Bystander Intervention Programs Focusing on Sexual Violence in Academia—A Scoping Review

Data Sources and Search Strategies

In October and November 2021, we conducted searches of the published literature using five electronic databases: ERC, ERIC, Web of Science Core Collection, PsycInfo, and PubMed. There were no limits relating to publication dates. We initially selected four databases (ERC, ERIC, Web of Science Core Collection, and PsycInfo) to search for published studies and searched the grey literature via Google Scholar. Screening for the search terms using Google Scholar resulted in the identification of 12 additional studies accessible via PubMed. Four of the studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria; therefore, PubMed was included as a database. However, we found no separate grey literature that matched the inclusion criteria.

Before searching the five databases, we investigated known concepts and keywords that describe the phenomena of sexual violence and bystander intervention to identify relevant search terms. To verify that the selected search terms would capture studies that met the aims of the review, we conducted a trial search, which yielded two keywords and related search terms for identifying relevant studies.

The searches for terms related to the two keywords were conducted independently using each of the five databases; thereafter, keyword 1 and keyword 2 were combined.

Study Selection and Eligibility Criteria

Apart from applying the methodological framework for scoping reviews (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005), we adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to report our findings (Tricco et al., 2018). Figure 1 depicts the four PRISMA phases used to identify the relevant studies. After completing the three initial steps outlined in the PRISMA guidelines to identify, screen, and check their eligibility, we selected 68 articles for inclusion in our review (Tricco et al., 2018).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

PRISMA 2020 flow diagram for new systematic reviews which included searches of databases and registers only.

Our initial searches, conducted using all five databases, yielded 1,644 studies. We then used Endnote to screen for duplicates, which led to the exclusion of 631 studies. The remaining 1,013 studies were uploaded to Rayyan (a free web tool for conducting reviews), and another duplication check was performed, which resulted in the removal of an additional 148 studies. In total, 779 duplicates, detected using the two programs, were excluded. An initial screening was conducted on the remaining 865 studies using the following inclusion criteria: an empirical study, original paper, bystander intervention program/initiative, focus on sexual violence, inclusion of pretest–posttest assessments, and a university setting/context. Reviews, meta-analyses, and studies for which a full-text version was not available were excluded. The first screening we performed using the defined inclusion criteria entailed reading the titles and abstracts of the articles. It resulted in the exclusion of another 710 studies because they did not match the selection criteria. The full texts of the remaining 155 studies were then screened, ultimately yielding 68 articles. The 68 articles covered 73 studies: five of the articles each evaluated two studies (Alegría-Flores et al., 2017; Jouriles et al., 2016; Lynch & Fleming, 2005; Potter et al., 2019, 2021).

Data Extraction and Analysis

The aim of this review was to investigate bystander intervention programs that focused on the prevention of sexual violence in universities worldwide. We concentrated on the following areas: the participants (RQ1), the key focus of the program’s content (RQ2), didactic methods and delivery formats (RQ3), and outcomes and assessments (RQ4).

We charted the data from the selected studies in a Microsoft Excel table, giving each study a unique reference number to enable easy identification. To facilitate data organization for the next step, we selected relevant measures of interest for answering the RQs, which were entered separately in another Excel sheet and coded, as shown in Table 1. For RQ2 and the first part of RQ4, the identified categories were not mutually exclusive. This meant that one study could focus on both the likelihood to intervene and changes in attitudes and norms. Correspondingly, the studies could assess different outcomes, related to bystander behavior, attitudes, and norms.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Coding for Measures of Interest.

RQs		Categories	Code	No of studies	% of the studies (N/73)
RQ1	Participants	– Students	1	71	97
		– Staff	2	2	3
RQ2	Focus content	– Bystander behavior, likelihood to intervene, efficacy; confidence and willingness to act	1	56	Not mutually exclusive
		– Change in attitudes, beliefs, norms	2	47
		– Increase of knowledge, skills	3	35
		– Higher degrees of awareness	4	10
RQ3	Didactive methods	– Interactive	1	10	14
		– Educational	2	22	30
		– Both interactive and educational	3	41	56
	Delivery format	– Online	1	18	25
		– On campus	2	53	71
		– Campus and online	3	2	4
RQ4	Outcomes/ results	– Positive change in BI belief/effectiveness	1	3	Not mutually exclusive
		– No change in BI belief/effectiveness	2	3
		– Negative change in BI belief/effectiveness	3	—
		– Positive change in likelihood to intervene/efficacy	4	34
		– No change in likelihood to intervene/efficacy	5	5
		– Negative change in likelihood to intervene/efficacy	6	—
		– Positive change in confidence and willingness to act	7	18
		– No change in confidence and willingness to act	8	—
		– Negative change in confidence and willingness to act	9	—
		– Positive change in bystander behavior	10	25
		– No change in bystander behavior	11	6
		– Negative change in bystander behavior	12	—
		– Positive change in RMA/norms	13	25
		– No change in RMA/norms	14	4
		– Negative change in RMA/norms	15	—
		– Positive change in knowledge	16	13
		– No change in knowledge	17	2
		– Negative change in knowledge	18	—
		– Positive change in attitudes, awareness & responsibility	19	25
		– No change in attitudes, awareness & responsibility	20	5
		– Negative change in attitudes, awareness & responsibility	21	—
	Assessment	– Pretest, posttest	1	30	41
		– Pretest, posttest and follow-up within 3 months	2	26	36
		– Pretest, posttest and follow-up within 6 months	3	13	18
		– Pretest, posttest and follow-up within 12 months	4	4	5

Note. BI = bystander intervention, RMA = rape myth acceptance.

A thematic approach was used to synthesize and collate the literature (Levac et al., 2010). The first author conducted the initial thematic analysis by identifying and sorting the material in relation to the RQs. Thereafter, the second and third authors independently reviewed the data and the set of themes to strengthen the validity of the analysis (Liberati et al., 2009).

General Characteristics of the Bystander Intervention Studies

Most of the 68 included articles focused on a US context. Two studies were conducted in South Korea, and one each in the UK, Italy, India, Canada, China, and South Africa.

Since the publication of the most recent review by Mujal et al. (2021), 37 more articles have been published that match the inclusion criteria for the current review. Overall, we identified more than 45 different programs and initiatives that focused on bystander interventions relating to sexual violence in academic settings. The two most common programs reported on in the studies were Bringing in the Bystander (BITB) (15 studies) and TakeCare (five studies). The BITB is grounded in foundational work on bystander-focused prevention. The curriculum views all persons as potential bystanders or witnesses to risky behaviors related to sexual and relationship violence and teaches positive, safe ways to intervene. The model for the content is based on Latané and Darley’s (1968) situational model of bystander intervention (see Banyard, 2011). The TakeCare program is administered online, which makes it possible to reach many students (Karlin & Cross, 2014). In addition to its video format, TakeCare is much briefer than most programs, lasting less than 25 min, compared with one or several sessions lasting an hour or more.

Who Were the Participants? (RQ1)

Because we focused on university settings, various groups such as academic staff, administrative staff, and students would have qualified as potential participants. However, most of the studies (95%) included only the student population, and only two programs focused exclusively on university staff (Haynes-Baratz et al., 2021; Martini & De Piccoli, 2021; see Table 2).

The age of the student participants ranged from 18 to 22 years and, of those studies that reported race/ethnicity, the majority of the students identified themselves as White.

Although 68% of the studies used a mixed-gender group design, the majority of participants were women (in 86% of the cases). Some of the programs, however, like The Men’s Program and Outcry had 100% male participants (Caver, 2012; Elias-Lambert & Black, 2016; Exner-Cortens & Cummings, 2021; Feldwisch et al., 2020; Gidycz et al., 2011; Haikalis, 2019; Langhinrichsen-Rohling et al., 2011; Leonard, 2017; Lynch & Fleming, 2005 (study 1); Orchowski et al., 2018; Salazar et al., 2014, 2019; Stewart, 2014; Williams et al., 2021; Y. J. Wong et al., 2022), while a few programs—Stop Dating Violence, The Women’s Program, and Safe Sisters (Amar et al., 2015; Feldwisch et al., 2020; Foubert et al., 2010; Hahn et al., 2017; Moynihan et al., 2011; Nieder et al., 2020; Steward, 2017)—focused only on female participants.

The selection process in most of the studies depended on the voluntary participation of students, who were approached via study initiators or through other campus-based channels such as student associations. In other studies, participation in the interventions was essentially mandatory, for example, as part of an orientation week or a course.

What Was the Key Focus of the Content of the Included Programs? (RQ2)

To answer RQ2, the program content used in each of the studies was coded into the following categories: Bystander behavior, likelihood to intervene, efficacy, confidence, and willingness to act; Changes in attitudes, beliefs, and norms; Increase in knowledge and skills; and Higher degree of awareness (see Table 1). These categories were not mutually exclusive, that is, one study could focus on, for example, both the likelihood to intervene and changes in attitudes, beliefs, and norms.

The bystander intervention initiatives had different areas of focus. The two most common categories were: Bystander behavior, likelihood to intervene, efficacy, confidence, and willingness to act (56 studies), and changes in attitudes, beliefs, and norms (47 studies; see Table 2). For the first category, the most frequently focused content of the programs was a change in participants’ bystander behavior or the promotion of changes in bystander behavior (Ahrens et al., 2011; Alegría-Flores et al., 2017 (study 1 and study 2); Amar et al., 2012, 2015; Banyard et al., 2007, 2009; Borsky et al., 2018; Bowman, 2021; Brickman, 2017; Elias-Lambert & Black, 2016; Feldwisch et al., 2020; Fenton & Mott, 2018; Foubert et al., 2010; Haikalis, 2019; Hines & Palm Reed, 2015a, 2015b, 2017; Hines et al., 2019; Hollis, 2018; Inman et al., 2018; K. M. Johnson et al., 2021; Jouriles et al., 2016 (study 1 and study 2); Jouriles et al., 2020; Kleinsasser et al., 2015; Langhinrichsen-Rohling et al., 201; Lynch & Fleming, 2005 (study 1 study 2); McMahon et al., 2015; Morean et al., 2021; Moynihan & Banyard, 2008; Moynihan et al., 2010, 2011, 2015; Nieder et al., 2020; O’Brien et al., 2021; Orchowski et al., 2018; Palm Reed et al., 2015; Park & Kim, 2021; Park & Ko, 2021; Peterson et al., 2018; Potter et al., 2019 (study 2); Potter et al., 2021 (study 2); Rothman et al., 2018; Salazar et al., 2014, 2019; Santacrose et al., 2020; Schipani-McLaughlin et al., 2022; Senn & Forrest, 2016; Steward, 2017; Stewart, 2014; J. Y. H. Wong et al., 2019; Y. J. Wong et al., 2022; Zapp et al., 2021; Zinzow et al., 2018). Here, the focus could be on creating new community norms for intervening, increasing a sense of responsibility for intervening, increasing the participants’ feelings of competence, or providing role models that demonstrate positive bystander behavior.

For the second category, changes of attitudes, beliefs, and norms were the focus of the programs’ content in the following studies (Ahrens et al., 2011; Alegría-Flores et al., 2017 (study 1 and study 2); Amar et al., 2012; Banyard et al., 2007, 2009, 2018; Bowman, 2021; Cadaret et al., 2021; Caver, 2012; Elias-Lambert & Black, 2016; Fenton & Mott, 2018; Foubert et al., 2010; Gidycz et al., 2011; Hines & Palm Reed, 2015a, 2017; Hines et al., 2019; Hollis, 2018; Inman et al., 2018; K. M. Johnson et al., 2021; Langhinrichsen-Rohling et al., 2011; Leonard, 2017; Martini & De Piccoli, 2021; McMahon et al., 2014, 2015; Morean et al., 2021; Moynihan & Banyard, 2008; Moynihan et al., 2010, 2011; Musungu et al., 2018; Nieder et al., 2020; Orchowski et al., 2018; Peterson et al., 2018; Potter et al., 2019 (study 1 and study 2); Potter et al., 2021 (study 1 and study 2); Rothman et al., 2018; Salazar et al., 2014, 2019; Steward, 2017; Stewart, 2014; Williams et al., 2021; J. Y. H. Wong et al., 2019; Y. J. Wong et al., 2022; Zapp et al., 2021; Zinzow et al., 2018). One common focus was reducing acceptance levels of the rape myth (i.e., prejudicial, stereotyped, and false beliefs about rape, rape victims, and rapists, which creates a hostile climate for rape victims), as was changes in attitudes.

A focus on increasing the participants’ knowledge and skills in relation to sexual violence and gender-violence issues was identified in 35 studies (Alegría-Flores et al., 2017 (study 2); Amar et al., 2015; Banyard et al., 2007; Bowman, 2021; Brickman, 2017; Burns et al., 2019; Cadaret et al., 2021; Childers, 2011; Exner-Cortens & Cummings, 2021; Feldwisch et al., 2020; Fenton & Mott, 2018; Hahn et al., 2017; Haikalis, 2019; Haynes-Baratz et al., 2021; Hines & Palm Reed, 2017; K. M. Johnson et al., 2021; Leonard, 2017; Lynch & Fleming, 2005 (study 1 and study 2); Morean et al., 2021; Musungu et al., 2018; Nieder et al., 2020; O’Brien et al., 2021; Palm Reed et al., 2015; Park & Kim, 2021; Potter et al., 2019 (study 1); Potter et al., 2021 (study 1); Rothman et al., 2018; Salazar et al., 2014, 2019; Santacrose et al., 2020; Thompson et al., 2021; Williams et al., 2021; J. Y. H. Wong et al., 2019; Zinzow et al., 2018). Here the aim was, for example, increasing knowledge about sexual assault, the prevalence of sexual assault, rape culture beliefs, and sexual consent. Skill improvements included stronger self-efficacy for taking action to prevent violence and reducing perceived skill deficits.

The last category, a higher degree of awareness related to sexual violence, was investigated in 10 studies (Borsky et al., 2018; Childers, 2011; Exner-Cortens & Cummings, 2021; Leonard, 2017; Martini & De Piccoli, 2021; McMahon et al., 2015; Moynihan et al., 2015; Palm Reed et al., 2015; Thompson et al., 2021; Williams et al., 2021). Higher awareness concerned, for example, when and where sexual and intimate partner violence occurs, increasing awareness of rape culture, and dating violence being considered a problem.

What Didactic Methods and Delivery Formats Were Used? (RQ3)

To answer RQ3, the didactic methods used in the studies were coded into one of the following categories: interactive, educational, and both interactive and educational (see Table 1). The type of didactic methods indicated how the content was facilitated and presented to the participants. Some programs were based on interactive activities, whereas others followed more overtly educational approaches (i.e., more of a one-way communication). There was a clear trend toward using a combination of interactive and educational methods (56% of the studies). For example, educational content about the prevalence and consequences of sexual violence was presented, followed by interactive discussions about the meaning and importance of bystanders and their interactive participation in role-playing activities (Banyard et al., 2009; Hahn et al., 2017; Jouriles et al., 2020; Moynihan et al., 2010; Senn & Forrest, 2016). Some studies included measures wherein participants were asked to apply the transmitted knowledge interactively such as in a discussion or a scenario-based role-playing exercise, while others (30% of the studies) provided content using an educational approach. The more educational setting with one-way communication, implies that the participants had limited possibilities for interaction. One study, by Potter et al. (2019; study 1), tested a more playful educational approach that entailed the design of an online trivia game to instruct participants and strengthen their knowledge. The other method that Potter et al. (2019; study 2) tested entailed an interactive approach that focused on a role-based online adventure game with fantasy scenarios to encourage players to act as bystanders and intervene in scenarios involving potential sexual violence.

The delivery format of the programs could be: online, on campus, or a combination of campus and online. The most common format for delivering programs and initiatives was on campus (73% of the studies). For example, the BITB program was implemented on campus with educated trainers. Almost one-fourth of all of the studies were conducted online. Online programs do not require the same resources (e.g., physical space, trainers, and financing) as campus-based initiatives, and they are more convenient to implement because the participants can choose when and where to engage in the program. In only two of the 73 studies, the programs were conducted on campus as well as online, for example, by combining a physical intervention with a social media campaign (Schipani-McLaughlin et al., 2022) or a text message initiative (Brickman, 2017). These initiatives aimed to intensify the outcomes by using an additional online intervention to anchor the knowledge gained from the physical intervention.

What Were the Outcomes and How Were They Assessed? (RQ4)

To answer the first part of RQ4, the outcomes of the studies were coded as a positive change, no change, or a negative change with respect to the following categories: bystander intervention belief/effectiveness; likelihood to intervene/efficacy; confidence and willingness to act; bystander behavior; Rape myth acceptance/norms, knowledge, and attitudes; awareness; and responsibility. For example, the outcomes in the first category (bystander intervention belief/effectiveness) could be positive change, no change, or negative change. Thus, we used 21 options for coding the study outcomes (see Table 1). These categories were not mutually exclusive, that is, one study could include, for example, both a change in the likelihood to intervene and a change in attitudes.

In six studies, bystander intervention belief/effectiveness was measured as an outcome variable (Ahrens et al., 2011; Banyard et al., 2009, 2018; Borsky et al., 2018; Brickman, 2017; Childers, 2011). Three of these studies reported a positive change while the other three studies reported no change.

The most expected and measured outcome was the likelihood to intervene/efficacy. In 38 studies, the focus was on participants’ likelihood to intervene in a situation related to sexual violence (Ahrens et al., 2011; Amar et al., 2012; Brickman, 2017; Feldwisch et al., 2020; Fenton & Mott, 2018; Foubert et al., 2010; Gidycz et al., 2011; Haynes-Baratz et al., 2021; Hines & Palm Reed, 2015a, 2015b; Hollis, 2018; Inman et al., 2018; Jouriles et al., 2016 (study 1 and study 2); Langhinrichsen-Rohling et al., 2011; Lynch & Fleming, 2005 (study 1 and study 2); McMahon et al., 2015; Moynihan & Banyard, 2008; Moynihan et al., 2010, 2011; O’Brien et al., 2021; Palm Reed et al., 2015; Peterson et al., 2018; Potter et al., 2019 (study 1 and study 2); Potter et al., 2021 (study 1 and study 2); Rothman et al., 2018; Salazar et al., 2014, 2019; Santacrose et al., 2020; Senn & Forrest, 2016; Steward, 2017; Stewart, 2014; Zapp et al., 2021; Zinzow et al., 2018). Of these studies, 34 reported a positive change, four reported no change, and one (Santacrose et al., 2020) reported both a positive change and no change in participants.

In 18 studies, the outcome measure was participants’ confidence and willingness to act (Alegría-Flores et al., 2017 (study 1); Banyard et al., 2009; Childers, 2011; Feldwisch et al., 2020; Moynihan et al., 2010, 2011; O’Brien et al., 2021; Orchowski et al., 2018; Park & Kim, 2021; Park & Ko, 2021; Rothman et al., 2018; Senn & Forrest, 2016; Steward, 2017; Stewart, 2014; Williams et al., 2021; J. Y. H. Wong et al., 2019; Y. J. Wong et al., 2022; Zinzow et al., 2018). All of these studies reported a positive change.

Thirty-one studies measured change in actual bystander behavior (Banyard et al., 2007, 2018; Borsky et al., 2018; Bowman, 2021; Burns et al., 2019; Caver, 2012; Childers, 2011; Elias-Lambert & Black, 2016; Fenton & Mott, 2018; Foubert et al., 2010; Hahn et al., 2017; Haikalis, 2019; Hines & Palm Reed, 2015b, 2017; Hines et al., 2019; Hollis, 2018; Jouriles et al., 2016 (study 1 and study 2); Jouriles et al., 2020; Kleinsasser et al., 2015; Langhinrichsen-Rohling et al., 2011; McMahon et al., 2015; Morean et al., 2021; Moynihan et al., 2015; Orchowski et al., 2018; Rothman et al., 2018; Salazar et al., 2014; Schipani-McLaughlin et al., 2022; Senn & Forrest, 2016; Y. J. Wong et al., 2022; Zapp et al., 2021). A positive change was reported in 25 of these studies, and no change was reported in six.

Changes in norms and beliefs, along with an overall reduction in the acceptance of rape myths, were reported as outcomes in 29 of the studies (Alegría-Flores et al., 2017 (study 1 and study 2); Amar et al., 2012, 2015; Banyard et al., 2009, 2018; Caver, 2012; Feldwisch et al., 2020; Fenton & Mott, 2018; Foubert et al., 2010; Gidycz et al., 2011; Hahn et al., 2017; Hines & Palm Reed, 2015b; Hines et al., 2019; Inman et al., 2018; K. M. Johnson et al., 2021; Leonard, 2017; Martini & De Piccoli, 2021; McMahon et al., 2014, 2015; Musungu et al., 2018; Orchowski et al., 2018; Salazar et al., 2014, 2019; Stewart, 2014; Williams et al., 2021; J. Y. H. Wong et al., 2019; Zapp et al., 2021; Zinzow et al., 2018). A positive change was reported in 25 of these studies, while four reported no change.

Change in knowledge related to sexual violence behaviors/bystander behaviors/legislation was measured as an outcome variable in 15 studies (Amar et al., 2015; Banyard et al., 2007; Bowman, 2021; Brickman, 2017; Exner-Cortens & Cummings, 2021; Gidycz et al., 2011; Haynes-Baratz et al., 2021; Jouriles et al., 2020; Martini & De Piccoli, 2021; Morean et al., 2021; Moynihan & Banyard, 2008; Musungu et al., 2018; Nieder et al., 2020; Salazar et al., 2019; Thompson et al., 2021). In 13 of these studies, a positive change was reported, while two studies showed no effect related to knowledge level.

Thirty studies focused on change in attitudes, awareness, and responsibility relating to situations of sexual violence (Amar et al., 2012, 2015; Banyard et al., 2007; Borsky et al., 2018; Bowman, 2021; Burns et al., 2019; Cadaret et al., 2021; Elias-Lambert & Black, 2016; Exner-Cortens & Cummings, 2021; Hines & Palm Reed, 2015a, 2017; Hollis, 2018; K. M. Johnson et al., 2021; Martini & De Piccoli, 2021; McMahon et al., 2014; Morean et al., 2021; Moynihan & Banyard, 2008; Moynihan et al., 2011; Nieder et al., 2020; O’Brien et al., 2021; Palm Reed et al., 2015; Park & Kim, 2021; Peterson et al., 2018; Potter et al., 2019 (study 1 and study 2); Potter et al., 2021 (study 1 and study 2); Steward, 2017; Thompson et al., 2021; Y. J. Wong et al., 2022). Of these studies, 25 reported a positive change and five reported no change.

One of the inclusion criterions in this review was a pretest-posttest design. Most of the studies (41%) used only pretest–posttest assessments, 36% included a 3-month follow up, 18% included a 6-month evaluation, and 5% included a further evaluation after 12 months.

Limitations of the Study

The present study had some limitations that should be addressed in future research. First, given that this was a scoping review, we did not evaluate the quality of the selected studies or the specific assessment methods used, even though a pretest–posttest design was an inclusion criterion.

Second, only five databases were searched, and papers not published with full text or in English were excluded; thus, there is a risk that some relevant studies were not included.

Finally, scoping reviews in general are limited by their specific search strategies. Therefore, we may have overlooked relevant studies that used other associated terms in their titles or abstracts.

Implications for Future Research

As we stated at the outset, studies have shown that the number of sexually violent acts among students remains high (e.g., 44%–61% among students in the US; Cantor et al., 2015). This situation is alarming and indicates that the efforts by members of the public and of societies to combat this issue have not led to a decrease in rates of sexual violence. Clarification on what individuals perceive as sexually violent behavior and how this may differ when viewed from an intersectional perspective, and in different cultural settings, is necessary to shed further light on potentially effective approaches for tackling this challenge.

Some studies have indicated that gender is an influencing factor in bystander interventions, in that it can be a predictor of, for example, acceptance of rape myths and bystanders’ attitudes (McMahon et al., 2014). Hence, future studies should attempt to advance understanding of the impact of gender on attitudes, behaviors, and beliefs and, more specifically, on how this knowledge can contribute to the design and development of bystander intervention programs. For example, they could evaluate which combinations impact participants in training programs involving single-gender or mixed-gender groups and what the content is of these programs.

Additionally, most programs included in our review lacked a diverse perspective. For example, some focused on female or male heterosexual students but did not consider other sexual identities. Moreover, except for one study (Burns et al., 2019), none of the programs took an intersectional approach; most of them focused either on gender or on social affiliations in student life, such as sporting associations or fraternities/sororities. This lack of research leaves us with fragmented insights into how having several marginalized identities (e.g., being Black, queer, and a woman) may further complicate an individual’s experiences (e.g., Buchanan & Ormerod, 2002; Buchanan et al., 2008; Texeira, 2002). Developing bystander intervention programs that incorporate an intersectional approach could advance understanding of individuals’ attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors relating to sexual violence through the consideration of multiple identities and experiences (Collins & Bilge, 2020).