“I Pulled Them Apart and Told Them to Stop”: A Mixed-Methods Examination of Bystander Behavior,Preparedness,and Emotional Reaction

Abstract

The goals of this mixed-methods study were to examine self-reported behavior of bystanders who intervened in specific situations of potential sexual violence and physical dating violence, to explore their sense of preparedness to intervene, and to assess bystanders’ emotional reactions to their self-reported action or inaction when witnessing potential sexual and dating violence. The participants (n = 553, 65.2% female, 76% freshmen, M age = 18.7 years), responded to a sequence of questions pertaining to witnessing and intervening in specific potentially dangerous situations, emotional reactions to their action or inaction, and preparedness. Bystander participants also provided narrative responses describing their behavior. We used joint display analyses to integrate, analyze, and interpret the qualitative and quantitative data. Of the 553 participants, 38% witnessed “a man talking to a woman and she looked uncomfortable,” 27% witnessed “someone taking an intoxicated person up to their room,” and 39% witnessed “someone grabbing or pushing their boyfriend or girlfriend”; of those who witnessed, the percentage of those who intervened was 42%, 25%, and 19%, respectively. Bystander behavior involved one of 5Ds: distract, direct, delegate, distance, diffuse, or a combination. Although most bystanders did not get involved, most (94.6%) reported that they felt prepared to intervene. For those who intervened, most reported feeling positive about their action; however, most who did not intervene reported feeling negative about their inaction. Implications for college bystanders and bystander education programs are discussed.

Keywords

sexual assault dating violence bystander behavior college

“I Pulled Them Apart and Told Them to Stop”: a Mixed-Methods Examination of Bystander Behavior, Preparedness, and Emotional Reaction

The number of sexual assaults and physical dating violence incidents on college campuses across the country are alarming. In a study involving over 100,000 students across 33 campuses, the rates of nonconsensual sexual contact amongst undergraduate women ranged from 14 to 32% (Cantor et al., 2020). For students in a partnered relationship during college, 10.1% had experienced physical dating violence with a range of 6–14% across the participating universities (Cantor et al., 2020). As a result of these alarming rates, many institutions have recognized the importance of bystander intervention training to prepare the student body to prevent such incidents. A number of bystander intervention programs have been instituted across college campuses with varying degrees of success (Coker et al., 2011, 2015; Gidycz et al., 2011). Although much progress has been made toward efforts to prepare bystanders to act when witnessing potentially dangerous situations, the prevalence of sexual assaults and incidents of physical dating violence on college campuses suggests that there is still much work to be done toward educating and motivating students to intervene. Toward advancing a more nuanced understanding of bystander behavior, the current study examined college students’ self-reports of actions taken when witnessing specific incidents of potential sexual violence and physical dating violence, their perceived preparedness, and their feelings about their action or inaction. Advancing knowledge of the types of action bystanders take in real situations of potential sexual violence and physical dating violence, will better inform efforts to educate and motivate bystanders to act.

Bystander intervention programs are a common method employed by schools, universities, and communities to change the culture surrounding sexual violence and physical dating violence and to encourage bystanders to engage in helping behavior when they witness a negative situation involving potential physical or sexual violence. Green Dot (Edwards, 2014), as well as other programs like The Red Flag Campaign (2007), Step UP Program, 2009, and Bringing in the Bystander (Soteria Solutions, 2021), seek to combat sexual violence and physical dating violence through a series of training modules or lectures, discussions, and role-play of common scenarios.

Among the various bystander programs, Green Dot is perhaps the most extensively evaluated program, but efficacy data suggest varying degrees of success. For example, Coker et al. (2015) compared a college campus that implemented Green Dot training to two other campuses of similar size and demographics that had not implemented the training and found that Green Dot trained male students reported lower frequency of violence, stalking, and sexual harassment victimization and perpetration. Female students who received the Green Dot training reported lower frequency of violence, stalking, and sexual harassment victimization compared to those on other campuses who had not received the training. There was no difference, however, in unwanted sex or dating violence perpetration across the three campuses. In another study on a large college campus, Coker et al. (2011) reported significantly lower rape myth acceptance scores and higher self-reported active bystander behaviors among Green Dot trained students compared to students on the same campus who had not been trained.

Although the present study is not an evaluation study of the Green Dot program, we found the theoretical framework particularly useful in understanding and analyzing specific behaviors that bystanders commonly enact. Green Dot teaches bystanders different methods of intervening on behalf of potential victims which include taking direct action, delegating responsibility to others, and utilizing distraction to diffuse a potentially dangerous situation (Edwards, 2014). Qualitative research has confirmed that these three tactics are commonly used by bystanders (Moschella et al., 2018) in response to potential sexual violence, but that some bystanders also use tactics beyond the three D’s: distancing the potential victim from the situation (Moschella et al., 2018), diffusing the situation (Moschella et al., 2018), and using physical action (Moschella & Banyard, 2020) when responding to nonspecific types of interpersonal violence.

When bystanders witness potentially dangerous situations that could lead to unwanted sexual contact or dating violence, they must decide whether to intervene. Indeed, the theory of bystander action suggests four steps in the intervention process: (a) noticing an event, (b) interpreting the event as an emergency, (c) deciding if one feels personally responsible to act, and then (d) taking some type of action (Latané & Darley, 1969). Despite the extensive efforts toward designing and implementing bystander intervention programs, prior research suggests that most of the time, and for a variety of reasons, bystanders choose to do nothing. For example, bystanders do not intervene when they feel they are incapable of providing adequate help, fail to recognize the need for intervention in a high-risk situation (Bennett et al., 2014; Burn, 2009), or when others are present, as their sense of personal responsibility diminishes (Yule & Grych, 2020). Furthermore, when bystanders perceive that someone is at risk, feel responsible for helping, and feel prepared to intervene, it is not their inability to regulate their emotions that prevents them from intervening (Yule & Grych, 2020). The most common self-reported reasons for not intervening are skill deficits, not feeling responsible, and not knowing what to do (Yule & Grych, 2020).

A few studies have examined how bystanders feel after intervening in potentially risky situations (Moschella & Banyard, 2020; Seo et al., 2021; Witte et al., 2017), and to our knowledge, one study has examined how bystanders feel if they decide not to intervene (Seo et al., 2021). When witnessing potentially risky situations, bystanders may choose not to intervene to avoid the potential social consequences (e.g., avoiding social conflict, protecting future encounters, protecting one’s reputation, etc.). Not intervening, however, may lead to negative feelings such as feelings of guilt or regret, particularly if the bystander felt confident in their ability to intervene, yet chose not to act. Shelton et al. (2006) found that women who failed to confront perpetrators of prejudice reported self-directed negative effects. Bystander reactions to their lack of involvement in incidents of potentially risky situations when feeling prepared to do so have yet to be fully explored in the context of witnessing specific events.

To advance knowledge about bystander behavior and thus inform bystander training aimed at decreasing incidents of sexual assault and physical dating violence, this study examined bystander behavior when witnessing specific risky incidents, preparedness to intervene, and bystander emotional reactions. Thus, the specific goals of this mixed-methods study were to: (a) examine self-reported behavior of bystanders who intervened in specific situations of potential sexual violence and physical dating violence, (b) explore bystanders’ sense of preparedness to intervene in potential sexual and physical dating violence situations, and (c) assess bystanders’ emotional reactions to their self-reported action or inaction when witnessing potential sexual violence and physical dating violence.

Method

Participants

Participants were recruited through the Psychology Department subject pool at a large university in the southeastern region of the United States and received course credit for their participation. A total of 583 college students started the online survey; however, 553 (65.2% female, 76% freshmen, (M age = 18.7 years) completed all aspects of the survey. The researchers did not collect race/ethnicity data; however, other studies conducted using the same Psychology Department subject pool report the sample as 80% White, 15% African American, with the remaining 5% Asian or “other.”

Procedures

The data used for this study are part of a larger study about bystander interventions and well-being. Participants provided online consent to participate then proceeded to an online Qualtrics survey, a secure online platform used to design surveys and store research data. The online survey items used in the present study included a sequence of questions pertaining to witnessing and intervening in specific potentially dangerous situations, as well as reactions that the bystander had following their behavior, whether they intervened or not. Participants then provided narrative responses about their behavior describing specific actions they took when they witnessed specific incidents and chose to intervene.

Measures

Witnessing and Intervening in Risky Situations Involving Potential Sexual Violence and Physical Dating Violence

Participants responded to three specific risky situations involving potential sexual assault and/or dating violence. The three items represent: (a) one somewhat ambiguous potential sexual violence item, “I saw a man talking to a female and she looked uncomfortable,” (b) one more risky potential sexual assault item, “I saw someone taking a very intoxicated person up to their room,” and (c) one potential physical dating violence item, “I saw someone grabbing or pushing their boyfriend/girlfriend.” Participants indicated whether they witnessed each risky situation, and if so, whether they intervened (i.e., “I did not get involved” vs. “I got involved”). The three items were taken from the “risky situation” factor of Banyard et al. (2014) scale of bystander behaviors directed at friends and strangers.

Specific Bystander Behavior

Participants responded to a three-part question related to the three risky situations: (a) “Has this event happened before?” Participants could respond “yes” or “no”; (b) “If this event has happened, how did you respond?” Response options were, “I did not get involved” or “I got involved”; and (c) “If you got involved in the situation, explain what you did.” There was a text box within which participants could provide a narrative response describing their behavior.

Preparedness

Participants reported how prepared they felt to intervene if they saw someone in a situation that might lead to sexual assault or dating violence. Participants responded using a three-point Likert-type scale (i.e., “felt very prepared to intervene, felt somewhat prepared, or felt not at all prepared”).

Emotional Reaction

Participants who witnessed any of the three incidents reported how they felt about their involvement, or lack of involvement, in the incident they witnessed by responding to the following question: “How do you feel about your response (whether you got involved or did not get involved) to this incident?” Participants could respond “yes” or “no” to three possible reactions: “positive, negative, or neutral.”

Data Analysis

Participants who witnessed and intervened in any one or more of the three incidents and provided a narrative response describing what action they took were included in the qualitative data analysis. A team of researchers analyzed the content of each response to identify common themes in the data (Braun & Clark, 2006). The themes identified aligned with the Green Dot Bystander Intervention Program (i.e., direct, delegate, and distract; Edwards, 2014), which is consistent with past research (Moschella & Banyard, 2020; Moschella et al., 2018). Two additional categories emerged while coding these data: distance (also identified by Moschella & Banyard, 2020 in response to nonspecific incidents of interpersonal violence, and Moschella et al., 2018 in response to sexual violence) and diffuse (also identified by Moschella et al., 2018 in response to sexual violence). The present study is novel in that it included specific incidents of potential sexual violence and physical dating violence.

We operationally defined the 5Ds as follows: (a) direct—confronting one or both parties about the behavior, (i.e., talking to the parties involved about the behavior they were engaging in, by asking the victim if she is okay and needs help, or by confronting the perpetrator; physically placing oneself in the situation; physically getting in between the perpetrator and victim; stopping the situation); (b) delegate—seeking help from a third party, (i.e., asking the friends of the victim or perpetrator to help; asking other bystanders to help; calling 911, etc.); (c) distract—interrupting the situation without directly confronting the perpetrator or asking the victim if she needs help, (e.g., this might include things like introducing a new conversation topic, making up a lie about needing to go to the bathroom or going outside, or starting a new activity with the victim or perpetrator such as dancing); (d) distance—physically distancing the potential victim and the potential perpetrator (or from the situation), (e.g., this might include physically taking the victim to her dorm room or some other location away from the potential perpetrator). A distance intervention is immediate and more long-term than a distraction intervention; and (e) diffuse—actions to calm down the parties involved, such as telling the parties involved to relax or calm down. Using the five categories of direct, delegate, distract, distance, and diffuse, the research team (two faculty members and two undergraduate researchers) independently coded the data using the 5D intervention types then met to discuss and resolve any discrepancies.

We used joint display analysis to integrate, analyze, and interpret the quantitative and qualitative data (Guetterman et al., 2015). Joint display analysis is a mixed-methods approach that allows the researcher to integrate quantitative and qualitative data by merging the data through a visual means to draw out new insights and meta-inferences beyond the information gleaned from the separate results (Fetters et al., 2013). We used a convergent design which involves simultaneous qualitative and quantitative data collection followed by analysis and integration to develop a nuanced understanding of the data (Younas et al., 2019). We also used a theoretical lens display (Younas et al., 2019) which presents the data in accordance with the adopted conceptual framework, in this case, the theoretical framework of the Green Dot bystander philosophy (Edwards, 2014).

For each of the three specific incidents, we conducted joint display analyses of the bystanders who witnessed, intervened (or not), and reported their emotional reaction to their action or inaction based on the type of intervention (i.e., direct, delegate, distract, distance, diffuse, or any combination). We conducted a series of Chi-square tests of independence for each of the three specific incidents to examine if there were statistical associations between participants’ emotional reactions (positive or negative) toward getting involved (or not) at different levels of self-perceived preparedness (i.e., very prepared to intervene and somewhat prepared to intervene).

Results

A total of 583 college students responded to the only survey and reported if they had witnessed one of the three incidents, whether or not they intervened, specific action they took, and how they felt about their action or inaction (See Table 1). Participants also responded to a question about preparedness. Overall, 538 (94.6%) of participants responded to the question about preparedness with 42.2% reporting that they felt very prepared and 52.4% reported that they felt somewhat prepared to intervene if they saw someone in a situation that might lead to sexual assault or physical dating violence.

Table 1.

Summary Witnessed, Intervened, Bystander Reaction to Intervention.

Risky Situation	Reported Witnessing %(n)	Intervened %(n) Reaction (n)	Did Not Intervene %(n) Reaction (n)
“I saw a man talking to a female and she looked uncomfortable”	38% (223)	42% (93)	58% (130)
		Positive (73)	Positive (22)
		Negative (11)	Negative (40)
“I saw someone taking an intoxicated person up to their room”	27% (157)	25% (39)	75% (118)
		Positive (29)	Positive (13)
		Negative (6)	Negative (37)
“I saw someone grabbing or pushing their boy/girlfriend”	39% (231)	19% (43)	83% (188)
		Positive (n = 27)	Positive (n = 15)
		Negative (n = 6)	Negative (n = 35)

Note. Raw number of positive and negative reactions may not correspond to the number of participants who intervened because not all participants reported their reaction to intervening.

I Saw a Man Talking to a Female and She Looked Uncomfortable

Of the 583 college students who responded to the online survey, 38% (n = 223) reported witnessing a man talking to a female who looked uncomfortable. Of the 223 participants who witnessed this type of event, 42% (n = 93) reported that they intervened and provided codable narrative responses describing their behavior. Participants also provided information about their emotional reaction to intervening (or not) in response to this type of incident. Most intervention types were used by the participant bystanders (i.e., direct, delegate, distract, distance, and multiple combinations), with the exception of diffuse, when witnessing a man talking to a woman and she looked uncomfortable.

Figure 1 provides a joint display of the number of those who intervened and did not intervene, the number who reported feeling positive or negative about intervening or not, the full range of bystander intervention types based on the qualitative coding of narrative responses, and exemplar quotes for each type of intervention. As shown in the joint display, more participants did not intervene (n = 130) as compared to those who did (n = 93), and of those who did not intervene, more had a negative reaction (n = 40) as compared to a positive reaction (n = 22) to not intervening. Those who did intervene (n = 93), more had a positive reaction (n = 73) compared to a negative reaction (n = 11). The most common interventions in response to seeing a man talking to a woman who looked uncomfortable were a distract intervention and a combination of distract and distance interventions. More participants who used distraction or a combination of distract and distance also reported having a positive reaction to this type of intervention. See Figure 1 for exemplar quotes of specific bystander actions when intervening in this type of incident.

Figure 1.

Joint display of “I saw a man talking to a female and she looked uncomfortable.”

Results of the Chi-square analyses revealed, for both those who felt very prepared and somewhat prepared, a significant difference between positive feelings and negative feelings toward getting involved (or not), with those who did not intervene reporting more negative feelings and those who did intervene reporting more positive feelings (see Figure 1).

I Saw Someone Taking an Intoxicated Person up to Their Room

Of the 583 students who responded to the survey, 27% (n = 157) witnessed someone taking an intoxicated person up to their room. Of the 157 who witnessed this type of incident, 25% (n = 39) reported that they intervened and provided codable narrative responses describing their behavior. Participants also provided information about their emotional reaction to intervening (or not) in response to witnessing this type of event. All types of actions were used by the participants when intervening; however, for this item, direct action was by far the most common strategy used to intervene.

Figure 2 provides a joint display of the number of those who intervened and did not intervene, the number who reported feeling positive or negative about intervening or not, and the full range of bystander intervention types based on the qualitative coding of narrative responses, along with exemplar quotes for each type of action. Similar to witnessing a man talking to a woman and she looked uncomfortable, most bystanders did not intervene (n = 118) when witnessing someone taking a very intoxicated person up to their room, compared to those who did intervene (n = 39). Those who did intervene, a majority felt positive (n = 29) versus negative (n = 6). In contrast, those who did not intervene, a majority felt negative (n = 37) versus positive (n = 13). See Figure 2 for exemplar quotes of specific action taken by bystanders for each intervention type.

Figure 2.

Joint display of “I saw someone taking a very intoxicated person up to their room.”

Chi-square analyses revealed a significant difference between positive and negative feelings toward getting involved (or not) for those who felt very prepared but not for those who felt somewhat prepared to intervene when witnessing someone taking an intoxicated person up to their room (Figure 2).

I Saw Someone Grabbing or Pushing Their Boy/Girlfriend

Of the 583 participants who responded to the survey, 39% (n = 231) reported witnessing someone grabbing or pushing their boy/girlfriend, and 19% (n = 43) reported that they intervened, provided codable narrative responses describing their behavior, and provided information about their emotional reaction to intervening in this type of incident. Unlike the other two incidents, we did not find examples of all types of actions for this item. Of those who did intervene when they witnessed someone grabbing or pushing their boyfriend or girlfriend, direct action was the most common strategy used.

Figure 3 provides a joint display of the number of those who intervened and did not intervene, the number who reported feeling positive or negative about intervening or not, and the full range of bystander intervention types based on the qualitative coding of narrative responses, along with exemplar quotes for each type of action. As displayed in Figure 3, most participants did not intervene (n = 188) as compared to those who did (n = 43) when witnessing someone grabbing or pushing their boy/girlfriend. Those who did intervene (most of whom took direct action), reported feeling positive about their action (n =27). Very few participants who did not intervene reported their feelings, but of those who did, more reported feeling negative (n = 35) as compared to feeling positive (n = 15) when not acting when witnessing someone grabbing or pushing their boy/girlfriend.

Figure 3.

Joint display of “I saw someone grabbing or pushing their boy/girlfriend.”

Chi-square analyses point to a significant difference between positive and negative feelings toward getting involved (or not) for those who felt very prepared to intervene and for those who felt somewhat prepared to intervene in response to seeing someone grab or push their boy/girlfriend (see Figure 3).

Discussion

The primary goal of this study was to analyze the types of action college student bystanders take when witnessing: (a) a female looking uncomfortable when talking to a man, (b) a very intoxicated person being taken to someone’s room, and (c) someone grabbing or pushing their boyfriend or girlfriend. The second goal was to evaluate and integrate how prepared the bystanders felt to intervene if they thought someone was in a potential sexual violence or physical dating violence situation, the specific action taken, and bystanders’ reactions to their action or inaction when witnessing one or more of the three incidents.

Bystander Involvement

Bystander involvement requires some type of action by a bystander on behalf of a potential victim of sexual violence or physical dating violence. This action can be directed toward any combination of potential perpetrators, victims, or uninvolved parties (e.g., authority figures) with the intention of stopping the incident. Although the participant bystanders in this study did not receive the Green Dot training, the types of behavior reported by the participants aligned with the Green Dot philosophy providing ecological validity for the 3D approach, direct, distract, and delegate (Edwards, 2014). Two additional intervention types were observed in the bystanders’ narrative responses in this study—distance and diffuse—thus extending the 3Ds to 5Ds, which is consistent with past research related to sexual violence (Moschella et al., 2018) and nonspecific incidents of interpersonal violence (Moschella & Banyard, 2020). The Green Dot curriculum describes the distract intervention as a way to “diffuse” a potentially risky situation; however, the types of responses for “distract” and “diffuse” in the current study were distinct. The incident types also influenced our conceptualization of distraction and diffusion as unique intervention types. We found that for the dating violence incident, “I saw someone grabbing or pushing their boy/girlfriend,” the interventions that we coded as “diffuse” did not adequately fit the distract intervention of the Green Dot philosophy. For example, two “diffuse” interventions in response to this incident were: “I told them to calm down,” and “I told the guy to calm down. He got heated with me, then his girlfriend said thanks for the help but no thanks.” We did not view these as distraction, but rather, interventions aimed at de-escalating or “diffusing” a high-risk situation. Further, no bystanders used distraction in isolation when they witnessed someone being grabbed or pushed. Bystanders did use distraction, however, when witnessing a man talking to a female that looked uncomfortable, and these interventions fit the Green Dot description of a distraction. Actions like “I ran up and hugged her and started talking to her like we were old friends,” and “Made a joke about him bothering her” were distinct enough from the diffuse interventions in response to the high-risk physically violent incident that we determined two distinct codes—diffuse and distract—were most appropriate for our data.

Overall, most of the bystanders who intervened reported that they felt positive about their action. In contrast, most of the participants who did not intervene when witnessing one of the three incidents reported feeling negative about their inaction. These findings are consistent with past research showing more positive feelings about intervening and negative about not intervening (Seo et al., 2021). A goal of bystander education is to prepare bystanders to recognize and act when witnessing risky situations; although most of the bystanders in the present study reported feeling prepared to intervene, most did not intervene. Thus, the present findings do not support skill deficits as a barrier for the bystanders’ involvement, as suggested in previous research (Bennett et al., 2014; Burn, 2009; Yule & Grych, 2020). Further research regarding the interplay of preparedness and bystander involvement is warranted. Moreover, integrating discussions of preparedness and the real consequences of intervening and not intervening, as well as strategies to help the bystander manage negative consequences, would be meaningful and impactful additions to bystander intervention programs that could lead to more bystander involvement.

Intervening in Response to Risky Situations that Could Lead to Unwanted Sexual Contact

Two of the incidents examined in this study—seeing a female looking uncomfortable while talking to a man and seeing someone taking a very intoxicated person up to their room—are risky situations that could lead to unwanted sexual contact. These types of incidents are not to be taken lightly considering that the prevalence of unwanted sexual contact among college students has been reported to be as high as 32% (Cantor et al., 2020) and given the culture of rape myths (Gidcyz et al., 2011) that normalizes this type of behavior on college campuses. One goal of bystander training like Green Dot is to prepare bystanders to act when they witness potentially dangerous behavior; but again, prior research points to inaction being a common response (Bennett et al., 2014; Ryan & Wessel, 2012; Yule & Grych, 2020), and the findings in the current study provide further evidence of inaction being the most common response by college bystanders despite their self-reported sense of preparedness. Although many participants reported witnessing these types of events (26.8%–39.5%) and most reported feeling prepared or somewhat prepared to intervene (94.6%), few bystander participants intervened when witnessing one of the three incidents (19%–42%; see Table 1). Those who did act used a variety of intervention strategies.

Direct interventions were the most common type of interventions in the present study when witnessing an intoxicated person being taken to someone’s room. A direct intervention is likely the most common intervention type because the situation has both physical and high-risk elements to it (e.g., taking a very intoxicated person up to their room), which may elicit a more immediate and direct response as compared to less physical, lower-risk situations (e.g., seeing a guy talking to a girl who looked uncomfortable). A direct intervention is appropriate given the level of potential risk of harm to the victim. When examining those who had a negative versus positive response to their intervention, the differences are slight, but those who felt negative used phrases like “tried to.” This might suggest their negative feelings stem from their attempt to intervene, but that perhaps their attempt was unsuccessful for some reason. Previous research points to victims sometimes refusing the help of bystanders (Ryan & Wessel, 2012), bystanders responding negatively to having their help rejected (Rosen et al., 1987), and bystanders getting harmed and harassed for their involvement (Moschella & Banyard, 2021). On the other hand, those who reported feeling positive about their intervention used words like “stopped” or “made sure,” which suggests that their intervention resulted in immediate verification of the successfulness of the intervention.

Only one participant utilized the distract intervention type in response to seeing a very intoxicated person up to their room, and this bystander “Jumped in and ‘third-wheeled’ the two before the intoxicated girl left (i.e. “cockblocked”).” This participant felt positive about their response to the situation. In comparison, a distract intervention type was the most common when witnessing a man talking to a female and she looked uncomfortable. Seeing a female who looks uncomfortable while talking to a man is likely to be of lower risk and likely occurs in more public contexts; thus, a distraction seems to be an appropriate response to this type of situation. Most of the bystanders who used distraction when a female was uncomfortable reported feeling positive about their intervention.

All three of the individuals who used a distance intervention when an intoxicated person was being taken to someone’s room, reported feeling positive about their responses to the situation. Our findings are in line with previous research related to distance interventions in response to potential sexual violence (Moschella et al., 2018). In the present study, there were two levels of distancing: separating the person from the situation and more permanently distancing the individuals by taking the intoxicated person back to their own home. Distance was also used in some situations when a female looked uncomfortable taking to a man, and most bystander participants felt positive about using a distance intervention.

Two individuals delegated the intervention to another person when they saw an intoxicated person being taken to someone’s room. The bystander who delegated the intervention to a mutual friend felt positive about their response, whereas the bystander who delegated to security felt negative about their response. Previous research identified social barriers like anxiety about future interactions with those involved (Bennett et al., 2014) and fear of one’s reputation (Bennett et al., 2014) as reasons bystanders do not act. Although the bystanders did act, it is possible that delegating to a friend feels safer or more socially acceptable, whereas getting an authority figure involved might suggest that the situation was more dangerous, threatening, or placed the bystander in an uncomfortable social situation, thus resulting in the negative feeling afterwards.

The distract intervention type was most common when the bystander witnessed a man talking to a female and she looked uncomfortable, but many bystanders used a combination of both distract and distance. Causing a distraction makes sense as a strategy to intervene in this situation. Bystanders who used distraction or some combination involving distraction and reported a positive feeling, used light, sometimes humorous, or creative strategies such as “Made a joke about him bothering her” or “I ran up to her and hugged her and started talking to her like we were old friends,” and “I started to dance with her,” and these bystanders reported positive feelings about their intervention. One participant who reported negative feelings in response to using both distract and distance stated, “I acted drunk and asked the girl to help me by accompanying me to the restroom.” Although speculative, perhaps something negative happened after the bystander acted drunk and asked the girl to accompany them to the restroom, resulting in them feeling negative about their action. Moschella and Banyard (2021) found that bystanders felt negative after intervening in incidents of interpersonal violence because it took a lot of time or they were threatened afterwards.

Of the six people who used a combination of direct and distance interventions in response to seeing an intoxicated person being taken to their room, five felt positive about their response. A combination of direct and distance was the second most common intervention type following a strictly direct intervention. In general, those who felt positive about their direct and distance intervention first directly intervened in the situation and then followed through by taking the intoxicated person back to either the participant’s home or their own home. The one participant who felt negative about their intervention did not appear to ensure the long-term safety of the intoxicated individual as they simply “stopped them and took the drunk girl away,” which may contribute to the negative feeling they reported regarding their intervention. Previous research suggests that combination tactics yield positive outcomes (Moschella & Banyard, 2020).

Intervening in Response to Risky Situations that Could Lead to Physical Dating Violence

Similar to seeing an intoxicated person being taken to someone’s room, participants who intervened when witnessing someone grabbing or pushing their boy/girlfriend, used a direct intervention more than any of the other intervention type. When analyzing those who had a positive versus a negative response, the interventions were quite similar. There were some nuanced differences, however. One bystander who felt positive about directly intervening reported “I told him to stop,” and the one bystander who felt negative reported “I pushed the guy away.” The participant who reported that they felt negative about their intervention, took a physical approach, and many bystanders who had positive responses took a verbal approach “I told him to stop,” “I yelled at him to stop,” and “I yelled at the guy to get off his girlfriend.” It is possible that with the physical response, something occurred after the intervention that made the bystander feel negatively about their intervention. For example, the physical nature of the bystander intervention may have led to further escalation or perhaps the bystander getting in an altercation or even injured. Prior research points to physical injury (Moschella & Banyard, 2021) and a fear of getting injured (Ryan & Wessel, 2012) as barriers to getting involved. Across all three incidents, the participants who felt negatively about their direct intervention, seemed to use more confrontational and even physical means to intervene which could imply that direct methods of intervention, especially those that are more aggressive or physical, may increase the likelihood of a negative emotional reaction and should be addressed in bystander education programs.

The distance intervention was the second most common intervention type in response to seeing a potential physical dating violence incident, which extends prior research that has examined bystander behavior in response to potential sexual violence (Mocshella et al., 2018). Moschella and Banyard (2020) also reported “distance” as a type of intervention, but they did not ask participants to specify the type of incident in which they intervened. In the present study, some participants who used a distance intervention in response to a potential physical dating violence incident reported that they felt positive when they “pulled the person away” or “made her leave the situation.” Bystander distance interventions that resulted in negative reactions included “I took my friend away from him,” “moved them apart,” and “I separated them.” The actions are similar for those who had a positive versus a negative response to their intervention, thus it is difficult to speculate as to why some bystanders had positive reactions and others felt negatively. Although our findings support prior research examining bystander reactions (Moschella & Banyard, 2020), they advance research by examining interventions and reactions to specific incidents of both potential sexual violence and physical dating violence.

There was only one participant who used a delegate intervention when witnessing someone pushing or shoving their boy/girlfriend, and this bystander had a positive response. The participant reported “I called the police.” Although delegation was not the most common method of intervention for this scenario, it was the least “hands-on” approach to intervening taken by the bystanders in this study. Delegate interventions are useful options to implement into educational programs when situations are particularly high-risk, giving a bystander an opportunity to help without getting physically involved, thus avoiding escalation and potential injury.

Although infrequent, bystanders also used diffusion when witnessing someone being pushed or shoved by their boy/girlfriend. The participant that reacted positively said “I told them to calm down,” while the participant who had neither a positive nor negative reaction said, “I told the guy to calm down, but his girlfriend said thanks for the help but no thanks.” This is a situation in which the bystander attempted to intervene but whose help was not accepted. We might expect the bystander to feel negatively about this rejection, but they were asked to report how they felt about their intervention not about the interaction specifically or what occurred following the intervention. Moschella et al. (2018) also reported diffusion as an intervention type when bystanders witnessed incidents of potential sexual violence.

A few participant bystanders used a combination of intervention methods to intervene when they witnessed someone grabbing or pushing their boy/girlfriend. Two bystanders who used a combination of direct and distance interventions felt positively about their responses, which included: “I pulled them apart and told them to stop,” and “Ask what they are doing and get that person away from the other.” One bystander used a distract and diffuse intervention, “I went up to the girl and told her to come with me and someone went to talk to the guy” and reported feeling positive about their response. Direct and delegate intervention was used once, and the bystander had a positive feeling about their intervention, “I went to the high school counselor and talked directly to my friend.” Lastly, two bystanders used a distance and diffuse intervention, and both felt positively about their interactions. Their responses included “I pulled her aside and told her to calm down,” and “I separated them and attempted to talk it through with both of them individually.” The three previous combination interventions have a nonaggressive, nonconfrontational tone as compared to some of the more direct and distance interventions, and the bystanders reported feeling positively about their nonaggressive action.

Every bystander who used some combination of intervention types reported a positive emotional response to their intervention. Even though some physical action was needed, especially in the combinations that included direct or distance interventions, the actions were less aggressive than some of the purely direct (i.e., “I pushed the guy away.”) interventions. These findings are consistent with previous work showing combination responses result in more positive outcomes compared to single responses (Moschella & Banyard, 2020).

Bystander Noninvolvement

A common response among college student bystanders is to not get involved (43%, Ryan & Wessel, 2012; 73% Yule & Grych, 2020). In line with previous research, most of the bystanders in the present study who witnessed any one of the three risky situations did not intervene despite their self-reported sense of preparedness. When bystanders are asked to report their intention to intervene in hypothetical situations, the rates of intended intervention are much higher than those who intervene in real situations (Ryan & Wessel, 2012). The present study supports this finding that most bystanders in real situations do not get involved.

Prior research points to a skill deficit (Bennett et al., 2014; Burn, 2009; Yule & Grych, 2020) or feeling inadequate to help (Bennett et al., 2014; Burn, 2009) as salient reasons for not intervening. Our findings do not support skill deficits as a primary barrier to action, as it is striking the number of bystanders who reported that they felt prepared to intervene— 94.6% (42.2% felt very prepared, and 52.4% felt somewhat prepared)—and a small percentage (5.4%) reported that they did not feel prepared to intervene if they saw someone in a situation that might lead to sexual assault or dating violence. Given the high percentage of bystanders who reported feeling prepared to intervene, our findings suggest that neither a skills deficit nor feeling inadequate to help were the reasons bystanders did not act when witnessing the types of incidents analyzed in the present study. Future research should take a closer look at barriers to involvement when bystanders feel prepared to intervene.

Two narrative responses suggest that some bystanders minimized the situation involving someone taking an intoxicated person to their room: “I personally don’t see a problem with that” and “That is very common at parties here.” These responses support previous research suggesting that bystanders often fail to recognize the need for intervention in a high-risk situation (Bennett et al., 2014; Burn, 2009). These responses also illustrate the normalization of rape culture among college students (Aronowitz et al., 2012) as well as a lack of knowledge regarding giving and obtaining consent to engage in sexual activities (Jozkowski & Peterson, 2013). Giving and obtaining consent becomes even more ambiguous when one or both individuals involved are intoxicated or incapacitated and do not understand the laws regarding giving and obtaining consent particularly when it involves intoxicating substances (Ala. Code § 13A-6-60, 1975/2019).

Bennett et al. (2014) highlighted some of the social barriers to intervening, such as a desire to avoid social conflict, feelings of shame, fear of earning a reputation, fear of having others make fun of them, and fear of risking the integrity of the relationship with the victim. One bystander in the current study who did not intervene when witnessing a very intoxicated person being taken up to someone’s room, provided the following narrative response as to why they did not intervene “Last time I said something at a party, I got made fun of and people told me it was normal” which supports Bennett et al. (2014) findings that social barriers prevent bystander action. Furthermore, this participant also reported that they felt negative about not intervening. Negative feedback from peers may influence bystanders’ future decisions to intervene, further supporting previous findings (Moschella & Banyard, 2021; Ryan & Wessel, 2012). Bystanders should be informed of the possible reactions and responses they will encounter when intervening, how it can create barriers to intervening in the future, and they should be provided with strategies to manage the competing motives and fears.

Limitations, Future Directions, and Conclusion

The present study addresses important gaps in the bystander literature; however, these findings must be considered with the limitations in mind. The present sample consisted primarily of freshmen women from the southeastern region of the United States; therefore, the findings are not generalizable. Efforts must be made toward recruiting more diverse samples of college students. One of the primary goals of the present study was to examine specific bystander behavior when intervening in specific risky situations of sexual violence and physical dating violence, and we found evidence of bystander behavior that maps onto the Green Dot philosophy and prior research related to nonspecific incidents of interpersonal violence (Moschella & Banyard, 2021; Moschella et al., 2018). We also found that most bystanders did not intervene when witnessing one of the three incidents examined in our study. A second limitation is that we did not evaluate why bystander participants did not intervene, but evidence from previous research points to social barriers (Bennett et al., 2014), skill deficits (Bennett et al., 2014; Burn, 2009; Yule & Grych, 2020), and fear of injury (Ryan & Wessel, 2012) as reasons bystanders do not intervene. Another goal of the current study was to evaluate bystanders’ reactions to intervening in specific incidents which leads to a third limitation in that we did not assess why they felt positive or negative about their action or inaction. Prior research points to a variety of reasons bystanders react positively (e.g., the bystander action successfully stopped the incident, people said positive things to the bystander) or negatively (e.g., bystander was harassed or physically injured as a result) to their bystander actions (Moschella & Banyard, 2021). Future research should address why bystanders feel positive or negative when intervening in specific incidents, as well as why they feel positive or negative about not intervening.

This study can inform bystander training programs in important ways. First, bystanders can be informed of specific types of incidents that college students witness. Second, the current findings can be used to educate bystanders of the types of action that college students typically take in response to a range of different types of incidents. Finally, bystander intervention programs can inform bystanders of the possible emotional reactions that may occur when intervening in potentially dangerous situations, and perhaps more importantly when not intervening. More of the bystanders in the present study did not act when witnessing one of the three events, and many reported negative feelings about their inaction. Emotional reactions toward action and inaction should be part of the conversation when educating and advocating for bystander involvement in dangerous situations of potential sexual violence and physical dating violence. Finally, almost the entire sample reported that they felt very prepared or somewhat prepared to intervene in situations of potential sexual assault and dating violence, and yet most bystanders chose not to get involved. This interaction between preparedness and inaction should be investigated more fully. While addressing important gaps in the literature that can inform bystander intervention programs, the current findings also lead to important unanswered questions and next steps in bystander involvement research.

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

Deborah M. Casper

Tricia Witte

Author Biographies

Dr. Deborah Casper is an Associate Professor of Human Development and Family Studies at the University of Alabama. She earned a BS in psychology, a MA in counseling from the University of Maryland, and a PhD in Family Studies and Human Development from the University of Arizona. She has a broad background in counseling children, adolescents, and adults. Dr Casper’s research interests are at the interface of traditionally “positive” and “negative” adolescent and emerging adult peer relationships and interactions and the social-psychological implications of these peer interactions. Dr Casper runs the Child and Adolescent Peer Relationships and Interactions (CAPRI) Research Lab.

Dr. Tricia Witte is an Associate Professor in the Department of Human Development and Family Studies at the University of Alabama. She earned a PhD in Clinical Psychology from the University of Arkansas and completed her predoctoral internship at the Medical University of South Carolina’s National Crime Victims Research and Treatment Center. Dr Witte’s areas of academic, research, and clinical interest include trauma, family violence, dating violence, substance abuse, and addiction. Dr Witte runs the Prevention of Violence and Substance Abuse Research Lab (PVSA) and coordinates the academic minor in Addiction and Recovery at the University of Alabama.

Emily Gibson is an undergraduate student and research assistant at the University of Alabama. She is currently working towards completing her BS in Human Development and Family Studies with a concentration in Adolescence and Youth Development. Emily is a Randall Research Scholar and has conducted research in the CAPRI Lab for over 2 years.

Emily McCulley is an undergraduate student and research assistant. She is currently working towards completing her BS in Marine Science and Biology from the University of Alabama, and recently submitted her application to medical school. Emily has assisted Dr Casper for almost 3 years, and while her major is not in the field of Human Development and Family Studies, she has a passion for psychology and interpersonal relationships.

References

Ala . Code § 13A-6-60 (1975 & rev. 2019).

Aronowitz

Lambert

C. A.

Davidoff

(2012). The role of rape myth acceptance in the social norms regarding sexual behavior among college students. Journal of Community Health Nursing, 29(3), 173–182. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370016.2012.697852

Banyard

V. L.

Moynihan

M. M.

Cares

A. C.

Warner

(2014). How do we know if it works? Measuring outcomes in bystander-focused abuse prevention on campuses. Psychology of Violence, 4(1), 101–115. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033470

Bennett

Banyard

V. L.

Garnhart

(2014). To act or not to act, that is the question? barriers and facilitators of bystander intervention. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 29(3), 476–496. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260513505210

Braun

Clarke

(2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Burn

S. M.

(2009). A situational model of sexual assault prevention through bystander intervention. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 60(11-12), 779–792. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-008-9581-5

Cantor

Fisher

B. S.

Chibnall

Harps

Townsend

Thomas

Lee

Kranz

Herbison

Madden

(2020). Report on the AAU campus climate survey on sexual assault and misconduct. The Association of American Universities. https://www.aau.edu/sites/default/files/AAU-Files/Key-Issues/Campus-Safety/Revised%20Aggregate%20report%20%20and%20appendices%201-7_(01-16-2020_FINAL).pdf

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. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801211410264

Coker

A. L.

Fisher

B. S.

Bush

H. M.

Swan

S. C.

Williams

C. M.

Clear

E. R.

DeGue

(2015). Evaluation of the green dot bystander intervention to reduce interpersonal violence among college students across three campuses. Violence Against Women, 21(12), 1507–1527. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801214545284

10.

Edwards

D. J.

(2014). Green dot 2.0 college strategy curriculum manual. Alteristic, Inc.

11.

Fetters

M. D.

Curry

L. A.

Creswell

J. W.

(2013). Achieving integration in mixed methods designs-principles and practices. Health Service Research, 48(6), 2134–2156. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6773.12117

12.

Gidycz

C. A

Orchowski

L. M.

Berkowitz

A. D.

(2011). Preventing sexual aggression among college men: An evaluation of a social norms and bystander intervention program. Violence Against Women, 17(6), 720–742. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801211409727

13.

Guetterman

Fetters

M. D.

Creswell

J. W.

(2015). Integrating quantitative and qualitative results in health science mixed methods research through joint displays. Annals of Family Medicine, 13(6), 554–561. https://doi-org.libdata.lib.ua.edu/10.1370/afm.1865

14.

Jozkowski

K. N.

Peterson

Z. D.

(2013). College Students and Sexual Consent: Unique Insights. Journal of Sex Research, 50(6), 517–523. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2012.700739

15.

Latané

Darley

J. M.

(1969). Group inhibition of bystander intervention in emergencies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 10(3), 215–221. http://doi.org/10.1037/h0026570

16.

Moschella

E. A.

Banyard

V. L.

(2020). Reactions to actions: Exploring how types of bystander action are linked to positive and negative consequences. The Journal of Primary Prevention, 41(6), 585–602. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10935-020-00618-9

17.

Moschella

E. A.

Banyard

V. L.

(2021). Action and reaction: The impact of consequences of intervening in situations of interpersonal violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(7-8), 3821–3843. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260518782983

18.

Moschella

E. A.

Bennett

Banyard

V. L.

(2018). Beyond the situational model: Bystander action consequences to intervening in situations involving sexual violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 33(20), 3211–3231. http://doi.org/10.1177/0886260516635319

19.

Rosen

Mickler

S. E.

Collins

J. E

II (1987). Reaction of would-be helpers whose offer of help is spurned. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(2), 288–297. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.53.2.288

20.

Ryan

A. M.

Wessel

J. L.

(2012). Original work published 2011). Sexual orientation harassment in the workplace: When do observers intervene? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(4), 488–509. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.765

21.

Seo

Witte

Casper

D. M.

Owen

(2021). Helping friends and strangers in risky situations: Outcomes of bystander interventions for sexual assault and dating violence. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment, & Trauma. https://doi-org.libdata.lib.ua.edu/10.1080/10926771.2021.1984350

22.

Shelton

Richeson

Salvatore

Hill

(2006). Stigma and group inequality: Social psychological perspectives. In Van Laar

Levin

(Eds.), Stigma and Group Inequality: Social Psychological Perspectives (p. 74). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. https://books.google.com/books?id=w1Z4AgAAQBAJ&lpg=PP1 &pg=PP1#v=onepage&q&f=false

23.

Soteria Solutions (2021). College. Retrieved on March 16, 2021 from(Bringing in the bystander) https://www.soteriasolutions.org/college

24.

Step UP Program (2009). About-Step UP!

The University

of Arizona C.A.T.S. Life Skills Program and the NCAA . Retrieved on March 16, 2021 from https://stepupprogram.org/about/

25.

The Red Flag Campaign (2007). Development and evaluation . Retrieved on March 16, 2021 from http://www.theredflagcampaign.org/evaluation

26.

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. https://doi.org/10.1080/07448481.2016.1264407

27.

Younas

Pedersen

Durante

(2019). Characteristics of joint displays illustrating data integration in mixed-methods nursing studies. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 76, 676–686. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.14264

28.

Yule

Grych

(2020). College Students’ Perceptions of Barriers to Bystander Intervention. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 35(15-16), 2971–2992. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260517706764