accept or acknowledge what’s happening or they’re too scared to do it. So, yeah, I think I would know what to do, but then after that, it’s all circumstantial.

The same participant from focus group number two also referred to this need for a peer to first acknowledge that there is an issue before receiving any intervention as the need to empower survivors of dating violence to act themselves, removing any culpability from bystanders. This participant further explained:

…It’s like, yeah, you have all these resources, but I feel like we should empower them and give them the confidence they need to like go and know that it’s okay, like we got your back after it’s already happened. Because, I mean, there’s only so much that I can do as a friend. There’s only so much I can do as a bystander. At the end of the day, people are going to make their own decisions, and I might now always be there.

Perception of peer reaction. Further embedded within participants’ decisional processes regarding whether to intervene was the perception that peers were reluctant to receive help. Most participants acknowledged that most of their peers seemed unwilling to have professional help, particularly police involvement. Such apprehension was taken into consideration by participants when determining possible methods of formal intervention. For example, a participant from focus group number four explained:

I, like I guess something that I’m realizing now is that, and also just like thinking about my friends who have been through situations, like a lot of them also didn’t wanna go through law enforcement because they are afraid that it’s gonna be re-traumatizing and also they were intimidated by law enforcement and didn’t wanna engage with them. Like and that is also such a process which doesn’t necessarily, at least for some people, doesn’t necessarily like meet their, what they are seeking which may be just for the situation to end and for to like achieve some normalcy back again. And it seems like going through law enforcement, the goal is like punishment which is not necessary, which some people like may seek, but and that’s fair and valid, but for others I feel like services, like services that are more logistical support would help more.

Some participants also described a fear of being a “pusher” if they intervened before a peer was ready and provided an intervention method with which a peer was not comfortable. A “pusher” is described by participants as someone who forces their peer to react to their abusive relationship in a particular way, or forces action upon their peer, such as reporting the abuse to the institution or the police without their peer approving of such action. The fear of being a pusher impeded participants’ desire to intervene. An individual from focus group number one described the fear of being a “pusher” as:

For the most part I think I would be able to and try to talk to them but I think it would have been, if they were willing to do something about it, I think I would know kind of the next steps that they would be able to take and like helping them get there. But on the other hand, … like it’s being a pusher or something and I don’t wanna do that, so if I got kinda stuck in that place where they didn’t wanna do anything and I didn’t really know what to do, then, then you can kinda like, all you can kinda do is just be like a friend just to listen type of thing. So, I don’t think I’m 100% confident that I could help….

In addition, some participants also expressed that they may feel a sense of frustration if they were to intervene and their peer decided to stay with a potentially abusive partner. An individual from focus group number two highlighted this when explaining her efforts to support a friend who had disclosed that she was experiencing dating violence:

Most people are like he didn’t mean it or he still loves me. He only does this because he loves me. And like what she said, it’s all about them, like trying to get them to go. I talked to her four hours trying to give her support and then for what, because she just went back to him. But, yeah, it’s all about the person first acknowledging the problem and then being willing to get the help that they need.

Assessment of safety and effectiveness of potential response. Lastly, a main factor limiting intervention was a lack of expertise to intervene safely and effectively. Participants expressed that they believe they do not currently have the skills necessary to support a peer experiencing dating violence on their own. Participants articulated the need for expertise that extends beyond simply having an awareness of the resources available on campus, and rather can speak to someone experiencing dating violence in a supportive, unbiased manner about these issues. Another individual from focus group number one articulated the difficulty in providing such support as a friend by stating:

I would like to say I have all the resources and I would like know exactly what to say, but I don’t think that’s realistic…to tell, talk to friends about something like this, your reaction is like extremely important because if you don’t react in a certain way or like kind of dismiss it, then that victim is not gonna wanna talk to anyone professional about it or like a resource that they may need or do anything about it ‘cause they’re gonna be like well my best friend like the person I trust thinks it’s fine, so like it must be fine.

Other participants who acknowledged their lack of expertise recognized the need to therefore refer to service professionals. An individual from focus group number seven explained:

I understand not feeling personally you can intervene, but that’s because I’m not a trained professional, so like directing that person toward resources like [service provider on campus], even if you don’t feel like they’re willing to maybe do something, but to connect other outside professionals to the system in that manner.

Other participants acknowledged that without professional support, any assistance that they would provide would be reactionary in nature and have only immediate effects. A participant from focus group number three explained:

…I don’t think that I would try to intervene on my own, I mean other than maybe if I saw the person, so I mean like one specific event, just try to block the person from like following or something like that…But I don’t think I would do anything like in the long term that would have an effect, just like something that would have an immediate effect.

Lastly, another participant from the same focus group emphasized the need for professional support out of fear for the safety of their peer and themselves if they were to intervene. The participant explained:

…so you have to like go to like experts on dealing with these issues to make sure that the person is actually safe from their stalker. So I don’t think that I would try to intervene in my own, I mean other than maybe if I saw the person, so I mean like one specific event, just try to block the person from like following or something like that. Like if I was at a restaurant with a friend and then I saw that friend’s stalker, then maybe I would try to let the friend get out while preventing the stalker from following. But I don’t think I would do anything like in the long term that would have an effect, just like something that would have an immediate effect.

Within this theme, participants discussed the possible negative consequences that could result from intervening in situations of dating violence within their social networks as outweighing the potential good that could arise. Participants described a fear of being a “pusher,” providing intervention before a peer was ready to acknowledge that they are experiencing dating violence, and that their they were not aware of how to provide safe and effective support to a peer experiencing dating violence as influencing their decisions to not intervene.

Discussion

This study explores the factors that both help and hinder dating violence intervention within students’ social networks on campus. Emergent findings reveal that students undergo a process of intervening that relies heavily on their existing knowledge and attitudes toward dating violence, as well as the possible consequences of their helping, and social norms. The current study shows that students must identify whether behaviors occurring within a peer’s relationship are unhealthy as well as whether such behaviors are also worthy of intervention. Determining a healthy or unhealthy relationship relies on having knowledge about the wide spectrum of dating violence behaviors, which many participants lacked. About half of the participants had fairly narrow conceptualizations of the behaviors that constitute dating violence, and therefore were unaware of the unhealthy and abusive behaviors occurring within their peers’ relationships. This is aligned with prior literature which has identified the most common barrier to prosocial bystander intervention as the failure to identify the incident as risky and needing intervention, and the second most common as lack of responsibility (Kania & Cale, 2021).

Peers must also determine the risk to intervening or not for their peer and anticipating the possible consequences of their intervention. Ultimately, these processes should culminate in peers making a decision about intervening; however, very few participants in the study have actually intervened when a peer was experiencing dating violence due to the barriers discussed throughout. Participants feared that without the expertise to intervene safely and effectively, the negative consequences of their helping actions, such as the potential impact on the relationship with their peer and the risks to their safety and their peer’s safety, outweighed the potential positive impact their response might have.

While the study was exploratory, the findings suggest that students’ helping decisions do not follow a linear process and that several factors matter when students approach decisions regarding intervening in dating violence. These findings align with the revised Actions Coil model by Banyard (2015), which suggests that when determining whether to intervene in dating violence on campus, context matters. The uniqueness and complexity of dating violence may therefore present challenges to previous models used to examine bystander intervention, including the situational model (Latane & Darley, 1970), and findings from this study further support this. For example, the first step of the situational model is to notice and label the situation as a problem. Researchers have found that situations that are more obvious and collectively defined as an emergency often lead to more ready bystander actions (Banyard, 2015). Dating violence, however, includes a continuum of behaviors (Banyard, 2015), some of which are not uniformly agreed upon as harmful. This was seen in the current study, specifically when participants discussed behaviors that fit the criteria of emotional dating violence. The wide continuum of controlling and abusive behaviors that constitute dating violence, and the lack of uniform acceptance of what is considered to be “worthy” of intervention, poses many difficulties when having to notice and label a situation as problematic. This presents a challenge to the first step outlined in the situational model and is one of the reasons the Action Coils model is particularly applicable for examining bystander action in situations of dating violence. Additionally, findings from this study highlight the need for programming on campus to be designed to provide students with information about the wide range of behaviors that constitute dating violence, including emotional forms of abuse, as well as information on the escalation of violent behaviors (Banyard, 2011). Additionally, programming should include information on who students can contact for assistance if a peer is experiencing dating violence as many students felt that they could not intervene but rather a professional was needed (Branch et al., 2013).

Additionally, the situational model of bystander intervention explains one-time helping models in which the conclusion of the model is bystander action. Prior research examining people’s experiences in cases of dating violence, however, show that for many informal sources of support, helping is rather described as ongoing with periods of helping occurring on and off over time (Latta & Goodman, 2011). In the current study, participants described a process of wanting to talk to a peer about their relationship before deciding whether or not to provide additional intervention, and therefore seems to support a process of helping that is ongoing and changing rather than one time and constant, aligning with the revised Action Coils model (Banyard, 2015).

Based on the challenges to the situational model outlined throughout, the Action Coils model seems to be more appropriate for understanding bystander action in situations of dating violence as it accounts for contextual factors that impact decisional processes, which include macro-level factors such as peer norms, event characteristics, the relationship between the bystander and peer involved, and lastly, outcomes of helping, both from the current situation and consequences of helping from the past (Banyard, 2015). Based on the decision-making process included in the Action Coils model, researchers have emphasized a need to explore people’s positive and negative thoughts before taking action, as well as the actual consequences people have faced after taking action, in order to fully understand the experiences of bystanders in situations of interpersonal violence (Banyard, 2015). The current study sought to address some of these questions from the perspectives of potential prosocial bystanders and found that often, the fear of approaching peers before they are ready, as well as the fear of being viewed as a “pusher,” impedes students’ intervention. Findings from the current study support a nonlinear model of helping that takes context and students’ fear of consequences of their behavior into account when determining whether or not to intervene in situations of campus dating violence.

Findings from the current study also show that students may feel a sense of frustration based on peers’ decisions to stay with a partner who is abusive or failing to acknowledge the occurrence of dating violence in their relationship. Prior research supports that while dating violence has deleterious outcomes for survivors, leaving an abusive relationship may be a process which includes several failed attempts (Edwards et al., 2018). Programming on campus geared toward dating violence response should work to mitigate students’ feeling of frustration with their peers by framing bystander intervention as an on-going process that may not always lead to success as these helping consequences may impact students’ desire to intervene in the future (Banyard, 2015).

Lastly, many participants in the focus groups did not actually provide intervention to a peer experiencing dating violence, even though many of them knew a friend who had or currently was experiencing dating violence. This is a significant finding as it demonstrates that while students may be faced with opportunities to intervene, or provide support to a peer experiencing dating violence, students ultimately decided not to intervene due to the barriers that emerged from the study. This finding highlights the need for campuses to work toward reducing such barriers and creating environments which support, rather than hinder, students’ intervention. In order to do this, it is crucial for bystander intervention programs to expand beyond addressing the barriers to intervention as outlined by Latane and Darley’s (1970) situational model and begin to incorporate the complexities that come with situations of dating violence on campus. This includes both contextual factors and addressing community norms and campus policies.

Limitations and Future Research

This study was not without limitations. First, the heteronormativity of the focus group questions and the focus group discussions themselves assumed that a male committed the dating violence and a female was the victim. While the focus group prompts were written using gender-neutral language, often the facilitator(s) failed to reprompt students to use such gender-neutral language while discussing dating violence throughout the groups. Therefore, this study does not fully explore the context of dating violence within LGBTI relationships and the types of facilitator and barriers students face when deciding to intervene within those relationships. Additionally, while researchers coordinated with staff at the campus cultural centers and LGBTQI center to host focus groups with students from diverse and marginalized backgrounds, the analyses in the current study did not look at students’ unique and intersecting identities and the additional barriers to providing support that some students may face. Future research is needed to examine this gap given the pervasive impact of dating violence and particularly low disclosure rates among minority youth. Lastly, the study did not collect information about the participants’ histories of attending bystander intervention nor with experiencing dating violence. Future research may want to consider collecting such information to better contextualize the barriers that exist for peers acting as prosocial bystanders in situations of campus dating violence.

While research has explored the barriers that impede prosocial bystander intervention in situations of interpersonal violence, much of this work has focused not focused on dating violence on college campuses in particular. This is problematic given the pervasiveness of dating violence on college campuses, as well as the danger that dating violence presents. Studies exploring the ways in which institutions can better support peers as recipients of disclosures of dating violence and as potential prosocial bystanders is needed to reduce the prevalence and reoccurrence of dating violence, as well as provide support to those students who have already experienced relationship abuse. Further in-depth exploration of the ways that institutions can support peers’ roles as responders and disclosure recipients may help fill this gap.

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.

ORCID iDs

Julia Cusano

Leila Wood

Julia O’Connor

Sarah McMahon

Author Biographies

Julia Cusano, MSW, is a doctoral candidate at the Rutgers University School of Social Work and also serves as a Research Specialist at the School’s Center on Violence Against Women and Children. Her research focuses on violence against women, specifically in the college population, as well as informal disclosure and formal help seeking among college sexual violence survivors.

Leila Wood, PhD, MSSW, is assistant professor at the Center for Violence Prevention Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, at The University of Texas Medical Branch (UTMB). Dr Wood’s program of research focuses on college campus and community-based interpersonal violence intervention and prevention efforts. She is a mixed methods researcher with expertise in qualitative methods. Dr Wood has extensive social work practice experience working survivors of intimate and interpersonal violence.

Julia O’Connor, PhD, MSW, MPH, is an assistant professor at the University of Central Florida in the School of Social Work and the Department of Population Health Sciences as well as a member of the Violence Against Women faculty cluster. She holds a PhD and Master’s in social work and a Master’s in public health. Julia’s practice experience includes many years as a domestic and sexual violence advocate. Her research interests include violence against women focused on primary prevention of violence.

Sarah McMahon, PhD, MSW, is an associate professor at the Rutgers University School of Social Work. She also serves as the Director for the School’s Center on Violence Against Women and Children and as Special Adviser on Campus Climate in the Office of the Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs. Her research focuses on violence against women, with an emphasis on using ecological frameworks to examine prevention and social change. Dr McMahon has extensive experience in designing and implementing quantitative and qualitative studies with college students to measure their knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors related to sexual violence, with a focus on bystander intervention and campus climate. She has led a number of research projects related to campus violence funded at the federal, state, and local level. In 2014, she was invited to collaborate with the White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault through the testing of a campus climate survey tool. Dr McMahon was appointed to the NJ Campus Sexual Assault Task Force and also serves as Chair of the Advisory Board for the National Sexual Violence Resource Center. She has numerous publications on the topic of sexual violence and has presented her work around the country.

References

Amar

A. F.

, Bess

, & Stockbridge

(2010). Lessons from families and communities about interpersonal violence, victimization, and seeking help. Journal of Forensic Nursing , 6(3), 110–120.

Amar

A. F.

, Tuccinardi

, Heislein

, & Simpson

(2015). Friends helping friends: A nonrandomized control trial of a peer-based response to dating violence. Nursing Outlook , 63(4), 496–503.

Anderson

K. M.

, & Danis

F. S.

(2007). Collegiate sororities and dating violence an exploratory study of informal and formal helping strategies. Violence Against Women , 13(1), 87–100.

Banyard

V. L.

(2011). Who will help prevent sexual violence: Creating an ecological model of bystander intervention. Psychology of Violence , 1(3), 216.

Banyard

V. L.

(2015). Toward the next generation of bystander prevention of sexual and relationship violence: Action coils to engage communities . Springer International Publishing.

Banyard

V. L.

, & Cross

(2008). Consequences of teen dating violence: Understanding intervening variables in ecological context. Violence Against Women , 14(9), 998–1013.

Banyard

V. L.

, Demers

J. M.

, Cohn

E. S.

, Edwards

K. M.

, Moynihan

M. M.

, Walsh

W. A.

, & Ward

S. K.

(2017). Academic correlates of unwanted sexual contact, intercourse, stalking, and intimate partner violence: an understudied but important consequence for college students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence , 35(21–22), 4375–4392.

Banyard

V. L.

, Moynihan

M. M.

, Walsh

W. A.

, Cohn

E. S.

, & Ward

(2010). Friends of survivors: The community impact of unwanted sexual experiences. Journal of Interpersonal Violence , 25(2), 242–256.

Barusch

, Gringeri

, & George

(2011). Rigor in qualitative social work research: A review of strategies used in published articles. Social Work Research , 35(1), 11–19.

10.

Belknap

, Melton

H. C.

, Denney

J. T.

, Fleury-Steiner

R. E.

, & Sullivan

C. M.

(2009). The levels and roles of social and institutional support reported by survivors of intimate partner abuse. Feminist Criminology , 4(4), 377–402.

11.

Black

M. C.

, Basile

K. C.

, Breiding

M. J.

, Smith

S. G.

, Walters

M. L.

, Merrick

M. T.

, Chen

, & Stevens

M. R.

(2011). The national intimate partner and sexual violence survey (NISVS): 2010 summary report . National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/nisvs_report2010-a.pdf

12.

Branch

K. A.

, Richards

T. N.

, & Dretsch

E. C.

(2013). An exploratory analysis of college students’ response and reporting behavior regarding intimate partner violence victimization and perpetration among their friends. Journal of Interpersonal Violence , 28(18), 3386–3399.

13.

Braun

, & Clarke

(2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology , 3(2), 77–101.

14.

Brewer

, Thomas

K. A.

, & Higdon

(2018). Intimate partner violence, health, sexuality, and academic performance among a national sample of undergraduates. Journal of American College Health , 66(7), 683–692.

15.

Burn

S. M.

(2009). A situational model of sexual assault prevention through bystander intervention. Sex Roles , 60(11–12), 779–792.

16.

Campbell

, Greeson

M. R.

, & Fehler-Cabral

(2014). Developing recruitment methods for vulnerable, traumatized adolescents: A feminist evaluation approach. American Journal of Evaluation , 35(1), 73–86.

17.

Cantor

, Fisher

, Chibnall

S. H.

, Townsend

, Lee

, Bruce

, & Thomas

(2015). Report on the AAU campus climate survey on sexual assault and sexual misconduct . AAU. https://www.aau.edu/sites/default/files/%40%20Files/Climate%20Survey/AAU_Campus_Climate_Survey_12_14_15.pdf

18.

Capezza

N. M.

, & Arriaga

X. B.

(2008). Factors associated with acceptance of psychological aggression against women. Violence Against Women , 14(6), 612–633.

19.

Capezza

N. M.

, D’Intino

L. A.

, Flynn

M. A.

, & Arriaga

X. B.

(2021). Perceptions of psychological abuse: The role of perpetrator gender, victim’s response, and sexism. Journal of Interpersonal Violence . , 36(3-4), 1414–1436. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260517741215

20.

Chen

, & Ullman

(2010). Women’s reporting of sexual and physical assaults to police in the National Violence Against Women Survey. Violence Against Women , 16(3), 262–279.

21.

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.

22.

Corbin

, & Strauss

(Eds.). (2008). Strategies for qualitative data analysis. In Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed). Sage Publications.

23.

Debnam

K. J.

, & Mauer

(2021). Who, when, how, and why bystanders intervene in physical and psychological teen dating violence. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse . 22(1), 54–67. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838018806505

24.

Demers

J. M.

, Roberts

A. P.

, Bennett

, & Banyard

V. L.

(2017). Victim motivations for disclosing unwanted sexual experiences and partner abuse. Affilia , 32(3), 327–343.

25.

Edwards

K. M.

, Palmer

K. M.

, Lindemann

K. G.

, & Gidycz

C. A.

(2018). Is the end really the end? Prevalence and correlates of college Women’s intentions to return to an abusive relationship. Violence Against Women , 24(2), 207–222.

26.

Edwards

K. M.

, Rodenhizer-Stampfli

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(12), 2321–2336.

27.

Exner-Cortens

, & Cummings

(2021). Bystander-based sexual violence prevention with college athletes: A pilot randomized trial. Journal of Interpersonal Violence , 36(1-2), NP188–NP211. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260517733279

28.

Fisher

B. S.

, Cullen

F. T.

, & Daigle

L. E.

(2005). The discovery of acquaintance rape: The salience of methodological innovation and rigor. Journal of Interpersonal Violence , 20(4), 493–500.

29.

Fisher

, Cullen

F. T.

, & Turner

(2000). The sexual victimization of college women . US Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/182369.pdf

30.

Fisher

B. S.

, Daigle

L. E.

, Cullen

F. T.

, & Turner

M. G.

(2003). Reporting sexual victimization to the police and others: Results from a national-level study of college women. Criminal Justice and Behavior , 30(1), 6–38.

31.

Garcia

C. M.

, Lechner

K. E.

, Frerich

E. A.

, Lust

K. A.

, & Eisenberg

M. E.

(2012). Preventing sexual violence instead of just responding to it: Students’ perceptions of sexual violence resources on campus. Journal of Forensic Nursing , 8(2), 61–71.

32.

Halstead

, Williams

J. R.

, & Gonzalez-Guarda

(2017). Sexual violence in the college population: A systematic review of disclosure and campus resources and services. Journal of Clinical Nursing , 26(15–16), 2137–2153.

33.

Hammock

G. S.

, Richardson

D. S.

, Williams

, & Janit

A. S.

(2015). Perceptions of psychological and physical aggression between heterosexual partners. Journal of Family Violence , 30(1), 13–26.

34.

Henning

K. R.

, & Klesges

L. M.

(2002). Utilization of counseling and supportive services by female victims of domestic abuse. Violence and Victims , 17(5), 623.

35.

Hines

D. A.

, & Saudino

K. J.

(2003). Gender differences in psychological, physical, and sexual aggression among college students using the Revised Conflict Tactic Scales. Violence and Victims , 18(2), 197–217.

36.

Jouriles

E. N.

, Krauss

, Vu

N. L.

, Banyard

V. L.

, & McDonald

(2018). Bystander programs addressing sexual violence on college campuses: A systematic review and meta-analysis of program outcomes and delivery methods. Journal of American College Health , 66(6), 457–466.

37.

Kania

, & Cale

(2021). Preventing sexual violence through bystander intervention: attitudes, behaviors, missed opportunities, and barriers to intervention among Australian university students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence , 36(5-6), 2816–2840. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260518764395

38.

Kettrey

H. H.

, & Marx

R. A.

(2018). The effects of bystander programs on the prevention of sexual assault across the college years: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Youth and Adolescence , 48(2), 212–227.

39.

Labhardt

, Holdsworth

, Brown

, & Howat

(2017). You see but you do not observe: A review of bystander intervention and sexual assault on university campuses. Aggression and Violent Behavior , 35, 13–25.

40.

Latane

, & Darley

J. M.

(1970). The unresponsive bystander: Why doesn’t he help? Appleton-Century Crofts.

41.

Latta

R. E.

, & Goodman

L. A.

(2011). Intervening in partner violence against women: A grounded theory exploration of informal network members’ experiences. The Counseling Psychologist , 39(7), 973–1023.

42.

Lawrence

, Yoon

, Langer

, & Ro

(2009). Is psychological aggression as detrimental as physical aggression? The independent effects of psychological aggression on depression and anxiety symptoms. Violence and Victims , 24(1), 20–35.

43.

Mahlstedt

, & Keeny

(1993). Female survivors of dating violence and their social networks. Feminism & Psychology , 3(3), 319–333.

44.

McMahon

, & Dick

(2011). “Being in a room with like-minded men”: An exploratory study of men’s participation in a bystander intervention program to prevent intimate partner violence. The Journal of Men’s Studies , 19(1), 3–18.

45.

Muñoz-Rivas

M. J.

, Graña

J. L.

, O’Leary

K. D.

, & González

M. P.

(2007). Aggression in adolescent dating relationships: Prevalence, justification, and health consequences. Journal of Adolescent Health , 40(4), 298–304.

46.

O’Brien

K. M.

, Sauber

E. W.

, Kearney

M. S.

, Venaglia

R. B.

, & Lemay

E. P.

(2021). Evaluating the effectiveness of an online intervention to educate college students about dating violence and bystander responses. Journal of Interpersonal Violence , 36(13-14), NP7516–NP7546. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260519829769

47.

Ocampo

B. W.

, Shelley

G. A.

, & Jaycox

L. H.

(2007). Latino teens talk about help seeking and help giving in relation to dating violence. Violence Against Women , 13(2), 172–189.

48.

Office of Justice Programs. (2011). Office of Justice programs fact sheet: Domestic violence. https://www.ojp.gov/sites/g/files/xyckuh241/files/archives/factsheets/ojpfs_domesticviolence.html

49.

Orchowski

L. M.

, & Gidycz

C. A.

(2015). Psychological consequences associated with positive and negative responses to disclosure of sexual assault among college women: A prospective study. Violence Against Women , 21(7), 803–823.

50.

Orchowski

L. M.

, Meyer

D. H.

, & Gidycz

C. A.

(2009). College women’s likelihood to report unwanted sexual experiences to campus agencies: Trends and correlates. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma , 18(8), 839–858.

51.

Peterson

, Sharps

, Banyard

V. L.

, Powers

R. A.

, Kaukinen

, Gross

, Decker

M. R.

, Baatz

, & Campbell

(2018). An evaluation of two dating violence prevention programs on a college campus. Journal of Interpersonal Violence , 33(23), 3630–3655.

52.

Patton

M. Q.

(2014). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice . Sage Publications.

53.

Paul

L. A.

, Walsh

, McCauley

J. L.

, Ruggiero

K. J.

, Resnick

H. S.

, & Kilpatrick

D. G.

(2013). College women’s experiences with rape disclosure: A national study. Violence Against Women , 19(4), 486–502.

54.

Sabina

, & Ho

L. Y.

(2014). Campus and college victim responses to sexual assault and dating violence: Disclosure, service utilization, and service provision. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse , 15(3), 201–226.

55.

Shenton

(2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Education for Information , 22, 63–75.

56.

Shorey

R. C.

, Zucosky

, Brasfield

, Febres

, Cornelius

T. L.

, Sage

, & Stuart

G. L.

(2012). Dating violence prevention programming: Directions for future interventions. Aggression and Violent Behavior , 17(4), 289–296.

57.

Sylaska

K. M.

, & Edwards

K. M.

(2014). Disclosure of intimate partner violence to informal social support network members: A review of the literature. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse , 15(1), 3–21.

58.

Talbot

K. K.

, Neill

K. S.

, & Rankin

L. L.

(2010). Rape-accepting attitudes of university undergraduate students. Journal of Forensic Nursing , 6(4), 170–179.

59.

Vagi

K. J.

, Rothman

E. F.

, Latzman

N. E.

, Tharp

A. T.

, Hall

D. M.

, & Breiding

M. J.

(2013). Beyond correlates: A review of risk and protective factors for adolescent dating violence perpetration. Journal of Youth and Adolescence , 42(4), 633–649.

60.

Whitaker

(2006). Why’s it all so difficult? Sharing the diagnosis with the young person. In Murray

(Ed.), Coming out Asperger: Diagnosis, disclosure and self-confidence (pp. 125–142). Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

61.

Witte

T. H.

, Casper

D. M.

, Hackman

C. L.

, & Mulla

M. M.

(2017). Bystander interventions for sexual assault and dating violence on college campuses: Are we putting bystanders in harm’s way? Journal of American College Health , 65(3), 149–157.

62.

Wood

, Voth Schrag

, & Busch-Armendariz

(2018). Mental health and academic impacts of intimate partner violence among IHE-attending women. Journal of American college health , 68(3), 286–293.