Sexual and Dating Violence Bystander Intervention Programs within Institutions of Higher Education: Strategies for Research and Practice

Abstract

This article presents strategies to promote researcher-practitioner collaborations in the development and evaluation of bystander intervention programs that address sexual and dating violence (SDV) at Institutions of Higher Education (IHEs). The benefits of practitioner partnerships with researchers are reviewed. We then review examples of researcher-practitioner collaborations to develop, implement, and evaluate bystander programs. Suggestions are also offered for researcher-practitioner collaborators to engage survivors of SDV and overlooked populations, such as racial, ethnic, gender, and sexual minorities, as ways to promote diversity. Lastly, we provide guidelines for researcher-practitioner collaborations to engage bystanders based on the lessons learned from these collaborations within and around the IHE community.

Keywords

bystander intervention institutions of higher education collaboration

Sexual and dating violence (SDV) are public health problems at United States institutions of higher education (IHEs; e.g., Banyard et al., 2017; Knowledge Networks, 2011; Krebs et al., 2016). A series of adverse consequences have been reported in the aftermath of SDV, such as academic failure, mental health problems, and human capital losses, which underscore the need for prevention efforts (Coker et al., 2011; Gidycz et al., 2008; Mengo & Black, 2015; Potter, 2016; Potter et al., 2018). Recently, bystander intervention programs have emerged to teach potential bystanders how to prevent and respond proactively, safely (e.g., being with others, indirectly), and effectively to situations of SDV (e.g., helping the victim, stopping the perpetrator) (Banyard et al., 2007; Moschella & Banyard, 2021; Planty, 2002). Bystander intervention programs emphasize that everyone has a role to play in violence prevention and aim to educate potential bystanders about SDV and teach them skills to take action to de-escalate the situation (e.g., Banyard et al., 2004, 2007; Berkowitz, 2009; Burn, 2009; Coker et al., 2011, 2015; Potter & Stapleton, 2011).

Currently, academic researchers are most often the creators and evaluators of bystander programs (Jouriles et al., 2018), with little involvement of practitioners or other members of the IHE community. Yet this work has the greatest potential to create change and resolve challenges when it is conducted by collaborations of researchers and practitioners (Banyard, 2014; Cares, 2013; Carlson et al., 2000; Mouradian et al., 2001; Smith et al., 2018; Sullivan et al., 2013; Yuan et al., 2016), with contributions from other members of the IHE. Thus, the primary purpose of this paper is to review researcher-practitioner collaborations of SDV bystander prevention efforts in IHEs. We describe the importance of researchers and practitioners joining together to share their knowledge, skills, and connections to design better-informed bystander programs. We then exemplify successful ways of working with other members of the IHE community to develop, implement, and evaluate these programs. Lastly, we provide guidelines for researcher-practitioner collaborations to engage bystanders based on the lessons learned from these invaluable collaborations inside and around the IHE community.

Involvement of Practitioners

As noted above, to date, the involvement of practitioners in bystander programming, development, implementation, evaluation, and authorship has been limited. Although few programs are developed or evaluated by practitioners (e.g., Banyard et al., 2007; Coker et al., 2011; Potter et al., 2011), many are implemented by them, which highlights the need for more collaborative efforts and more participatory-based research. To achieve population level impact, it is imperative to bridge the gap between academic research, practice, and policy (Banyard, 2014; Cares, 2013; Carlson et al., 2000; Mouradian et al., 2001; Smith et al., 2018; Wandersman et al., 2008). Researcher-practitioner collaborations approach projects with combined knowledge and experience from multiple systems and perspectives (e.g., community-based, legal knowledge). Similarly, Sullivan and colleagues (2013) noted these collaborations also provide a mutually beneficial exchange of resources and knowledge. For instance, insight from practitioners and community partners can highlight important information about the target audience at IHEs to enhance training curricula (Banyard et al., 2007; Potter & Stapleton, 2011). This may include helping researchers address critical social issues within their programming to ensure that the needs of the target population are met (Potter & Stapleton, 2011; Potter et al., 2015; Smith et al., 2018; Sullivan et al., 2013; Yuan et al., 2016) and engage additional layers of the social ecology (Banyard et al., 2007; Moylan & Javorka, 2020).

Further, these partnerships can facilitate the dissemination of findings, such as translating research into strategies for practice and utilizing accessible outlets within communities (e.g., Smith et al., 2018; Yuan et al., 2016). Practitioners and other community partners may also benefit from professional development opportunities during the research process, such as co-writing program curricula and co-creating measures (Banyard et al., 2005; Sullivan et al., 2013; Yuan et al., 2016). Researchers and practitioners also co-author publications (e.g., scholarly articles, grant reports) in both peer-reviewed and practice-focused journals, such as Sexual Assault Report published by the Civic Institute (e.g., Banyard & Mayhew, 2009) and chapters in edited volumes (Moynihan et al., 2007). Both practitioners and researchers attend, network, and present at professional conferences in their fields of expertise. Additionally, researchers and practitioners co-present their work at professional conferences related to each other’s fields of expertise. Doing so brings together historically-siloed professions and provides the opportunity to discuss strategies to end SDV.

Uniting the knowledge, skills, and abilities that practitioners and researchers bring to the table results in informative and important outcomes for working to end SDV. For example, from their work with survivors of SDV, practitioners have witnessed the pain, fear, and other negative consequences that victims have suffered. They support survivors through the healing process by employing trauma-informed mental and physical health responses to these crimes, which go largely unreported. To complement their work, researchers understand which theoretical framework(s) to employ, scholarly literature to review, applicable approaches for qualitative studies, and appropriate statistical measures for quantitative analyses. Researchers at IHEs must also apply for and fulfill the requirements of their Institutional Review Boards to ensure that no harm will come to the subjects participating in their studies.

A Case Study Exemplifying Successful Researcher-Practitioner Collaborations

Below we review examples of successful researcher-practitioner strategies of collaborations and discuss approaches for practitioners and researchers to work together to engage potential bystanders to promote sustainability within their specific communities. Our first two examples are drawn from partnerships on designing, implementing, and scientifically evaluating the Bringing in the Bystander® program (BITB), followed by discussion and examples from the Know Your Power® Bystander Social Marketing Campaign (KYP), aimed at students enrolled in IHEs to reduce and eventually eliminate SDV in their communities. In these examples, the practitioner-researcher teams were able to address challenges to bystander intervention training through communication, flexibility, and a willingness to adapt to meet the needs of the target audience.

In-Person Bystander Programs

Researchers and a practitioner at one IHE worked together to create BITB, an in-person bystander prevention program aimed to teach undergraduate students strategies for intervening safely and effectively in situations of SDV before it happens, while it is happening, and by supporting victims after it has happened (Banyard et al., 2005). As part of this collaboration, the practitioner, the director of the New Hampshire coalition-affiliated crisis center located on campus, participated in all phases of program development, implementation, and evaluation, including contributing to the grant application that led to funding from the National Institute of Justice. The practitioner and researchers had previously worked together on campus-wide committees (e.g., the University of New Hampshire’s President’s Commission on the Status of Women). In addition, they also published peer-reviewed articles as well as non-technical reports focusing on the unwanted sexual experiences of undergraduate women on campus for the members of the IHE community and interested general community consumers (also sponsored by the University Office of the President) (Banyard, Cohn et al., 2013). In addition, they attended and presented or co-presented at professional national and state conferences. These ongoing efforts helped the researcher-practitioner team maintain transparency about the project goals and responsibilities. As noted above, a number of more recent publications on successful collaborations between practitioners and researchers have been published and also provide similar valuable information and insights into comparable collaborations (e.g., Sullivan et al., 2013; Yuan et al., 2016).

The researchers and practitioner worked together to develop a curriculum to meet the needs of the target populations (Banyard et al., 2005; Moynihan et al., 2007). As director of the campus crisis center, the practitioner also worked closely with student survivors of SDV and played a critical role in tailoring programming to meet their needs. The team hired and trained program facilitators and developed an evaluation plan to assess the program’s impact on bystander attitudes and behaviors (Banyard et al., 2005). To better accomplish this, they also conducted formative evaluations with small groups of undergraduate students (e.g., first-year students, intercollegiate athletes, and fraternity and sorority members) that yielded promising results (Banyard et al., 2005; Moynihan et al., 2007; Moynihan & Banyard, 2008). After revising the program based on these findings, BITB was then evaluated using an experimental design and shown to be effective in changing attitudes and behaviors of undergraduate students two, four, and 12 months after program participation (e.g., Banyard et al., 2005, 2007). Scales and measures for this evaluation (e.g., bystander attitudes, behaviors) were generated primarily by the Principal Investigator then reviewed by the second researcher and practitioner (Moynihan & Banyard, 2008).

Further, the researcher-practitioner team noted the importance of collaborative efforts to disseminate their findings (Banyard et al., 2005). In addition to co-authoring peer-reviewed journal articles, the team collaborated to disseminate findings in applied publications (e.g., NSVRC′ VAWnet) and co-presenting at scholarly research conferences (e.g., Potter & Moynihan, 2007), as well as professional conferences focused ending SDV. This teamwork provided opportunities to highlight the implications of this work in academic and applied settings, offering mutually beneficial opportunities to translate research findings into tangible implications for practitioners. Somewhat concurrently to the partnerships described above, the researcher-practitioner team collaborated with researchers and practitioners to conduct the two studies (in-person and social media campaign) on an urban campus with larger population of commuters as well as more students from diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds (e.g., Cares et al., 2015; Moynihan et al., 2015).

Expanded Collaborations: Community Partners within the IHE

Following the development and evaluation of BITB, a practitioner-researcher team collaborated with the IHE’s Police Department (PD) to apply for and receive funding from the Office on Violence Against Women. The practitioner on this team, who had previously been the director of the New Hampshire coalition-affiliated campus crisis center and director of other campus affiliated organizations (e.g., the University of New Hampshire’s President’s Commission on the Status of Women), was knowledgeable about applying for and receiving local, state, and national funding. This funding allowed the team to continue to improve the program contents; implement it with a larger number of student audiences; and evaluate the program experimentally. To ensure that officers from the university and the local PD were aware of the purpose and content of the program, the lead program trainer “demonstrated” the program as if the officers were participants in it. After the presentation ended, the instructor then conducted a debriefing session with participants.

The researcher-practitioner team also presented information about the program at a meeting with the university Vice Presidents and Deans to provide an overview of the funding, the bystander approach of the program (e.g., program participants approached as witnesses and not victims or perpetrators of SDV), and information about the scientific evaluation that would be conducted with students to test the program’s validity and reliability. In addition, the team met separately with other key university division leaders (e.g., Directors of Residential Life and Athletics) to discuss the purpose of the program, research goals, and plans to engage the students in these divisions as participants in the program. Moreover, the researcher-practitioner team produced and signed separate memorandums of understanding (MOUs) with each unit of division leaders. The ongoing communications between the practitioners and researchers, in addition to other campus partners, ensured that the research questions being addressed resonated with leaders, staff, and students in these divisions and provided the practitioner-researcher team with access to harder-to-reach student populations (e.g., athletic teams, fraternities and sororities) (Moynihan et al., 2010, 2011).

As part of the collaboration with Residential Life and Student Services, the team worked to administer BITB to two groups of undergraduate student leaders (e.g., Resident Assistants and Student Center staff (Banyard et al., 2009). Banyard and colleagues (2009) reported that, even though these students had more awareness of campus problems than traditional college students, the program was effective in shifting attitudes and increasing bystander behavior. Contemporaneously, the researcher-practitioner team collaborated with the Division Leader of Greek Life—now titled Fraternity and Sorority Life—to conduct bystander training with sorority and fraternity members. Athletics also collaborated to include women’s and men’s intercollegiate athletic teams in the participation and evaluation of the program. With continued support from cooperating university divisions, the practitioner-researcher team successfully evaluated the impact of programming experimentally with these undergraduate populations (Moynihan et al., 2010, 2011). By sponsoring the training of students in these designated groups, the division leaders provided the opportunity for student members of these units (i.e., student leaders, athletic team members, members of sororities and fraternities) to model and share experiences of proactive bystanding with other students within and beyond their specific social milieus. By doing so, the researcher-practitioner team was able to demonstrate how connecting and working with other members of the IHE community, including university division leaders, benefits a wider population of students.

Social Marketing Bystander Campaign

As an additional part of the collaboration from the Office on Violence Against Women to the Police Department, a researcher-practitioner team also developed and evaluated the Know Your Power Bystander Social Marketing Campaign. This campaign consists of a series of images that depict situations of SDV and highlight the role that all community members can play in violence prevention (Potter et al., 2009; Potter & Stapleton, 2011). As part of this effort, Potter and colleagues (2009, 2011) describe the inclusion of and work with a large, mixed group of the campus community to create, adapt, and evaluate the posters for the campaign.

The social marketing bystander campaign team invited volunteers from their IHE’s faculty, staff, and students to participate in a multidisciplinary media campaign workgroup. Many of the members in this workgroup were actively involved in SDV prevention, education, and related support services. However, the researcher-practitioner team also invited other members of the university community to participate. Although some of these partners did not have knowledge of SDV prevention, they greatly contributed to the graphic design of posters for the general education of the student body. The practitioner-researcher team began by training all members of the collaborative workgroup in SDV education, such as raising awareness of the problem of SDV and debunking rape myths (Potter et al., 2009; Potter & Stapleton, 2011). Similar collaboration strategies were discussed by Sullivan and colleagues (2013). Further, due to the diverse makeup of this workgroup, the discussions were more complex and took much longer than expected and the education of key stakeholders resulted in a more comprehensive product, featuring realistic and accurate SDV scenarios portrayed in the posters (Potter et al., 2009, 2011).

To further ensure that students seeing the campaign posters would identify with the scenarios depicted, the researcher-practitioner team also conducted focus groups with students at the campuses on which posters would be displayed (Potter et al., 2011, 2015). Focus groups helped to ensure that the marketing campaign would resonate with college students’ everyday experiences (Potter et al., 2011). By involving members of the potential target audience, the practitioner-researcher team was able to adapt the KYP posters to influence students (Potter et al., 2015). The researcher-practitioner team then worked together (e.g., recruited participants, revised measures, analyzed data) to evaluate the impact of the KYP (e.g., recruit participants, revise measures, analyze data). The results suggested that this campaign improved students’ knowledge of campus SDV as well as their willingness to intervene in situations of SDV (Potter, 2012; Potter et al., 2009, 2011, 2015; Potter & Stapleton, 2011).

Expanded Collaboration to Include Survivor Input

In addition, Banyard and colleagues (2013a) used data previously collected from BITB to examine feedback from SDV survivors who participated in the program. This multi-method evaluation addressed common inquiries, primarily from practitioners, related to violence prevention. These included concerns regarding the impact of program participation on SDV survivors (e.g., negative effects). The authors of the study analyzed the qualitative responses focused on whether survivors found the program helpful as well as whether they experienced any negative impacts from participation. Although the sample was small, the findings showed that survivors responded positively to the program (Banyard, Bennett et al., 2013). However, the sample lacked racial diversity and information on sexual or gender identity was not collected. Therefore, Banyard and colleagues (2013a) called for more formal research with survivors, including those from diverse racial, gender, and sexual identity groups. This corresponds with the growing calls to include underrepresented groups (e.g., racial, sexual, and gender minoritized groups, as well as individuals with disabilities) in studies of bystander behavior and to confront systemic isms in existing SDV in laboratory vignettes or in bystander programs (e.g., Griner et al., 2020; Merrilees et al., 2018; Orchowski et al., 2020; Porter & Williams, 2011).

Lessons Learned

Researchers and practitioners have continued with calls for greater collaboration efforts, highlighting why these partnerships are instrumental to the success and longevity of SDV prevention within the campus community (Banyard, 2014; Banyard et al., 2005; Cares, 2013; Cares et al., 2015; Moynihan et al., 2015; Potter & Stapleton, 2011). Similarly, Banyard (2014) described a “roadmap for where research needs to go” (p. 339) and contended that ways to move forward should be inclusive of collaborations of researchers, practitioners, and policymakers. Researcher-practitioner collaborations can inspire innovative research questions and evaluation designs that provide beneficial outcomes in academic and applied settings (Banyard, 2014; Orchowski et al., 2020). In light of these recommendations, we reviewed literature providing additional examples of collaborations between researchers, practitioners, and other members of IHE communities (Banyard et al., 2007; Berkowitz, 2004; Berkowitz et al., 2021; Potter, Fox et al., 2020, 2020b).

Below (see Table 1), we provide a review with suggestions for moving forward. In it, we highlight some of the ways that researchers, as well as practitioner-researcher collaborations, have answered the needs described in this call (e.g., Banyard, 2014; Banyard et al., 2005, 2007; Berkowitz, 2004; Cares, 2013; Potter et al., 2008; Potter & Stapleton, 2011).

Table 1.

Key Points: Strategies and Recommendations for Researchers and/or Practitioners to Initiate Collaborations to Engage Bystanders.

1	Have a synopsis or short proposal of your current idea for a project to share to begin an exchange.
2	Attach an annotated list of your past projects in which you collaborated with others as well as an annotated list of examples of publications demonstrating collaborations by the groups focusing on engaging bystanders to intervene, especially those at IHEs.
3	Invite others to collaborate whom you know share the goal of instituting bystander intervention prevention of SDV.
4	Articulate your interest in working with others who are also committed to seeing the members of the collaboration as equal partners and contributors who are bringing both shared as well as individual abilities and skills to the collaboration.
5	Note your interest in connecting with policymakers in addition to practitioners and researchers.
6	Consult with colleagues, ask them to suggest names of individuals they recommend they think would both add to and gain from the project you are interested in co-developing. If all, or most, of the members of the researcher-practitioner team share similar identities (e.g., cisgender, racially homogenous), recruit additional members from different backgrounds who can bring new perspectives to the team.
7	Where applicable (i.e., an IHE with a majority of white students), engage overlooked populations (e.g., racial and ethnic minorities, students with disabilities) to develop programs specific to their needs. If the IHE with which you will be engaging is a Predominantly White Institution, make efforts to approach students from minoritized groups on the campus.
8	With the new technologies available, keep in mind that programs do not have to be in-person.
9	Research local, state, and national non-profit and governmental organizations, and make a list of ones to which you could apply for grants to support the project.

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic and Beyond

In the past decade, even though there has been an increase in prevention programs that engage IHE students through web-based platforms (e.g., online training programs, video games), the inclusion of technology has grown with the COVID-19 pandemic. Web-based programming allows campus officials to engage students in prevention efforts in a cost-effect way, including while they are off-campus (Jouriles et al., 2018; Potter, 2016; Potter et al., 2019; Salazar et al., 2014). Many IHEs already incorporate this technology into their students’ educational experiences (e.g., online platforms such as Canvas) or utilize mobile applications that provide on- and off-campus information (e.g., traffic alerts).

Due to circumstances related to COVID-19, researcher-practitioner teams have begun putting together guidelines to adapt in-person programming for virtual settings. This includes arranging online trainings for program facilitators and adapting material to be best communicated via videoconferencing platforms (e.g., Zoom). For example, shortly after the majority of IHEs moved to virtual learning because of the pandemic, the authors of BITB met weekly during a 6-week period and then monthly for 3 months with the license holders to understand their needs, as well as those of their target audiences, for online SDV prevention within the context of COVID-19. This provided the authors of BITB with the opportunity to understand how to pivot the in-person bystander intervention program to an online platform. Practitioners shared bystander SDV scenarios relevant to COVID-19, including what survivors and bystanders were experiencing, specifically how social isolation decreased the traditional opportunities to recognize SDV and, thus, intervene as a bystander. Therefore, the BITB in-person bystander program needed not only to transition to an online format, but the program’s examples and scenarios also needed to meet the specific bystander opportunities that IHE students were experiencing during COVID-19.

These collaborators incorporated practitioners’ suggestions into guidelines for practitioners’ implementation of BITB in a virtual setting. The same team also shifted the delivery of the train-the-trainer sessions to an online format based on practitioners’ input. In addition, the team developed a virtual bystander intervention social media toolkit, distributed at no cost, based on practitioners’ requests and informed by practitioners’ suggestion at virtual water coolers. This practitioner collaboration during COVID-19 highlights the importance of having practitioners and the target audience informs the development of bystander intervention strategies. They provided “real time” feedback that was essential to the transition of an in-person bystander intervention program to an online format.

Limitations

Although there is a host of research and related publications demonstrating the effectiveness of bystander prevention programming (e.g., Jouriles et al., 2018), much of the research focuses on bystander behavior as a reactive or secondary prevention tool (Casey & Ohler, 2012). For example, when a person creates a distraction to help a potential victim leave a risky situation, the perpetrator is not confronted and will most likely continue to perpetrate. This underscores the need to confront perpetrators directly to prevent future acts of violence. Unfortunately, direct actions targeted at the perpetrator (e.g., confrontation) often result in negative responses and reduce the likelihood that bystanders will intervene in the future (Moschella & Banyard, 2021). Collaborations between researchers and practitioners are therefore needed to create tools to educate bystanders about how they can challenge peer norms that condone SDV and confront perpetrators, as well as indirect methods of intervention that can avoid negative consequences (Berkowitz et al., 2021; Casey & Ohler, 2012; Katz, 2018; Rothman et al., 2019). We highly recommend that researchers and practitioners conduct research with students from historically minoritized groups (e.g., students of color, students with disabilities, students who identify as a gender or sexual minority) (McMahon et al., 2020; National Alliance on Mental Illness, 2021). Students could be asked to share their experiences, or express their views, suggestions, and concerns about what actions may be helpful or not from bystanders who are not from their identity group(s). It is also important that bystander scenarios reflect minoritized students’ experiences.

Conclusion

In this article we reviewed examples of collaborative efforts that have engaged researchers, practitioners, and other members across their IHE communities to inform the development, implementation, and evaluation of bystander programs at IHEs. Suggestions were offered for researcher-practitioner collaborations to engage overlooked populations (e.g., racial and ethnic minorities, students with disabilities) to develop programs specific to their needs. With the new technologies available, these programs do not have to be in-person. Although there is an enormity of challenges in this work, we hope that the recommendations provided in this article and the references cited will result in a greater diversity and effectiveness of bystander interventions.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

We would like to dedicate this paper to the memory of Mary R. Mayhew (1954-2019). Mary was one of the five founding members of Prevention Innovations Research Center (PIRC) at University of New Hampshire (UNH). She was the Director of the Sexual Harassment and Rape Prevention Program (SHARPP) located on the UNH campus. She devoted her professional career and personal life toward working on issues directly related to the prevention of violence against vulnerable sexual and relationship violence victims. Her remarkable contributions to the field were numerous. Among Mary’s outstanding contributions were her extraordinary talents to promote and enhance the quality and output of PIRC’s work. Mary presented at professional conferences and co-authored publications for researchers, practitioners, and the general public. After her death, her PIRC colleagues established the Mary Mayhew Practitioner Award to recognize “New Hampshire individuals for their vision and leadership in ending gender-based violence, including sexual and relationship violence, and stalking.”

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 iD

Elizabeth A. Moschella-Smith

Author Biographies

Elizabeth A. Moschella-Smith, PhD, MA, is a Research Scientist at Prevention Innovations Research Center and graduated with a Ph.D. in Social Psychology and a M.A. in Justice Studies from the University of New Hampshire. Dr. Moschella’s research interests include outcomes of bystander intervention in situations of interpersonal violence and factors that promote resiliency and growth in survivors of violence.

Mary M. Moynihan, PhD, co-founded Prevention Innovations Research Center and is the Prevention and Evaluation Consultant. She also co-created Bringing in the Bystander® program and several quantitative measures to assess bystander-related knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors in situations of sexual violence.

Jane G. Stapleton, MA, is the co-founder and Executive Director of Practice at the University of New Hampshire Prevention Innovations Research Center and the co-founder and President of Soteria Solutions. She is internationally recognized for her work to develop and implement effective bystander intervention prevention strategies.

References

Banyard

V. L.

Mayhew

(2009). Exploring community perceptions of a college crisis center: A research-practitioner partnership. Sexual Assault Report, 12(67), 77–80. Civic Research Institute.

Banyard

V. L.

Moynihan

M. M.

Crossman

M. T.

(2009). Reducing sexual violence on campus: The role of student leaders as empowered bystanders. Journal of College Student Development, 50(4), 446–457. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.0.0083

Banyard

V. L.

(2014). Improving college campus–based prevention of violence against women: A strategic plan for research built on multipronged practices and policies. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 15(4), 339–351. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838014521027

Banyard

V. L.

Bennett

Cares

A. C.

Moynihan

M. M.

Aiello

Cunningham

(2013a). Survivors’ voices on prevention. Sexual Assault Report, 16(6), 81, 93-95. Civic Research Institute.

Banyard

V. L.

Cohn

E. C.

Edwards

K. M.

Moynihan

M. M.

Walsh

Ward

(2013b). Unwanted sexual experiences at UNH: 2012 study and changes over time. University of New Hampshire.

Banyard

V. L.

Demers

J. M.

Cohn

E. S.

Edwards

K. M.

Moynihan

M. M.

Walsh

W. A.

Ward

S. K.

(2017). Academic correlates of unwanted sexual contact, intercourse, stalking, and intimate partner violence: An understudied but important consequence for college students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 35(21–22), 4375–4392. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260517715022

Banyard

V. L.

Moynihan

M. M.

Plante

E. G.

(2007). Sexual violence prevention through bystander education: An experimental evaluation. Journal of Community Psychology, 35(4), 463–481. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.20159

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://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1002/jcop.10078

Banyard

V. L.

Plante

E. G.

Moynihan

M. M.

(2005). Rape prevention through bystander education: Bringing a broader community perspective to sexual violence prevention. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801204274388

10.

Berkowitz

(2004). Working with men to prevent violence against women: An overview (Part One). VAWnet, a project of the National Resource Center on Domestic Violence/Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence. https://vawnet.org/material/working-men-prevent-violence-against-womenoverview-part-one

11.

Berkowitz

(2009). Response ability: Complete guide on bystander behavior. Beck and Company.

12.

Berkowitz

Bogen

K. W.

Meza Lopez

R. J.

Mulla

M. M.

Orchowski

L. M.

(2021). The social norms approach as a strategy to prevent violence perpetrated by men and boys: A review of the literature. In Engaging boys and men in sexual assault prevention. Elsevier Inc. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.30108.51846

13.

Burn

S. M.

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

14.

Cares

A. C.

(2013). What is the role of college faculty in stopping sexual assault? In The resource: Newsletter of the national sexual violence resource center, Spring Summer (pp. 16–30). National Sexual Violence Resource Center. https://www.nsvrc.org/publications/resource

15.

Cares

A. C.

Banyard

V. L.

Moynihan

M. M.

Williams

L. M.

Potter

S. J.

Stapleton

J. G.

(2015). Changing attitudes about being a bystander to violence: Translating an in-person sexual violence prevention program to a new campus. Violence Against Women, 21(2), 165–187. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801214564681

16.

Carlson

B. E.

Worden

A. P.

van Ryn

Bachman

(2000). Violence against women: Synthesis of research for practitioners. Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice. https://www.ncjrs.gov/app/abstractdb/AbstractDBDetails.aspx?id=199577

17.

Casey

E. A.

Ohler

(2012). Being a positive bystander: Male antiviolence allies’ experiences of “stepping up”. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27(1), 62–83. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260511416479

18.

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

19.

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

20.

Gidycz

C. A.

Orchowski

L. M.

King

C. R.

Rich

C. L.

(2008). Sexual victimization and health-risk behaviors: A prospective analysis of college women. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23(6), 744–763. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260507313944

21.

Griner

S. B.

Vamos

C. A.

Thompson

E. L.

Logan

Vázquez-Otero

Daley

E. M.

(2020). Intersection of gender identity and violence: Victimization experienced by transgender college students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 35(23–24), 5704–5725. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260517723743

22.

Jouriles

E. N.

Krauss

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

23.

Katz

(2018). Bystander training as leadership training: Notes on the origins, philosophy, and pedagogy of the mentors in violence prevention model. Violence Against Women, 24(15), 1755–1776. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801217753322

24.

Knowledge Networks . (2011). 2011 college dating violence and abuse poll. https://www.loveisrespect.org/pdf/College_Dating_And_Abuse_Final_Study.pdf

25.

Krebs

C. P.

Lindquist

Berzofsky

Shook-Sa

B. E.

Peterson

K. C.

Planty

Langton

Stroop

(2016). Campus climate survey validation study final technical report. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Department of Justice. https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ccSDVsftr.pdf

26.

McMahon

Burnham

Banyard

(2020). Bystander intervention as a prevention strategy for campus sexual violence: Perceptions of historically minoritized college students. Prevention Science, 21(6) 795–806. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-020-01134-2

27.

Mengo

Black

(2015). Violence victimization on a college campus: Impact on GPA and school dropout. Journal of College Student Retention, 18(2), 234–248. https://doi.org/10.1177/1521025115584750

28.

Merrilees

C. E.

Katz

DuBois

Grant

(2018). White female bystanders’ responses to a black woman at risk for sexual assault. Violence and Victims, 33(4), 739–754. https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.VV-D-17-00062

29.

Moschella

E. A.

Banyard

V. L.

(2021). Action and reaction: The impact of consequences of intervening in interpersonal violence. Journal of Primary Prevention, 36(7-8), NP3820–NP3843. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10935-020-00618-9

30.

Mouradian

V. E.

Mechanic

Williams

L. M.

(2001). Recommendations for establishing and maintaining successful researcher‐practitioner collaborations. National Violence Against Women Research Center, Wellesley College.

31.

Moylan

C. A.

Javorka

(2020). Widening the lens: An ecological review of campus sexual assault. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 21(1), 179–192. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838018756121

32.

Moynihan

M. M.

Banyard

V. L.

(2008). Community responsibility for preventing sexual violence: A pilot study with campus Greeks and intercollegiate athletes. Journal of Prevention & Intervention in the Community, 36(1/2), 23–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/10852350802022274

33.

Moynihan

M. M.

Banyard

V. L.

Arnold

J. S.

Eckstein

R. P.

Stapleton

J. G.

(2010). Engaging intercollegiate athletes in preventing and intervening in sexual and intimate partner violence. Journal of American College Health, 59(3) 197–204. https://doi.org/10.1080/07448481.2010.502195

34.

Moynihan

M. M.

Banyard

V. L.

Arnold

J. S.

Eckstein

R. P.

Stapleton

J. G.

(2011). Sisterhood may be powerful in for reducing sexual and intimate partner violence: An evaluation of the Bringing in the Bystander in-person program with sorority members. Violence Against Women, 17(6), 703–719. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801211409726

35.

Moynihan

M. M.

Banyard

V. L.

Cares

A. C.

Potter

S. J.

Williams

L. M.

Stapleton

J. G.

(2015). Encouraging responses in sexual and relationship violence prevention: What program effects remain one year later? Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 30(1), 110–132. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0886260514532719

36.

Moynihan

M. M.

Banyard

V. L.

Plante

E. G.

(2007). Preventing dating violence: A University example of community approaches. In Kendall-Tackett

K. A.

Giacomoni

S. M.

(Eds.), Intimate partner violence (17-1–17-15). Civic Research Institute.

37.

National Alliance on Mental Illness . (2021). LGBTQI. https://www.nami.org/Your-Journey/Identity-and-Cultural-Dimensions/LGBTQI

38.

Orchowski

L. M.

Edwards

K. M.

Hollander

J. A.

Banyard

V. L.

Senn

C. Y.

Gidycz

C. A.

(2020). Integrating sexual assault resistance, bystander, and men’s social norms strategies to prevent sexual violence on college campuses: A call to action. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 21(4), 811–827. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1524838018789153

39.

Planty

(2002). Third-party involvement in violent crime, 1993-1999. (Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report). U.S. Department of Justice.

40.

Porter

Williams

L. M.

(2011). Intimate violence among underrepresented groups on a college campus. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26(16), 3210–3224. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260510393011

41.

Potter

S. J.

Fox

Smith

Draper

Moschella

E. A.

Moynihan

M. M.

(2020a). Sexual assault prevalence and community college students: Challenges and promising practices. Health Education & Behavior, 47(1), 7S–16S. https://doi.org/10.1177/1090198120910988

42.

Potter

Howard

Murphy

Moynihan

M. M.

(2018). Long-term impacts of college sexual assaults on women survivors’ educational and career attainments. Journal of American College Health, 66(6), 496–507. https://doi.org/10.1080/07448481.2018.1440574

43.

Potter

Moschella

E. A.

Moynihan

M. M

Smith

(2020b). Sexual violence among LGBQ community college students: A comparison with their heterosexual peers. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 44(10–12), 787–803. https://doi.org:/10.1080/10668926.2019.1706668

44.

Potter

S. J.

(2012). Using a multi-media social marketing campaign to increase active bystanders on the college campus. Journal of American College Health, 60(4), 282–295. https://doi.org/10.1080/07448481.2011.599350

45.

Potter

S. J.

(2016). Reducing sexual assault on campus: Lessons from the movement to prevent drunk driving. American Journal of Public Health, 106(5), 822–829. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2016.303082

46.

Potter

S. J.

Flanagan

Seidman

Hodges

Stapleton

J. G.

(2019). Video games as a mechanism for teaching college students bystander behaviors. Games for Health Journal, 8(1), 24–34. https://doi.org/10.1089/g4h.2017.0172

47.

Potter

S. J.

Moynihan

M. M.

(2007). Seeing me: Analyzing the impact of a campus sexual violence prevention outreach campaign. In Annual meeting of the American sociological association, New York, NY, 11–14 August 2007.

48.

Potter

S. J.

Moynihan

M. M.

Stapleton

J. G.

(2011). Using social self-identification in social marketing materials aimed at reducing violence against women on campus. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26(5), 971–990. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0886260510365870

49.

Potter

S. J.

Moynihan

M. M.

Stapleton

J. G.

Banyard

V. L.

(2009). Empowering bystanders to prevent campus violence against women: A preliminary evaluation of a poster campaign. Violence Against Women, 15(1), 106–121. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801208327482

50.

Potter

S. J.

Stapleton

J. G.

(2011). Bringing in the target audience in bystander social marketing materials for communities: Suggestions for practitioners. Violence Against Women, 17(6), 797–812. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801211410364

51.

Potter

S. J.

Stapleton

J. G.

Mansager

Nies

(2015). Adapting and piloting the Know Your Power® bystander social marketing Campaign for a diverse campus population. Cases in Public Health Communication and Marketing, 8, 71–93.

52.

Potter

S. J.

Stapleton

J. G.

Moynihan

M. M.

(2008). Designing, implementing, and evaluating a media campaign illustrating the bystander role. Journal of Prevention & Intervention in the Community, 36(1/2), 39–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10852350802022308

53.

Rothman

E. F.

Edwards

K. M.

Rizzo

A. J.

Kearns

Banyard

V. L.

(2019). Perceptions of community norms and youths’ reactive and proactive dating and sexual violence bystander action. American Journal of Community Psychology, 63(1–2), 122–134. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajcp.12312

54.

Salazar

L. F.

Vivolo-Kantor

Hardin

Berkowitz

(2014). A web-based sexual violence bystander intervention for male college students: Randomized controlled trail. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 16(9), Article e203. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.3426

55.

Smith

L. S.

Wilkins

Marshall

S. W.

Dellapenna

Jr. Pressley

J. C.

Bauer

South

E. C.

Green

(2018). The power of academic-practitioner collaboration to enhance science and practice integration: Injury and violence prevention case studies. Journal of Public Health Management and Practice, 24(1), S67–S74. http://doi.org/10.1097/PHH.0000000000000675

56.

Sullivan

T. P.

McPartland

Fisher

B. S.

(2013). Guidelines for successful researcher-practitioner partnerships in the criminal justice system, findings from the researcher‐practitioner partnerships study. U.S. Department of Justice. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/243918.pdf

57.

Wandersman

Duffy

Flaspohler

Noonan

Lubell

Stillman

Blachman

Dunville

Saul

(2008). Bridging the gap between prevention research and practice: The interactive systems framework for dissemination and implementation. American Journal of Community Psychology, 41(3–4), 171–181. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-008-9174-z

58.

Yuan

N. P.

Gaines

T. L.

Jones

L. M.

Rodriguez

L. M.

Hamilton

Kinnish

(2016). Bridging the gap between research and practice by strengthening academic-community partnerships for violence research. Psychology of Violence, 6(1), 27–33. https://doi.org/10.1037/vio0000026