Bar Training for Active Bystanders: Evaluation of a Community-Based Bystander Intervention Program

Abstract

Bystander intervention programs are proliferating on college campuses and are slowly gaining momentum as sexual violence prevention programs suitable for the larger community. In particular, bystander intervention programs aimed at bar staff have been developed in a number of locations. This study entails the exploratory evaluation of a community-based bystander program for bar staff. Using a pre–posttest design, this study suggests that evidence surrounding the effectiveness of this program is promising as it decreases rape myths, decreases barriers to intervention, and increases bartenders willingness to intervene. Future research and policy implications are discussed.

Keywords

bystander intervention sexual violence evaluation bartenders

Introduction

Lifetime estimates from the 2011 National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS) indicate that approximately 20% of women and 2% of men have been sexually assaulted (Breiding, 2014). Furthermore, approximately 20% of college women who participated in the Campus Sexual Assault (CSA) Study reported experiencing completed sexual assault since starting college. Most of these victimizations occurred after the woman voluntarily consumed alcohol (Krebs, Lindquist, Warner, Fisher, & Martin, 2009).

In part due to the high victimization risk for sexual violence (see Fisher, Daigle, & Cullen, 2010, for discussion), bystander programs have proliferated on college campuses. These programs are a departure from traditional sexual violence prevention programs which began in the 1970s that focus on general awareness, individual risk factors for perpetration or victimization, and the need for services (Lee, Guy, Perry, Sniffen, & Mixson, 2007). In contrast, bystander intervention programs take a social ecological approach to violence prevention and focus on the role of bystanders in preventing sexual violence and supporting survivors (McMahon & Banyard, 2012). As part of the Campus SaVE Act, bystander programs have been mandated on college campuses. Although programs vary in implementation, they often include components that increase knowledge regarding sexual assault, challenge stereotypes and rape myths, foster victim empathy, teach safe intervention practices, and provide information on resources (Morrison, Hardison, Mathew, & O’Neil, 2004; Vladutiu, Martin, & Macy, 2011).

The effectiveness of these programs has been promising (Katz & Moore, 2013), and as a result, researchers have called for these programs to be expanded outside of college campuses. This is important because although estimates of sexual violence on college campuses are alarming, research by Rennison and Addington (2014) found that rates of rape and sexual assault are higher for non-college women aged 18-24 than women who attend college. Furthermore, many sexual assaults of college women happen off-campus. To that end, this study examines the effectiveness of a community-based bystander program. The BarTAB (Bar Training for Active Bystanders) program was developed and implemented as a bystander program for bar staff. Bar staff were chosen as an ideal next step beyond college campuses because of the high degree of overlap between sexual battery and alcohol use (Abbey, Zawacki, Buck, Clinton, & McAuslan, 2001; Koss, Gidycz, & Wisniewski, 1987).

Literature Review

Bystander Programs on College Campuses

The framework for bystander programs approaches violence as a community health problem (McMahon & Banyard, 2012) and underscores that the causes of sexual violence are complex and occur at the individual, group, community, and societal level. By being situated within the social ecological model, bystander programs address a wide array of behaviors, ranging from sexual remarks that perpetuate the societal acceptance of violence against women to completed acts of sexual assault (Stout & McPhail, 1998). In doing so, bystander programs seek to change social norms that support sexual violence (Berkowitz, 2003; Flood, 2011). Ultimately, these programs aim to remove barriers to bystander intervention, including individual factors (e.g., not noticing the situation), and social norms conducive to violence (Burn, 2009; Deitch-Stackhouse, Kenneavy, Thayer, Berkowitz, & Mascari, 2015; Latané & Darley, 1970) by teaching bystanders the skills necessary to safely intervene. In doing so, these programs approach all participants as allies and move beyond addressing potential victims and perpetrators to emphasizing that everyone has a role in sexual violence prevention (Banyard, Moynihan, & Plante, 2007; Burn, 2009).

Although bystander programs have been around for more than two decades (Katz, 1995), bystander programs have proliferated on college campuses in the last few years and are now federally mandated under the Campus SaVE Act. The evidence for their effectiveness is promising. For example, the Bringing in the Bystander program seeks to decrease participants’ acceptance of rape myths while enhancing students’ skills to recognize and intervene safely in situations that may cumulate in sexual violence (Banyard et al., 2007). The format of this program is flexible, offering single and multiple sessions. The focus of this program is on changing social norms that present barriers to intervention and does so through peer education and interactive activities. Studies have found that among student athletes and the general student body, prosocial attitudes endured 2 months after attending the program (Moynihan, Banyard, Arnold, Eckstein, & Stapleton, 2010; Peterson et al., 2016), and recent evaluations suggest that these effects may be sustained up to a year later (Moynihan et al., 2015) and applicable to multiple campus communities (Cares et al., 2014). In addition to decreasing rape myth acceptance and increasing bystander efficacy, recent studies have demonstrated behavioral changes as well with students reporting intervening more often (Peterson et al., 2016). Furthermore, Hines and Palm Reed (2015) found that participants with the least amount of bystander efficacy had significantly increased levels of bystander intervention 6 months post-intervention, while participants with medium and high efficacy scores did not have an increase in bystander intervention behaviors.

The Green Dot program seeks to empower potential bystanders to intervene before and after dating or sexual violence has occurred by creating a cultural change on college campuses (Coker et al., 2015). The program is implemented on college campuses in two phases. In the first phase, everyone on campus (e.g., students, faculty, administrators) listens to a 50-min overview speech that introduces bystander intervention, awareness of the problem of dating and sexual violence, and builds a commitment from participants to intervene (Coker et al., 2011). Phase 2 is an intensive, 4- to 6-hr training session targeted toward student leaders throughout the campus. By utilizing peer opinion leaders (POL), Green Dot seeks to spread bystander intervention strategies among different peer groups on campus (Coker et al., 2011; Coker et al., 2015). Research has found that students who received any Green Dot training, either the overview speech or the intensive training, were more likely to intervene in dating and sexual violence and to have witnessed others intervening to prevent violence (Coker et al., 2011). In addition, when comparing campuses with and without Green Dot, Coker and colleagues (2015) found that the college campus with Green Dot had lower rates of violence victimization and perpetration than two campuses without any bystander intervention training. The Green Dot program has also shown promising results on high school campuses, with reduced rates of sexual violence victimization and other forms of interpersonal violence victimization and perpetration among high school campuses that have implemented the program (Coker et al., 2017).

Moving Beyond the College Campus

The theoretical framework of bystander programs suggests that prevention should extend beyond campus to the larger community where social norms that support sexual violence persist (Banyard, Plante, & Moynihan, 2004). While these programs have been slow to expand off college campuses, some programs, such as Green Dot, have developed specific trainings for a number of audiences including college campuses, middle and high schools, and the community.

The extension to the wider community is important as some research suggests that noncollege women may be equally or more at risk for sexual violence (Coker et al., 2016; Rennison & Addington, 2014; Zweig, Barber, & Eccles, 1997). One of the most salient risk factors is not necessarily college enrollment, but intoxication. There is a high overlap between alcohol and sexual violence. Drug- and alcohol-facilitated rape/incapacitated rape (DAFR/IR) occurs when the victim is unable to consent due to incapacitation as a result of voluntary consumption of drugs or alcohol or when the victim is incapacitated as a result of the deliberate administration of drugs or alcohol by the perpetrator (Kilpatrick, Resnick, Ruggiero, Conoscenti, & McCauley, 2007). Research has shown that in approximately half of sexual batteries involving college-aged women, the victim or perpetrator, knowingly or unknowingly, had consumed alcohol. It is estimated that 5.6 million adult women have been the victim of DAFR/IR during their lifetime (Kilpatrick et al., 2007). Many women report experiences with sexual violence while in or shortly after drinking in bars. Nearly half of the women surveyed by Parks and Miller (1997) experienced one or more forms of sexual violence and one third had experienced attempted or completed sexual battery. Thompson and Cracco (2008) found that nearly 80% of men admitted to “grabbing a woman’s butt” and about two thirds of men admitted to pressing against a woman from behind or intentionally brushing up against a woman while in a bar. Furthermore, research suggests that alcohol consumption and alcohol expectancies are related to the likelihood of intervention. Fleming and Wiersma-Mosley (2015) found that men who drink reported less bystander intervention intentions, and women with higher alcohol expectancies were less likely to intervene. These findings were also conditioned on the relationship between the potential victim and perpetrator.

Taken together, this research suggests that college-aged women, whether they are students or not, represent a high-risk population and violence prevention efforts should be tailored to also address the community. Bystander programs may be able to address these needs as results assessing their effectiveness are promising and developers of these programs have called for their extension to the community or have modified their programs to be applicable to non-college students. In addition, bystander programs often do or should acknowledge the role that alcohol plays in sexual violence and how bystanders can intervene in situations where a woman is unwilling or unable to consent.

The Role of Bartenders in Sexual Violence Prevention

Bartenders are ideally suited for the prevention of sexual violence. Perhaps the most important reason is that they are already responsible for the safety of their patrons. In certain situations, bartenders and bar owners can be held legally responsible for the actions of their patrons. Dram shop laws impose civil liabilities on social hosts or commercial servers for damages and injuries that are caused by intoxicated or underage patrons (Holder, Wagenaar, Saltz, Mosher, & Janes, 1990). These laws have been examined in the context of lowering alcohol-related traffic accidents (Holder et al., 1990; Rammohan et al., 2011).

Many bartenders regularly participate in training programs to ensure the safety of their patrons. In the United States, 19 states require mandatory training programs and approximately half of the states have laws that call for voluntary beverage server training (Alcohol Policy Information Systems, 2015). While these training programs are designed to address facets related to dram shop laws (e.g., servers recognize overintoxication and identify underage patrons), other programs have been developed in a number of states/locations including Arizona (statewide), Boston (Massachusetts), Asheville-Buncombe County (North Carolina), and Washington, D.C., to prevent sexual assault. These programs are largely voluntary and vary in their length and implementation, but contain many of the same elements of college-based bystander education programs including raising awareness regarding sexual assault, decreasing rape myth acceptance, and fostering the skills to intervene safely to prevent violence. For example, Arizona Safer Bars Alliance (ASBA) is a two-session program that covers content fairly consistent with most bystander programs including defining sexual violence on a continuum, discussion of sexual consent, and drawing from Latané and Darley’s (1970) steps to intervention, teaching safe and creative ways (e.g., distracting a patron) to intervene to prevent sexual violence. However, it also includes information and activities that are specific to bar staff including state-specific statutes regarding alcohol consumption and sexual violence, a discussion of “date rape drugs,” and policies that establishments can adopt to address sexual violence. Research suggests that these programs may be advantageous because although bar staff may not be well-versed in the risk of sexual violence or the context in which it occurs, bartenders are receptive to training programs aimed at reducing sexual violence (Powers & Leili, 2016).

Researchers have found that while bartenders often see and are involved in incidents of violence, they are unlikely to intervene in incidents of sexual violence (Graham et al., 2014; Graham & Wells, 2001). Considering that bystander training programs typically focus on discrete interventions, these programs are ideally suited for bar staff who may be apprehensive about publicly intervening and risk “losing out on tips” or being embarrassed if intervention was not warranted in an ambiguous situation (Powers & Leili, 2016). Although a number of bystander programs for bar staff have been developed, no empirical evaluations of such programs exist in the literature. To that end, this study contributes to the literature by providing an exploratory evaluation of a community-based bystander program for bar staff.

Program Description and Implementation

BarTAB is a bystander intervention program for bar staff. It is applicable to any member of an alcohol-serving establishment who may come into contact with customers (e.g., bartenders, security, managers, owners). This is an in-person, single session program that spans approximately 2 hours and is designed to accommodate both small and large audiences. In addition, implementation of the program occurs in sessions where bar staff from multiple locations attend as well as single-site trainings. Participation in the program is voluntary on the part of the owner/manager and is offered free of charge for any bar in Florida. Bars are recruited largely by leveraging community contacts and organizations to help disseminate information regarding the program. For example, the study staff partners with local law enforcement agencies who are providing training to reduce driving under the influence (DUIs) and/or working with local establishments to reduce problems associated with overintoxication (including sexual violence). BarTAB staff also attends and presents information about the program at local community organizations, such as safety boards and business owner associations, to solicit participation.

The development of BarTAB proceeded in several stages. First, community needs and resources were assessed including relevant legislation, distribution of sexual violence, and existing resources to combat overintoxication and sexual violence/harassment in bars. Second, focus groups were conducted with several groups. Focus groups with bar staff were conducted to explore how they define sexual violence; the unique dynamics of sexual violence in their alcohol-serving establishments; current measures, both formal (e.g., establishment policies) and informal (e.g., individual bartender strategies), being taken to address sexual harassment/assault; barriers to intervening; and receptiveness to training. Likewise, a law enforcement focus group was used to explore many of these same issues from an external perspective. A curriculum was developed that is in line with previous bystander programs (namely, Bringing in the Bystander and ASBA), but is tailored based on the information gathered from focus groups and the needs of Florida communities. In addition, a community task force, which included community stakeholders (e.g., bar owners) and experts in the areas of violence prevention (e.g., victim advocates, developers of bystander programs), assisted in program development and helped facilitate implementation. Before launching the program, BarTAB was pilot tested with several single-site sessions and revised based on the results of that pilot test and feedback from participants. This study consists of the pretest/immediate posttest assessments stemming from the final BarTAB program.

BarTAB has many components in common with college-based bystander programs. For example, it aims to increase awareness, decrease rape myth acceptance, and teach safe and discrete interventions (e.g., distraction) to prevent sexual violence. Also similar to other bystander programs, it approaches sexual violence as a continuum of behavior and seeks to change the social norms surrounding acceptance of violence against women. However, the program focuses on the role of alcohol in sexual violence. This focus manifests itself in a variety of ways. For example, with regard to awareness, care is taken to discuss the role of “date rape drugs” and emphasize the point that their use is rare compared with using alcohol to incapacitate a victim or taking advantage of an incapacitated person after overintoxication. Similarly, although a variety of rape myths are discussed, emphasis is placed on dismantling misconceptions surrounding sexual assault and alcohol, such as men who get intoxicated “can’t help themselves” and that women who drink are “asking for it.” All of the scenarios used to discuss and practice possible interventions surround situations bartenders may encounter in a bar. A variety of learning techniques are used including lecture, discussions, activities, and multimedia. After program completion, the bartenders receive promotional items (e.g., pens and notebooks). The establishment also receives items designed to increase awareness of and advertise the program (e.g., posters, coasters, pens).

Method

Sample

This evaluation entails the results from BarTAB implementation in two large cities in Florida (Tampa and Orlando). Both cities have a diverse and vibrant entertainment industry with many alcohol-serving establishments. In addition, both locations feature large universities and several colleges whose students frequent bars in the surrounding areas. These data represent six training sessions. Four of these were conducted at a single location for employees of the particular establishment and two involved multisite trainings. There was a wide variety of establishments represented in these sessions such as a martini bar, a pool hall, and typical American-style pubs. However, the majority of locations across both sites were alcohol-serving establishments that catered to young adults (college-aged adults and college students) as either nightclubs or beach bars. Training sites were selected a few ways. Some were recommended the training by local law enforcement to help address issues at the establishment, some either volunteered to participate in the multisite training or requested an individual training session after hearing about the program from a community stakeholder, and some contacted BarTAB directly to request a training after a presentation by program staff at a community organization. Participation at all sites was voluntary. The single-site trainings included the overwhelming majority or all of the bar staff that worked at the establishment, whereas the multi-site trainings varied in the number of bar staff that were represented (e.g., employees that worked a particular shift being represented). Over both training sites, there was a total of 155 participants who completed a pre- and posttest.

There was a fairly substantial amount of missing data on the demographic characteristics of the participants; approximately a quarter of the respondents did not provide demographic information. Of those who did, as shown in Table 1, the gender of the participants was fairly evenly distributed with approximately 53% of the sample being male. Furthermore, the majority of participants were White and non-Hispanic (71.93%). On average, the participants were approximately 32 years old.

Table 1.

Participant Demographics.

Variable (% missing)	F or M	% or (range)
Male (25.16%)	62	53.45%
Age (25.16%)	31.68	18-80
Non-Hispanic White (26.45%)	82	71.93%
Experience <10 years (26.45%)	64	56.14%
Bartender/server (25.81%)	79	68.70%

With regard to their experience and duties, the participants were relatively experienced with almost half of the participants indicating that they had been at their job for 10 years or more. With regard to their occupational roles, the majority of the participants were bartenders or servers in some capacity (68.70%) and five bartenders/servers (5.2%) indicated that they also held other positions such as management or security.

Measures

Participants were administered attitudinal surveys both before and immediately after the training and were evaluated on adherence to rape myths, barriers to bystander intervention, and bystander willingness to intervene. These questions were adopted from previously validated scales and questionnaires used in bystander intervention program evaluations. Assessment items were chosen based on scores from the pilot test (items with little variability were omitted) as well as focus groups with bar staff regarding their preconceptions and barriers to intervention. When applicable, these questions were modified to be more relevant for bar staff as opposed to college students. Each of these measures is discussed in turn.

Rape myth acceptance

Adherence to rape myths can present a barrier to intervention and as such they are often incorporated into evaluations of bystander programs. For the current evaluation, rape myth acceptance was measured using a modified version of the revised Illinois Rape Myth Acceptance (IRMA) scale (McMahon & Farmer, 2011). Fifteen items from the larger survey were used and some of the wording of the questions was modified. Overall, the scale had demonstrable reliability at pretest (α = .91). Responses ranged from 1-5 with 5 indicating stronger acceptance of rape myths. Missing data on the individual items ranged from less than 1-3.23% on the pretest and 3.87-5.81% on the posttest. In a few cases, respondents circled more than one answer. When this occurred, the response was coded for the most conservative response. Table 2 displays the pre- and posttest means as well as the wording of the questions.

Table 2.

Rape Myth Acceptance, Pre- and Posttest Means.

Item	Pretest mean	Posttest mean
If a girl is raped while she is drunk, she is at least somewhat responsible for what happened.	1.78	1.54
Girls who say they were raped often led the guy on and then had regrets.	2.03	1.87
If a girl goes to a room alone with a guy at a party, it is her own fault if she is raped.	1.63	1.41
Rape happens when a guy’s sex drive gets out of control.	2.05	1.92
When girls go to parties wearing slutty clothes, they are asking for trouble.	1.94	1.63
Guys don’t usually intend to force sex on a girl, but sometimes they get too sexually carried away.	2.42	2.16
If a girl acts like a slut, eventually she is going to get into trouble.	2.67	2.21
If a guy is drunk, he might rape someone unintentionally.	2.03	1.92
If a girl doesn’t physically fight back, you can’t really say it was rape.	1.58	1.49
A lot of times, girls who say they were raped agreed to have sex and then regret it.	2.47	2.07
Rape accusations are often used as a way of getting back at guys.	2.61	2.13
A lot of times, girls who claim they were raped just have emotional problems.	2.02	1.75
If both people are drunk, it can’t be rape.	1.68	1.54
If a girl doesn’t say “no,” she can’t claim rape.	2.14	1.58
It shouldn’t be considered rape if a guy is drunk and didn’t realize what he was doing.	1.53	1.41

Barriers to intervention

Barriers to bystander intervention were assessed using a combination of a few surveys. First, several items from the Barriers to Sexual Assault Bystander Intervention subscale (Burn, 2009) were used. This scale was modified in several different ways. First, questions that started with “at a party or bar” were modified so that participants answered all questions in the context of their work environment (while working at their bar). Second, two questions from Banyard’s Decisional Balance Scale were modified and included as part of this scale (Banyard, Plante, & Moynihan, 2005). In all, 15 items were utilized on a 5-point Likert-type scale where larger numbers indicate more resistance to intervention (α = .91). Missing data on the individual items ranged from 1.29-5.16% on the pretest and 1.29-3.22% on the posttest. In a few instances, respondents circled more than one answer. When this occurred, the response was coded for the most conservative response. Table 3 displays the survey items as well as the pre- and posttest descriptive statistics.

Table 3.

Barriers to Bystander Intervention.

Item	Pretest mean	Posttest mean
I am probably too busy to be aware of whether someone is at risk for sexual assault.	1.97	1.91
I find it hard to tell whether a guy is at risk for sexually assaulting someone.	2.44	2.18
I think I might be uncertain as to whether someone is at risk for being sexually assaulted.	2.53	2.22
Even if I thought a situation might be high in sexual assault risk, I probably wouldn’t say or do anything if other people appeared unconcerned.	1.74	1.78
If I saw someone I didn’t know was at risk for being sexually assaulted, I would leave it up to his or her friends to intervene.	1.83	1.94
I am less likely to intervene to reduce a person’s risk of sexual assault if I think she or he made choices that increased their risk.	1.91	1.86
If a person is extremely intoxicated, I am less likely to intervene to prevent others from taking sexual advantage of them.	1.81	1.76
If a person is dressed provocatively, or acts provocatively, I feel less responsible for preventing others from taking sexual advantage of them.	1.97	1.80
I am more likely to intervene to prevent sexual assault if I know the potential victim than if I do not.	2.88	2.62
I am more likely to intervene to prevent sexual assault if I know the person that may be at risk for committing sexual assault than if I do not know him.	2.73	2.47
Although I would like to intervene when a guy’s sexual conduct is questionable, I am not sure I would know what to say or do.	2.50	2.09
Even if I thought it was my responsibility to intervene to prevent a sexual assault, I might not out of concern that I would look foolish.	1.78	1.83
I would be afraid to intervene to prevent sexual assault for fear of losing out on a tip.	1.53	1.66
I would be afraid to intervene to prevent sexual assault because people might think I’m too sensitive and am overreacting to the situation.	1.81	1.73
I am less likely to intervene to prevent sexual assault because I’m afraid I could make the wrong decision and intervene when nothing was wrong and feel embarrassed.	2.04	1.85

Bystander willingness to intervene

For the final aspect of the evaluation, participants were asked their willingness to intervene in various ways. This scale was developed by combining questions from several subscales including eight questions from Banyard’s Bystander Behavior Scale (Banyard et al., 2005), four questions from Burn’s Bystander Intervention Behavior Scale (Burn, 2009), and two other questions developed specifically for this project. For this evaluation, participants were asked to rank their willingness to intervene in 14 situations using a scale of 1 (least willing) to 10 (most willing) and these items were averaged to create an overall score with demonstrable reliability (α = .90). Missing data on the individual items ranged from 5.15-9.68% on the pretest and 7.10-10.97% on the posttest. Table 4 displays the wording of these items as well as the pre- and posttest means and standard deviations.

Table 4.

Bystander Willingness to Intervene.

Item	Pretest mean	Posttest mean
Check in to make sure everything is OK if I saw a very intoxicated patron being led out of the bar by someone they didn’t come in with.	7.90	9.11
Intervene if I saw several men crowding around a very intoxicated woman.	8.70	9.03
Speak up and express concern if I hear a patron talk about forcing someone to have sex with them.	9.26	9.45
Grab a patron’s cup and pour out their drink if I suspect that someone slipped something into it.	9.40	9.22
Share information about sexual assault and violence with patrons.	5.55	7.03
Speak up if I hear someone say “She deserved to be raped.”	8.75	9.08
Intervene if I see a man sitting very close to a woman and, by the look on her face, she is uncomfortable.	7.81	8.95
Talk to the friends of a drunk person to make sure they don’t leave their drunk friend behind at the bar.	8.89	9.35
Intervene if I see a man pressuring a woman to leave the bar with him.	8.23	9.18
Intervene if I see someone trying to take advantage of someone’s intoxicated state to have sex with them.	8.83	9.12
Intervene if I hear a patron talking about getting someone intoxicated to have sex with them.	8.46	9.12
Interfere with a guy’s “action” if I think it might stop them from possibly committing a sexual assault.	8.31	8.80
Intervene if I think someone is feeding alcohol to another person to have sex with them.	8.22	9.01
Intervene if I saw someone “dancing on” instead of “dancing with” a woman who appeared to be uncomfortable with the situation.	7.66	8.43

Analytic Strategy

Paired-sample t tests were used to examine whether the program yielded significant results along the three dimensions included in the evaluation (rape myth acceptance, barriers to intervention, willingness to intervene). The average of the individual items in each scale was used as the outcome measures. For each of the analyses below, the results are first presented for the overall sample. Subsequently, considering that previous research on bystander programs has indicated that the effectiveness of the programs may be gendered (McMahon, 2010), the sample was disaggregated by gender and the analyses were conducted on the gender-specific samples. Likewise, job experience may affect the receptiveness and effectiveness of the program. On one hand, more experience may equate to less receptiveness as attitudes and perceptions are more ingrained. For example, Gould (1997) found that police officer cadets were more likely to view cultural diversity training as positive and useful and were overall more receptive of the training than experienced officers. On the other hand, more experience may indicate the difference between a temporary job and a permanent occupation and therefore those who consider bartending a career may be more receptive. For example, Campbell (1995) found that the majority of police officers believed that their view of date rape victims had changed over the course of their career and that they viewed rape victims in a more positive light. In addition, 41% indicated that training that they received on rape and rape policy contributed to their changed beliefs about victims. The current sample was stratified by those who had more than 10 years of experience working in the industry and ancillary models were conducted. Cohen’s d for difference scores were calculated to determine the effect size. Table 5 displays a summary of the overall, gender-disaggregated, and experience-specific analyses.

Table 5.

Summary of BarTAB Evaluation.

	Overall		Men		Women		<10 years experience		>10 years experience
	t	d	T	d	t	d	t	d	t	d
Rape myth acceptance	−2.78**	0.25	−2.19*	0.30	−0.71		−2.01*	0.27	0.88
Barriers to intervention	−1.53		−0.29		−2.39*	0.36	−1.78		0.14
Willingness to intervene	3.60***	0.35	2.85**	0.44	2.07*	0.34	3.19**	0.48	1.68

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Results

Rape Myth Acceptance

As shown in the descriptive information in Table 2, overall, rape myth acceptance in this sample was relatively low. The item that generated the most support was “if a girl acts like a slut, eventually she is going to get into trouble” (M = 2.67 on the pretest) and the respondents were least supportive of the statement “it shouldn’t be considered rape if a guy is drunk and didn’t realize what he was doing” (M = 1.53 on the pretest). As seen in Table 5, there was a significant difference between the pretest scores (M = 2.00, SD = 0.74) and adherence to rape myths following the program (M = 1.78, SD = 0.72); t(123) = −2.80, p < .01, d = .25. This indicates that overall the program was effective at decreasing rape myth acceptance.

When disaggregated by the gender of the respondents, women overall had lower rape myth acceptance on the pretest (1.83 for women and 2.05 for men). This is unsurprising given that most studies find that women adhere to rape myths less than men (Lonsway & Fitzgerald, 1994; Suarez & Gadalla, 2010). To examine whether the program yielded differences in effectiveness by gender, t tests were conducted. Although their posttest scores were comparable, the pretest difference yielded a result that was significant for men (M = 1.76, SD = 0.68), t(52) = −2.19, p < .05, d = .30, and nonsignificant for women. Although this may indicate that men are more receptive to the program, it may also be a function of the relatively small sample size. When job experience is considered, the program was effective for those who had less experience, t(56) = −2.01, p < .05, d = .27; however, the rape myth acceptance scores for those with extensive experience comparatively was not significant. Although both groups decreased, pretest scores indicated lower rape myth acceptance among those with more experience (M = 2.05 compared with M = 1.77).

Barriers to Bystander Intervention

As shown in Table 3, overall, bartenders reported fairly low perceptions of barriers to intervening. The item that generated the most support was “I am more likely to intervene to prevent sexual assault if I know the potential victim than if I do not” (M = 2.88 on the pretest) and the respondents were least supportive of the statement “I would be afraid to intervene to prevent sexual assault for fear of losing out on a tip” (M = 1.53 on the pretest). Although there was an overall decrease in perceptions of barriers to intervening (M = 2.11 pretest and M = 1.99 posttest), this difference was not statistically significant in the overall model. Likewise, the difference was not significant for either of the groups in terms of experience on the job. When disaggregated by the gender of the participant, for barriers to bystander intervention, there was a significant decrease between the pretest scores (M = 2.23, SD = 0.76) and posttest scores following the program (M = 1.88, SD = 0.79), t(44) = −2.39, p = .01, d = .36, for women, but this difference was not significant for men (Table 5).

Bystander Willingness to Intervene

As shown in Table 4, overall, bar staff were quite willing to intervene to prevent sexual harassment and violence both before and after the program. This is perhaps unsurprising given that their job entails interventions to prevent drunk driving or physical violence in their establishments. The scenario that elicited the most willingness to intervene was “grab a patron’s cup and pour out their drink if I suspect that someone slipped something into it” (M = 9.40 on the pretest) and the respondents felt least comfortable with the statement “share information about sexual assault and violence with patrons” (M = 5.55 on the pretest). As seen in Table 5, there was a significant difference between the pretest scores (M = 8.26, SD = 1.59) and willingness to intervene after the program (M = 9.02, SD = 1.39), t(106) = 3.60, p < .01, d = .35. This indicates that overall, the program was effective at increasing bar staff’s willingness to intervene to prevent sexual violence.

When disaggregated by the gender of the respondents, the program was successful at significantly increasing willingness to intervene for both men and women. For women, their pretest (M = 7.87, SD = 1.43) and posttest scores were slightly lower, but the difference was significant (M = 8.72, SD = 1.90), t(36) = 2.07, p < .05, d = .34. For men, the pretest (M = 8.19, SD = 1.81) and posttest scores were higher and the magnitude of the difference between them was greater (M = 9.16, SD = 1.12), t(41) = 2.85, d = .44. The results from the experience-specific models paralleled the patterns of rape myth experience in that those with less experience had greater gains in terms of bystander willingness to intervene t(44) = 3.18, p < .01, d = .48. Again, although both groups increased on this measure from pretest to posttest, those with more experience were more willing to intervene prior to the training (M = 8.49 compared with 7.69).

Discussion

Summary of Results and Implications for Future Research

This study is an exploratory evaluation of a community-based bystander program for bar staff. The results of this evaluation tentatively suggest that this bystander program is effective at changing attitudes surrounding sexual violence and bystander intervention. All three measures included in this evaluation showed change either in the aggregated model, experience-specific, and/or the gender-specific analyses. The most consistent of these effects was for bystander willingness to intervene which suggests that the program empowers bartenders to intervene in situations to prevent sexual violence. These results also tentatively suggest that the program may have differential impacts on men and women. The greater declines in rape myth acceptance for men is not surprising given that research consistently finds that men endorse rape myths more (Suarez & Gadalla, 2010), which suggests that bystander intervention education that explicitly incorporates misconceptions about sexual violence are particularly beneficial to men. Likewise, these results suggest that women perceive more or different barriers to intervention and therefore may benefit more from education that targets those issues. Future research should explore the unique barriers to intervention for men and women so as to tailor program components. It is possible that gender-specific programming may be a more advantageous format as suggested by Berkowitz (2002) and others who argue that programs geared toward men and women have different goals and strategies for implementation.

These results also suggest that those with less experience as bar staff benefit more from bystander intervention training to address sexual violence. Since those with more experience were lower on rape myth acceptance and barriers to intervention and higher on willingness to intervene before the training, this suggests that bar staff may develop these skills as situations warrant. This may also be a function of age as some research has suggested that younger adults may hold more problematic attitudes with regard to intimate partner and sexual violence (Anderson, Simpson-Taylor, & Herrmann, 2004; Powers, Leili, Hagman, & Cohn, 2015). Age and relevant experience is an interesting dynamic to consider for program implementation that is not directly applicable to bystander intervention education on college campuses, but is relevant to the receptiveness and effectiveness of these programs in the community. Future research should seek to disentangle the effects of occupational experience and age on attitudes and perceptions that may hinder intervention and willingness and confidence to intervene. Taken together, these results add to the body of literature that suggests that bystander programs may be effective sexual violence prevention programs and suggest that their extension to the community, and in particular alcohol-serving establishments, may be advantageous.

Implications for Program Implementation

Although bystander intervention programs aimed at bar staff are increasing throughout the country, there are barriers to implementation. Implementing a community-based bystander program can be difficult because unlike students who may be a captive audience, participation is usually voluntary. Sexual violence is still a “taboo subject” and acknowledging that alcohol is a risk factor can present a barrier to participation for bar owners who think that their establishments are being labeled as criminogenic, in the same way that traditional sexual violence training programs can alienate men who feel that they are being labeled as rapists. Emphasizing the bystander model of approaching people as allies and leveraging community support is vital to the success of a community-based bystander program. Community partnerships between law enforcement, safety coalitions, business owners, and relevant stakeholders are necessary to foster that social change.

One of the appeals of bystander programs is their applicability to a wide variety of situations. They can be adapted to address many types of violence and behaviors. For example, Graham, Bernards, Osgood, and Wells (2006) examined physical aggression in large-capacity bars and found that several factors related to the staff such as the staff/patron ratio, the presence of professional boundaries between staff and patrons, and the overall level of monitoring were related to the occurrence, frequency, or severity of violence. Other research has suggested that the lack of regulation and training in bars may contribute to violence (see Homel, Tomsen, & Thommeny, 1992). Taken together, these findings suggest that the social environment of the bar is associated with the likelihood and nature of aggression and violent behavior. Bystander intervention training for bar staff can be tailored to address not only sexual violence, but also intimate partner violence and general aggression. These types of programs may contribute to changing the social environment as staff learn to monitor patron behavior and intervene to prevent aggression and violence.

Limitations

While this study provides encouraging evidence to pursue community-based bystander programs, there were some methodological limitations that temper our conclusions. Most importantly, due to logistical constraints, we were not able to employ an experimental design with random assignment. Therefore, it is unknown how the improvements in attitudes and willingness to intervene compare with a group who did not receive the training. This is particularly important as testing presents a possible threat to internal validity in pre–posttest designs with an immediate posttest. Future research should endeavor to use randomized control trials (RCT) or obtain an equivalent control group and examine effectiveness using quasi-experimental methodologies such as propensity-score matching. Although this limitation is certainly not unique to this bystander intervention program, as employing RCTs in the community or on college campuses can be difficult, studies that have employed rigorous methodological designs have found that these programs are effective among college students (e.g., Salazar, Vivolo-Kantor, Hardin, & Berkowitz, 2014). Community-based bystander programs should endeavor to apply the same degree of methodological rigor to evaluations of effectiveness.

Second, given the relatively small sample size, meaningful differences may have gone undetected. Future evaluations of this program and other similar programs should aim to include more participants. Beyond increasing the power to detect differences, larger sample sizes would allow for analyses to detect whether the results are robust when considering demographic and occupational factors. Compounding the problem with sample size, there was also some evidence of respondent fatigue as the patterns for missing data increased on the posttest. This hampered some of our conclusions regarding gender differences in effectiveness and precluded our ability to conduct multivariate analyses for the outcome measures.

Bystander intervention programs are relatively new, and as such, there have been few longitudinal assessments of the effectiveness of bystander intervention programs. Research regarding the longitudinal effectiveness demonstrates not only support for bystander intervention programs but also evidence that there may be a decay effect (Banyard et al., 2005; Peterson et al., 2016). This calls for the need for longitudinal assessments of bystander intervention program effectiveness. With regard to program implementation, this suggests that “booster sessions” may be beneficial in maintaining lasting attitudinal and behavioral change. Future research is needed to determine when and what type of booster program is warranted. These booster sessions may also be assisted by social media campaigns that reiterate the program messaging without the need for additional formal training sessions.

Ultimately, bystander intervention programs aim to decrease the occurrence of sexual violence. As such, they want to increase effective bystander intervention behaviors. However, most bystander training programs typically assess intent to change behaviors and attitudes, not behavior itself. Due to logistical constraints, this evaluation also suffers from this limitation. This distinction is important as some research suggests that there is a complex relationship between social norms, bystander willingness to intervene, and bystander behaviors (Austin, Dardis, Wilson, Gidycz, & Berkowitz, 2016). Some assessments of the Bringing in the Bystander Program have incorporated behavioral changes in their longitudinal assessments (e.g., Banyard et al., 2005; Moynihan et al., 2015). Likewise, Coker and colleagues (2015) compared college campuses that did or did not have the Green Dot program. On the campus with Green Dot, violent victimizations were significantly lower than the other two college campuses. However, the authors were unable to examine if there were differences before the evaluation as the Green Dot program was implemented 2 years before the evaluation occurred. Future research should aim to examine the extent to which these programs affect behaviors and, ultimately, sexual violence perpetration.

Conclusion

Within recent years, bystander intervention programs have greatly expanded on college campuses and there have been calls for understanding the role that the community plays in bystander intervention (Banyard, Weber, Grych, & Hamby, 2016; McMahon, 2015). Bystander intervention programs have and are being developed for implementation outside of college and university campuses. For example, the Green Dot program has been implemented in middle and high schools as well as in the general community. Partially due to the high overlap between alcohol and sexual assault (Kilpatrick et al., 2007; Krebs et al., 2009), bystander intervention programs have also been developed for alcohol-serving establishments. This study was an exploratory evaluation of one such program, BarTAB. BarTAB has been implemented in a variety of settings, including single-site and multi-site trainings, and within two cities in Florida. The results from this program indicate that the BarTAB program was successful at decreasing rape myth acceptance and barriers to intervention while increasing willingness to intervene. Although there were some caveats regarding these results, such as variation based on the gender and experience of participants, the results indicate that bar-based bystander programs are promising.

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) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This project was supported by funding from the Rape Prevention Education grant provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) through the Florida Department of Health (DOH). The contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official view of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the CDC, or DOH.

Author Biographies

Ráchael A. Powers, PhD, is an associate professor in the Department of Criminology at the University of South Florida. Her research interests focus on violent victimization, violence against women, gender and crime, and hate crime. Her recent research has appeared in Journal of Interpersonal Violence, Child Abuse & Neglect, Crime & Delinquency, among other outlets.

Jennifer Leili, MS, is a doctoral candidate in the Department of Criminology at the University of South Florida. Her research interests include bystander intervention, violence against women, cyber victimization, and perceptions and attitudes toward victims. Her recent research has appeared in Violence and Victims and Deviant Behavior.

References

Abbey

Zawacki

Buck

P. O.

Clinton

A. M.

McAuslan

(2001). Alcohol and sexual assault. Alcohol Research & Health, 25, 43-51.

Alcohol Policy Information Systems. (2015). Beverage service training and related practices. Retrieved from http://alcoholpolicy.niaaa.nih.gov/Beverage_Service_Training_and_Related_Practices.html?tab=Maps

Anderson

V. N.

Simpson-Taylor

Herrmann

D. J.

(2004). Gender, age, and rape-supportive rules. Sex Roles, 50, 77-90.

Austin

M. J. M.

Dardis

C. M.

Wilson

M. S.

Gidycz

C. A.

Berkowitz

A. D.

(2016). Predictors of sexual assault-specific prosocial bystander behavior and intentions: A prospective analysis. Violence Against Women, 22, 90-111.

Banyard

V. L.

Moynihan

M. M.

Plante

E. G.

(2007). Sexual violence prevention through bystander education: An experimental evaluation. Journal of Community Psychology, 35, 463-481.

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, 61-79.

Banyard

V. L.

Plante

E. G.

Moynihan

M. M.

(2005). Rape prevention through bystander education: Brining a broader community perspective to sexual violence prevention. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.

Banyard

V. L.

Weber

Grych

Hamby

(2016). Where are the helpful bystanders? Ecological niche and victims’ perceptions of bystander intervention. Journal of Community Psychology, 44, 214-231.

Berkowitz

A. D.

(2002). Fostering men’s responsibility for preventing sexual assault. In Schewe

P. A.

(Ed.), Preventing violence in relationships: Interventions across the life span (pp. 163-196). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

10.

Berkowitz

A. D.

(2003). Applications of social norms theory to other health and justice issues. In Perkins

H. W.

(Ed.), The social norms approach to preventing school and college age substance abuse: A handbook for educators, counselors, and clinicians (pp. 259-279). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

11.

Breiding

M. J.

(2014). Prevalence and characteristics of sexual violence, stalking, and intimate partner violence victimization—National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey, United States, 2011. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. Surveillance Summaries (Washington, DC: 2002), 63(8), 1.

12.

Burn

S. M.

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

13.

Campbell

(1995). The role of work experience and individual beliefs in police officers’ perceptions of date rape: An integration of quantitative and qualitative methods. American Journal of Community Psychology, 23, 249-277.

14.

Cares

A. C.

Banyard

V. L.

Moynihan

M. M.

Williams

L. M.

Potter

S. J.

Stapleton

J. G.

(2014). Changing attitudes about being a bystander to violence: Translating an in-person sexual violence prevention program to a new campus. Violence Against Women, 21, 165-187.

15.

Coker

A. L.

Bush

H. M.

Cook-Craig

P. G.

DeGue

S. A.

Clear

E. R.

Brancato

C. J.

et al . (2017). RCT testing bystander effectiveness to reduce violence. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 52, 566-578.

16.

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, 777-796.

17.

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, 1507-1527.

18.

Coker

A. L.

Follingstad

D. R.

Bush

H. M.

Fisher

B. S.

(2016). Are interpersonal violence rates higher among young women in college compared with those never attending college? Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 31, 1413-1429.

19.

Deitch-Stackhouse

Kenneavy

Thayer

Berkowitz

Mascari

(2015). The influence of social norms on advancement through bystander stages for preventing interpersonal violence. Violence Against Women, 21, 1284-1307.

20.

Fisher

B. S.

Daigle

L. E.

Cullen

F. T.

(2010). Unsafe in the ivory tower: The sexual victimization of college women. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

21.

Fleming

W. M.

Wiersma-Mosley

J. D.

(2015). The role of alcohol consumption patterns and pro-social bystander interventions in contexts of gender violence. Violence Against Women, 21, 1259-1283.

22.

Flood

(2011). Involving men in efforts to end violence against women. Men and Masculinities, 14, 358-377.

23.

Gould

L. A.

(1997). Can an old dog be taught new tricks? Teaching cultural diversity to police officers. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 20, 339-356.

24.

Graham

Bernards

Osgood

D. W.

Abbey

Parks

Flynn

et al . (2014). “Blurred lines?” Sexual aggression and barroom culture. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 38, 1416-1424.

25.

Graham

Bernards

Osgood

D. W.

Wells

(2006). Bar nights or bad bars? Multi-level analysis of environmental predictors of aggression in late-night large-capacity bars and clubs. Addiction, 101, 1569-1580.

26.

Graham

Wells

(2001). Aggression among young adults in the social context of the bar. Addiction Research and Theory, 9, 193-219.

27.

Hines

D. A.

Reed

K. M. P.

(2015). Predicting improvement after a bystander program for the prevention of sexual and dating violence. Health Promotion Practice, 16, 550-559.

28.

Holder

Wagenaar

Saltz

Mosher

Janes

(1990). Alcoholic beverage server liability and the reduction of alcohol-related problems: Evaluation of dram shop laws (Final Report). Retrieved from https://ntl.bts.gov/lib/25000/25800/25833/DOT-HS-807-629.pdf

29.

Homel

Tomsen

Thommeny

(1992). Public drinking and violence: Not just an alcohol problem. Journal of Drug Issues, 22, 679-697.

30.

Katz

(1995). Reconstructing masculinity in the locker room: The Mentors in Violence Prevention project. Harvard Educational Review, 65, 163-175.

31.

Katz

Moore

(2013). Bystander education training for campus sexual assault prevention: An initial meta-analysis. Violence and Victims, 28, 1054-1067.

32.

Kilpatrick

D. G.

Resnick

H. S.

Ruggiero

K. J.

Conoscenti

L. M.

McCauley

(2007). Drug-facilitated, incapacitated, and forcible rape: A national study. Charleston: National Crime Victims Research & Treatment Center, Medical University of South Carolina.

33.

Koss

M. P.

Gidycz

C. A.

Wisniewski

(1987). The scope of rape: Incidence and prevalence of sexual aggression and victimization in a national sample of higher education students. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 55, 162-170.

34.

Krebs

C. P.

Lindquist

C. H.

Warner

T. D.

Fisher

B. S.

Martin

S. L.

(2009). College women’s experiences with physically forced, alcohol- or other drug-enabled, and drug-facilitated sexual assault before and since entering college. Journal of American College Health, 57, 639-649.

35.

Latané

Darley

J. M.

(1970). The unresponsive bystander: Why doesn’t he help? New York: Meredith Corporation.

36.

Lee

D. S.

Guy

Perry

Sniffen

C. K.

Mixson

S. A.

(2007). Sexual violence prevention. The Prevention Researcher, 14, 15-20.

37.

Lonsway

K. A.

Fitzgerald

L. F.

(1994). Rape myths in review. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 18, 133-164.

38.

McMahon

(2010). Rape myth beliefs and bystander attitudes among incoming college students. Journal of American College Health, 59, 3-11.

39.

McMahon

(2015). Call for research on bystander intervention to prevent sexual violence: The role of campus environments. American Journal of Community Psychology, 55, 472-489.

40.

McMahon

Banyard

V. L.

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

41.

McMahon

Farmer

G. L.

(2011). An updated measure for assessing subtle rape myths. Social Work Research, 35, 71-81.

42.

Morrison

Hardison

Mathew

O’Neil

(2004). An evidence-based review of sexual assault prevention intervention programs. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.

43.

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, 197-204.

44.

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 1 year later? Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 30, 110-132.

45.

Parks

K. A.

Miller

B. A.

(1997). Bar victimization of women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 509-525.

46.

Peterson

Sharps

Banyard

Powers

R. A.

Kaukinen

Gross

et al . (2016). An evaluation of two dating violence prevention programs on a college campus. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0886260516636069

47.

Powers

R. A.

Leili

(2016). “Yeah, we serve alcohol, but . . . we are here to help”: A qualitative analysis of bar staff’s perceptions of sexual violence. Violence and Victims, 31, 692-707.

48.

Powers

R. A.

Leili

Hagman

Cohn

(2015). The impact of college education on rape myth acceptance, alcohol expectancies, and bystander attitudes. Deviant Behavior, 36, 956-973.

49.

Rammohan

Hahn

R. A.

Elder

Brewer

Fielding

Naimi

T. S.

et al . (2011). Effects of dram shop liability and enhanced overservice law enforcement initiatives on excessive alcohol consumption and related harms: Two community guide systematic reviews. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 41, 334-343.

50.

Rennison

C. M.

Addington

L. A.

(2014). Violence against college women: A review to identify limitations in defining the problem and inform future research. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 15, 159-169.

51.

Salazar

L. F.

Vivolo-Kantor

Hardin

Berkowitz

(2014). A web-based sexual violence bystander intervention for male college students: Randomized controlled trial. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 16(9), e203.

52.

Stout

K. D.

McPhail

(1998). Confronting sexism & violence against women: A challenge for social work. New York: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.

53.

Suarez

Gadalla

T. M.

(2010). Stop blaming the victim: A meta-analysis on rape myths. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25, 2010-2035.

54.

Thompson

E. H.

Cracco

E. J.

(2008). Sexual aggression in bars: What college men can normalize. The Journal of Men’s Studies, 16, 82-96.

55.

Vladutiu

C. J.

Martin

S. L.

Macy

R. J.

(2011). College- or university-based sexual assault prevention programs: A review of program outcomes, characteristics, and recommendations. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 12, 67-86.

56.

Zweig

J. M.

Barber

B. L.

Eccles

J. S.

(1997). Sexual coercion and well-being in young adulthood comparisons by gender and college status. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 12, 291-308.