Associations of Alcohol Consumption,Sexual Assault History,Severity,and Revictimization With College Women’s Bystander Behaviors in Alcohol-involved Settings

Abstract

Sexual assault victimization (SAV) histories may impede, increase, or have no effect on women’s risk recognition. Yet, even though risk recognition is a component of bystander intervention, the effect of SAV on bystander behaviors is understudied. For example, how different SAV histories, such as the severity of the assault and if women were revictimized since entering college, have not been examined with bystander behaviors; we intended to address this gap in the literature. Building on recent work, we also examined the potential interactive effects of alcohol consumption and SAV history in predicting bystander behaviors. College women (n = 560) completed a web-based survey on alcohol consumption, SAV experiences since entering college, and bystander behaviors in alcohol-involved settings. We found that the effect of SAV history on bystander behavior varied based on alcohol consumption. As women’s alcohol consumption increased so did their self-reported engagement in bystander behaviors. For non-victims, increased alcohol consumption had a greater positive effect on their bystander behaviors than victims. However, after a certain quantity of alcohol was consumed, both victims and non-victims reported decreased bystander behavior. Finally, alcohol consumption did not interact with severity of SAV or revictimization status in predicting bystander behavior. Findings suggest alcohol consumption may be more influential on bystander behaviors for women with no history of SAV; however, consuming a greater quantity of alcohol is related to a decrease in bystander behavior—regardless of SAV history. Given these findings, more work is needed to explore when and how alcohol impedes, and potentially encourages, bystander behavior. How SAV histories relate to bystander behaviors also warrants further research.

Keywords

sexual assault history revictimization bystander behavior alcohol college women

Introduction

Sexual assault is a pervasive problem for college women (Muehlenhard et al., 2017), and being assaulted is associated with myriad negative consequences (Mason & Lodrick, 2013). Preventing this behavior is paramount and in line with federal recommendations in the United States (White House, 2014). Encouraging third parties to engage in prosocial active bystander behaviors, such as not leaving a friend who is intoxicated at a party alone or asking someone who looks uncomfortable if they are okay is posited to help decrease rates of sexual assault (Banyard et al., 2004; Burn, 2009; Jouriles et al., 2018). In fact, the mere presence of a bystander makes a completed rape 44% less likely (Clay-Warner, 2002).

Factors Influencing Bystander Behavior

Despite the benefits of engaging in prosocial bystander behavior, not everyone does. There are several factors that may impede bystander intentions, willingness, and behaviors (Burn, 2009).

Sexual assault victimization

One relatively unexplored factor related to prosocial bystander behavior is sexual assault victimization (SAV) experiences, which can have a unique influence on risk recognition—a key component of bystander intervention (e.g., Bridges et al., 2020; Ham et al., 2019). For instance, some researchers have found that having an SAV experience can decrease risk recognition (Gidycz et al., 2006; Neilson et al., 2018; Rinehart & Yeater, 2015; Wilson et al., 1999), increase risk recognition (Gidycz et al., 2006; Untied et al., 2012) or have no effect on it (Gidycz et al., 2006; Yeater et al., 2009). Given these mixed findings, the influence that SAV experiences may have on women’s bystander behaviors is difficult to determine.

To date, only two studies have examined the relationship between SAV experiences and bystander factors. One study found SAV history was unrelated to bystander behaviors (Fleming & Wiersma-Mosley, 2015). The other study examined the influence of women’s SAV history (assaulted since the age of 14 versus never experiencing a sexual assault) on risk recognition in a hypothetical sexual assault vignette; the authors found that SAV history was not associated with a decreased ability to detect risk and see a need for intervention in a hypothetical sexual assault situation (Bridges et al., 2020). Yet, neither study examined if the severity of the sexual assault women experienced (e.g., the highest sexual behavior obtained from a non-consenting woman based on different sexual aggression tactics) or if women experienced multiple assaults (i.e., were revictimized) was associated with women’s bystander behaviors.

Severity of a sexual assault may influence women’s bystander behaviors because women with more severe SAV histories may be less able to perceive risk or take longer to respond in risky situations (Neilson et al., 2018; Soler-Baillo et al., 2005). Indeed, a recent study found that as the severity of sexual assault increased for women, it was associated with a delay in women recognizing risk in a hypothetical sexual assault situation (Neilson et al., 2018). Consequently, experiencing less severe or not having an experience with sexual assault is associated with recognizing sexual assault risk sooner—which could, potentially, be associated with an increase in bystander behaviors (Burn, 2009).

For revictimization history, being assaulted multiple times may be associated with deficits in risk recognition (Messman-Moore & Brown, 2006; Wilson et al., 1999). For instance, compared with women who were assaulted once or never, revictimized women reported they would hypothetically remove themselves from a sexual assault situation at a later point, potentially due to risk deficits brought on by being assaulted numerous times (Messman-Moore & Brown, 2006). Generalizing these findings to bystander behaviors, women who were revictimized may engage in bystander behaviors less than women who were assaulted once or never due to challenges in recognizing danger or risk cues that may alert revictimized women there is a need to become involved in a situation (Burn, 2009).

Alcohol consumption.

Recently, researchers have also focused on how alcohol consumption impedes bystander perceptions (Bridges et al., 2020; Ham et al., 2019; Leone et al., 2018; Leone & Parrott, 2019) such as, decreasing people’s likelihood to intervene or perceive a situation as risky. A recent alcohol administration study by Bridges et al. (2020) found that, after accounting for people’s intoxicated state, SAV history did not influence risk perception for bystanders in a hypothetical sexual assault situation. Aside from that study, the associations of alcohol consumption and SAV history with bystander behaviors have rarely been explored together; however, the potential interactions between these two correlates may help inform how bystander interventions target these two constructs.

Current study.

This study is part of a larger project that assessed women’s experience with SAV since entering college. The purpose of this project was to assess the association between women’s SAV history, alcohol consumption, and bystander behaviors in alcohol-involved settings (bars, parties). We focused on bystander behaviors in these environments because the risk of SAV is elevated when alcohol is being consumed (Abbey, 2002). Additionally, we assessed the greatest number of drinks women consumed in one drinking experience because the bystander behaviors measured in this study were in alcohol-intensive environments where people may engage in more risky drinking behaviors. We examined if alcohol consumption interacted with SAV history, severity of SAV, or revictimization history to predict women’s bystander behaviors. Given the limited research and inconsistent outcomes used in prior studies, we did not make directional hypotheses.

Method

Participants.

We recruited 907 women from introductory undergraduate health and general elective courses at two large universities in the southern United States. Students were sent an email with information to the survey and were informed that they had the option of either receiving extra credit or separately entering their e-mail address into a drawing for a chance to win one of ten USD 30 gift cards as an incentive. Of the 907 women who participated, 356 were removed for dropping out, not completing measures of interest, or being over the age of 24.

The final sample included 551 women. The mean age of this analytic sample was 20.2 (SD 1.37); 84.0% identified as White. Regarding their level of education, 55.5% were in their third or fourth year of undergraduate studies. Most of the sample identified as heterosexual (77.0%), and 34.8% were involved in Greek organizations; 79.8% received sexual assault prevention education before.

Sexual assault victimization.

Via the Sexual Experiences Survey–Short Form Victimization (SES-SFV; Koss et al., 2007), participants reported SAV experiences that had occurred since entering college.¹

The SES-SFV normally assess lifetime and past year victimization; however, the goal of this study was to assess college SAV experiences. Thus, the directions were adjusted to ask women about their experiences with SAV since entering college.

The SES-SFV contains seven items reflecting different forms of nonconsensual sexual contact (e.g., attempted and completed oral sex). Using a modified version of the SES-SFV, each participant then reported the method(s) perpetrators used (e.g., incapacitation, threats of physical force) and how many times they experienced each form of victimization (i.e., 0 to 10 times; Canan et al., 2020).

For this study, we assessed SAV histories via three different scoring methods (Davis et al., 2014). First, women were grouped into either experiencing an SAV since entering college or not. Second, women were grouped into five different categories based on their most severe form of SAV history (0 = Never assaulted, 1 = Unwanted sexual contact via verbal coercion, 2 = Unwanted sexual contact via alcohol or physical violence, 3 = Attempted or completed rape via verbal coercion 4 = Attempted or completed rape via alcohol or physical violence).²

Due to low sample sizes, some sexual assault groups needed to be combined. Women who experienced attempted or completed unwanted touching were coded into the same group. Additionally, unwanted touching via alcohol use and physical violence were grouped together. Women who experienced attempted or completed rape were also grouped together. Additionally, women who experienced attempted/completed rape via alcohol use and physical violence were grouped together. There were no differences in self-reported bystander behaviors by any of the groups that were combined.

Third, we grouped women into three categories of revictimization status since entering college: 1 = Never assaulted, 2 = Assaulted once, and 3 = Experienced revictimization.

Bystander behaviors.

Participants completed an adapted version of the Bystander Behavior Scale (Banyard et al., 2004), which focused on assessing intervention behaviors during alcohol-involved situations. Participants were asked four items about how often they did the following behaviors since entering college. Items ranged from 0 (Never) to 4 (Always), with higher scores suggesting someone more frequently engaged in active bystander behaviors (α = .86). Refer to Table 1 for the items and frequency reports of each behavior.

Table 1.

Frequency of Self-reported Bystander Behaviors in Alcohol-intensive Environments.

			N (%)
	Never	Rarely	Sometimes	Most of the Time	Always
1. Walk a friend who has had too much to drink home from a party, bar, or other social event	86 (15.6)	91 (16.5)	175 (31.8)	84 (15.2)	115 (20.9)
2. Talk to the friends of a drunk person to make sure they do not leave him/her behind at a party, bar, or other social events	98 (17.8)	75 (13.6)	138 (25.0)	109 (19.8)	131 (23.8)
3. Try to distract someone who was trying to take a drunk person to another room or trying to get them to do something sexual	184 (33.5)	83 (15.1)	98 (17.9)	69 (12.5)	115 (20.9)
4. Ask someone who looks very upset at a party if they are okay or need help	66 (12.0)	47 (8.5)	124 (22.5)	141 (25.6)	173 (31.4)

Alcohol consumption.

Participants completed one open-ended item about the most alcohol they had consumed in the past month (Collins et al., 1985). Refer to Table 2 for descriptive statistics of participant’s drinking behaviors presented by SAV category. Alcohol consumption was centered for all analyses.

Table 2.

Descriptive Statistics for Alcohol Consumption and Bystander Behaviors by Sexual Assault History, Severity, and Revictimization.

	Group SizeN (%)	Alcohol ConsumptionM (SD)	Bystander BehaviorM (SD)
Sexual assault history
No assault history	286 (51.9)	4.24 (3.58)	2.98 (1.25)
Sexually assaulted since entering college	265 (48.1)	5.91 (4.13)	3.30 (1.09)
Sexual assault severity
No assault history	286 (51.9)	4.24 (3.58)	2.98 (1.25)
Unwanted sexual contact via verbal coercion	51 (9.3)	6.31 (4.58)	3.31 (1.19)
Unwanted touching via alcohol or physical violence	21 (3.8)	6.23 (4.28)	2.94 (1.21)
Attempted or completed rape via verbal coercion	47 (8.5)	4.51 (3.85)	3.22 (1.07)
Attempted or completed rape via alcohol or physical violence	146 (26.5)	6.17 (3.97)	3.38 (1.04)
Revictimization status
No assault history	286 (51.9)	4.24 (3.58)	2.98 (1.25)
Sexually assaulted only once	93 (16.9)	5.17 (3.48)	3.17 (1.12)
Revictimized	172 (31.2)	6.30 (3.58)	3.38 (1.07)

Analysis.

We tested three linear regression models to assess associations in self-reported frequency of prosocial bystander behavior, alcohol consumption, SAV history, severity, and revictimization experiences. However, the distribution of our data suggested a potential nonlinear relationship between alcohol consumption and bystander behaviors. We then added a quadratic term for alcohol consumption to the model in its own step to test for a nonlinear relationship (Cohen et al., 2003). Specifically, this hierarchal regression model tested for a linear relationship in the first step and a quadratic relationship in the second step. For significant interactions between different SAV experiences and alcohol consumption on bystander behaviors, we examined simple slopes. When the quadratic term for alcohol consumption was significant in the interaction model, it was included in the simple slopes. Unstandardized coefficients are displayed.

Results

Nearly 52% of women reported never being assaulted, 26.5% reported attempted or completed rape via alcohol or physical violence, and 31.2% of women reported being assaulted multiple times since entering college (i.e., revictimized). The average number of drinks women consumed in one drinking experience was 5.04 (SD = 3.91), ranging from 0 to 22); non-victims consistently consumed less alcohol than women who had an SAV experience (refer to Table 2). The most commonly endorsed bystander behavior was women reporting they have ever asked someone who looks very upset at a party if they are okay or need help (88.0%).³

Prior to conducting all analyses, we examined if year in school was associated with bystander behavior as women who are enrolled in college longer, may have more opportunity to engage in bystander behavior. We found no significant difference in bystander behavior by year in school. We included year in school in our regression models as well; after victimization experiences and alcohol consumption were included, year in school was never significant. Due to these non-significant findings, we did not present these models.

Sexual assault victimization experiences.

Using regression models, we found a significant nonlinear relationship between alcohol consumption and bystander behavior $(β$ = –.007, p = .001), F(4, 546) = 19.27, p < .001. Because the interaction term was significant, we examined simple slopes for non-victims and victims with the quadratic term for alcohol consumption included. For both non-victims ( $β$ = –.011, p = .003), 95% CI [–.01, .00] and victims ( $β$ = –.005, p = .035), 95% CI [–.01, .00] the quadratic term was significant. Findings suggest that at lower levels of alcohol consumption, non-victim’s bystander behaviors were at a lower frequency but as alcohol consumption increased, so did bystander behavior. However, this effect decreases for non-victims at greater quantities of alcohol consumption. For victims, they followed a similar but weaker quadratic trend; alcohol consumption had less effect on their bystander behaviors. Refer to Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Bystander behavior as a function of victimization history and alcohol consumption.

Sexual assault victimization severity.

There was a significant interaction between SAV severity and alcohol consumption on bystander behaviors, F(3,547) = 21.77, p < .001; however, a nonlinear relationship between alcohol consumption and bystander behavior for the severity model was not found. For non-victims, the effects of alcohol on their bystander behavior was positive $(β$ = .356, p < .001), 95% CI [.08, .16]. For the women who experienced unwanted sexual contact via alcohol or physical violence, the effect of alcohol consumption on their bystander behavior was also positive $(β$ = .480 p = .028), 95% CI [.01, .25]. Alcohol consumption was not significantly associated with bystander behaviors among the other groups.

Revictimization.

Finally, we found a nonlinear relationship between alcohol consumption and bystander behavior for revictimization history $(β$ = –.007, p = .001), F(6,544) = 16.52, p < .001. Because an interaction term was significant, we examined simple slopes for the groups with the quadratic term for alcohol consumption included. As noted above, the quadratic term for non-victims was significant ( $β$ = –.011, p = .003), 95% CI [–.01, –.004]. As seen in Figure 2, the effect of alcohol on bystander behavior was stronger for women who were assaulted once since entering college ( $β$ = .121, p = .003), 95% CI [.04, .19] compared with women who were revictimized ( $β$ = .048, p = .043), 95% CI [.002, .09]. There was no significant nonlinear relationship between women assaulted once $(β =$ –.007, p = .216) or revictimization history ( $β$ = –.004, p = .173) and alcohol consumption.

Figure 2.

Note. Graph displays quadratic regression coefficients.

Discussion

The goal of this study was to assess how different SAV histories and alcohol consumption interacted to predict bystander behaviors. Overall, we found that for women with and without SAV histories, alcohol consumption had a positive effect on their bystander behaviors. That women’s alcohol consumption was positively related to their bystander behavior might be due to more frequent involvement in alcohol-intensive environments that can be conducive to sexual assaults and provide more opportunities to intervene. Yet, the positive effect of alcohol consumption decreased as women consumed greater quantities of alcohol (about 8 or more drinks in one sitting). Therefore, there is a point where too much alcohol consumption appears to be associated with a decrease in bystander behavior.

Overall, more severe SAV histories predicted increased bystander behaviors for women, disregarding their alcohol consumption; this may occur for several reasons. First, preliminary literature suggests that risk deficits brought on by SAV for an individual may not be evident when women are active bystanders (Bridges et al., 2020). In other words, women may have decreased abilities to recognize risk for themselves but not for others. Second, women who have been assaulted may be aware of the risk of SAV and want to prevent others from experiencing it. Indeed, knowing someone who has been assaulted can increase active bystander behavior (McMahon et al., 2011). As such, having a more severe experience with SAV, regardless of alcohol consumption, may increase people’s bystander behaviors for sexual assault. Our findings could align with either hypothesis.

Yet, our findings with revictimization history suggest that alcohol consumption may influence bystander behavior. At lower levels of alcohol consumption, revictimized women appeared to engage in bystander behavior most frequently, followed by women who were assaulted once and then non-victims. These findings may lend further support that women with SAV histories are active bystanders more frequently than those without. As alcohol consumption increased though, bystander behavior increased for women never or only assaulted once; this trend occurred for revictimized women as well but to a lesser extent. Thus, more work is needed to assess how alcohol consumption influences bystander behavior for women with these histories, particularly at the event level. Additionally, researchers may want to explore how different types of revictimization histories (e.g., being assaulted in childhood or adolescence and then adulthood) influence women’s bystander behaviors.

Finally, our findings with alcohol consumption contradict more recent studies that suggest alcohol consumption is associated with a decrease in bystander-related factors (Ham et al., 2019; Leone & Parrott, 2019). Our findings may differ from more current work because our sample includes only women, who tend to be more likely to engage in bystander behavior than men (Labhardt et al., 2017). Thus, the impending effects of alcohol may be mitigated by gender; yet, only to a certain extent as consuming too much alcohol, regardless of gender or victimization history, may make it difficult for people to engage in bystander behavior as they are too intoxicated to recognize risk or act. Second, more recent work with alcohol and bystanders involves alcohol administration studies (e.g., Ham et al., 2019); our study is cross-sectional and retrospective which may lead to different findings. Third, nearly 80% of the sample had received sexual assault education, which may increase people’s understanding and need to engage in bystander behavior. Taken together, more work is still needed to further assess how alcohol consumption relates to bystander behaviors and how different individual factors (e.g., SAV) may interact with that relationship.

Limitations.

First, we did not assess if our participants had the opportunity to intervene in a potential sexual assault situation (McMahon et al., 2017). Moving forward, assessing whether participants are not becoming involved or not witnessing situations to get involved with would be fruitful. Second, our groups of severity were unevenly distributed, our data were self-reported and collected cross-sectionally, and the sample was primarily White and heterosexual; generalizing these findings to the larger college community may be difficult. Thus, more work is needed to assess SAV history’s influence on bystander behaviors among diverse samples of students, particularly as different racial, ethnic, and sexual orientation groups experience SAV at higher rates than White heterosexual women (Black et al., 2011; Walters et al., 2013).

Third, in modifying the SES-SFV, we do not know if women were assaulted prior to entering college; researchers should examine the effects of SAV histories across different developmental periods to assess the influence this has on bystander behaviors. Fourth, our bystander assessment only focused on four specific bystander behaviors in alcohol-involved situations, without a distinct time frame. Researchers could continue to expand their assessment of SAV histories influence on various bystander behaviors, outside of alcohol situations. Fifth, our alcohol consumption assessment included one item that asked about the most alcohol women had consumed in one sitting (i.e., binge drinking) in the past 30 days; researchers may want to use standardized measures to assess hazardous drinking behaviors in the future, such as the AUDIT-C. Finally, researchers could continue to assess how alcohol influences bystander behavior retrospectively, in lab-based studies, and daily diary studies. By assessing alcohol consumptions’ influence on bystander behavior via different methodologies, researchers can continue to parse apart how and when alcohol impedes, increases, or has no effect on bystander behavior.

Conclusions

Encouraging prosocial active bystander behavior may decrease rates of sexual assault. SAV history, severity of the SAV, and being revictimized does not appear to decrease frequency of active bystander intervention in our study. To further contextualize these findings, researchers may want to interview women with SAV histories to assess their thought process with bystander behavior, which may help to create strategies to encourage others to engage in bystander intervention. Additionally, researchers suggest that those who perform bystander intervention may face personal consequences from doing so (Banyard et al., 2019). Assessing if those consequences differentially impact women who have a history of SAV is important to ensure their well-being. Finally, our findings with alcohol, while contradictory to the larger body of research, suggest a unique avenue for bystander research with alcohol consumption. For instance, researchers may want to examine how different levels of intoxication (e.g., BrAC of .04, .08, .10) influence bystander recognition and behaviors as our findings may suggest different levels of intoxication could increase and then decrease bystander behavior.

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

Tiffany L. Marcantonio

Malachi Willis

Author Biographies

Tiffany L. Marcantonio, TLM, MA, is a doctoral candidate at the University of Arkansas in the Health, Human Performance, and Recreation Department. Her research area focuses on assessing how young adults communicate sexual consent and refusals and assessing the relationship between sexual aggression and alcohol.

Malachi Willis, MW, PhD, is a lecturer in Psychology for the School of Human Sciences at the University of Greenwich and is affiliated with the Centre for Inequalities within the Institute for Lifecourse Development. He primarily researches the nuances of sexual consent.

Eric D. Schisler, EDS, MS, is a doctoral student at the University of Arkansas in the Health, Human Performance, and Recreation Department. His research interests include bystander intervention, sexual assault prevention, and international health.

References

Abbey

(2002). Alcohol-related sexual assault: A common problem among college students. Journal of Studies on Alcohol , (Suppl. 14), 118–128. https://doi.org/10.15288/jsas.2002.s14.118

Banyard

V. L.

, Plante

E. G.

, & Moynihan

M. M.

(2004). Bystander education: Bringing a broader community perspective to sexual violence prevention. Journal of Community Psychology , 32(1), 61–79. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.10078

Banyard

, Moschella

, Grych

, & Jouriles

(2019). What happened next? New measures of consequences of bystander actions to prevent interpersonal violence. Psychology of Violence , 9(6), 664–674. https://doi.org/10.1037/vio0000229

Black

M. C.

, Basile

K. C.

, Breiding

M. J.

, Smith

S. G.

, Walters

M. L.

, Merrick

M. T.

, & 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

Bridges

A. J.

, Dueweke

A. R.

, Marcantonio

T. L.

, Ham

L. S.

, Wiersma-Mosley

J. D.

, & Jozkowski

K. N.

(2020). Two studies investigating associations between sexual assault victimization history and bystander appraisals of risk. Violence Against Women . https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801220940390

Burn

S. M.

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

Canan

S. N.

, Jozkowski

K. N.

, Wiersma-Mosley

, Blunt-Vinti

, & Bradley

(2020). Validation of the Sexual Experience Survey-Short Form Revised using lesbian, bisexual, and heterosexual women’s narratives of sexual violence. Archives of Sexual Behavior , 49(3), 1067–1083. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-019-01543-7

Clay-Warner

(2002). Avoiding rape: The effects of protective actions and situational factors on rape outcome. Violence and Victims , 17, 691–705. https://doi.org/10.1891/vivi.17.6.691.33723

Cohen

, Cohen

, West

S. G.

, & Atkins

L. S.

(2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.

10.

Collins

L. R.

, Parks

, & Marlatt

G. A.

(1985). Social determinants of alcohol consumption: The effects of social interaction and model status on the self-administration of alcohol. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology , 53(2), 189–200.

11.

Davis

K. C.

, Gilmore

A. K.

, Stappenbeck

C. A.

, Balsan

M. J.

, George

W. H.

, & Norris

(2014). How to score the Sexual Experiences Survey? A comparison of nine methods. Psychology of Violence , 4(4), 445–461. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037494

12.

Fleming

W. M.

, & Wiersma-Mosley

J. D.

(2015). The role of alcohol consumption patterns and pro-social bystander interventions in contexts of gender violence. Violence against Women , 21, 1259–1283. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801215592721

13.

Gidycz

C. A.

, McNamara

J. R.

, & Edwards

K. M.

(2006). Women’s risk perception and sexual victimization: A review of the literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior , 11(5), 441–456. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2006.01.004

14.

Ham

L. S.

, Wiersma-Mosley

J. D.

, Wolkowicz

N. R.

, Jozkowski

K. N.

, Bridges

A. J.

, & Melkonian

A. J.

(2019). Effect of alcohol intoxication on bystander intervention in a vignette depiction of sexual assault. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs , 80(2), 252–260. https://doi.org/10.15288/jsad.2019.80.252

15.

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. https://doi.org/10.1080/07448481.2018.1431906

16.

Koss

M. P.

, Abbey

, Campbell

, Cook

, Norris

, Testa

, Ullman

, West

, & White

(2007). Revising the SES: A collaborative process to improve assessment of sexual aggression and victimization. Psychology of Women Quarterly , 31, 357–370. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2007.00385.x

17.

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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2017.05.005

18.

Leone

R. M.

, & Parrott

D. J.

(2019). Acute alcohol intoxication inhibits bystander intervention behavior for sexual aggression among men with high intent to help. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research , 43, 170–179. https://doi.org/10.1111/acer.13920

19.

Leone

R. M.

, Haikalis

, Parrott

D. J.

, & DiLillo

(2018). Bystander intervention to prevent sexual violence: The overlooked role of bystander alcohol intoxication. Psychology of Violence , 8(5), 639–647. https://doi.org/10.1037/vio0000155

20.

Mason

, & Lodrick

(2013). Psychological consequences of sexual assault. Best Practice & Research Clinical Obstetrics & Gynaecology , 27(1), 27–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2012.08.015

21.

McMahon

, Palmer

J. E.

, Banyard

, Murphy

, & Gidycz

C. A.

(2017). Measuring bystander behavior in the context of sexual violence prevention: Lessons learned and new directions. Journal of Interpersonal Violence , 32(16), 2396–2418. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260515591979

22.

McMahon

, Postmus

J. L.

, & Koenick

R. A.

(2011). Conceptualizing the engaging bystander approach to sexual violence prevention on college campuses. Journal of College Student Development , 52, 115–130. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2011.0002

23.

Messman-Moore

T. L.

, & Brown

A. L.

(2006). Risk perception, rape, and sexual revictimization: A prospective study of college women. Psychology of Women Quarterly , 30(2), 159–172. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2006.00279.x

24.

Muehlenhard

, Peterson

Z. D.

, Humphreys

T. P.

, & Jozkowski

K. N.

(2017). Evaluating the one-in five statistic: Women’s risk of sexual assault while in college. Journal of Sex Research , 54, 549–576. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2017.1295014

25.

Neilson

E. C.

, Bird

E. R.

, Metzger

I. W.

, George

W. H.

, Norris

, & Gilmore

A. K.

(2018). Understanding sexual assault risk perception in college: Associations among sexual assault history, drinking to cope, and alcohol use. Addictive Behaviors , 78, 178–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2017.11.022

26.

Rinehart

J. K.

, & Yeater

E. A.

(2015). Using cognitive theory and methodology to inform the study of sexual victimization. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse , 16, 3–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838013515761

27.

Soler-Baillo

J. M.

, Marx

B. P.

, & Sloan

D. M.

(2005). The psychophysiological correlates of risk recognition among victims and non-victims of sexual assault. Behavior Research and Therapy , 43(2), 168–181. https://doi-org.proxyiub.uits.iu.edu/10.1016/j.brat.2004.01.004

28.

Untied

A. S.

, Orchowski

L. M.

, Mastroleo

, & Gidycz

C. A.

(2012). College students’ social reactions to the victim in a hypothetical sexual assault scenario: The role of victim and perpetrator alcohol use. Violence and Victims , 27(6), 957–972. https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.27.6.957

29.

Walters

M. L.

, Chen

, & Breiding

M. J.

(2013). The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2010 Findings on Victimization by Sexual Orientation . National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Center for Disease Control and Prevention.

30.

White House. (2014). Not alone: The first report of the White House Task Force to protect students from sexual assault . https://www.justice.gov/archives/ovw/page/file/905942/download

31.

Wilson

A. E.

, Calhoun

K. S.

, & Bernat

J. A.

(1999). Risk recognition and trauma-related symptoms among sexually revictimized women. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology , 67(5), 705–710. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-006X.67.5.705

32.

Yeater

E. A.

, Viken

R. J.

, Hoyt

, & Dolan

J. L.

(2009). Self-other perspective and sexual attitudes affect estimates of sexual risk. Sex Roles , 61(1–2), 110–119. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-009-9618-4