Bystander Action in Situations of Dating and Sexual Aggression: A Mixed Methodological Study of High School Youth

Abstract

Bystander action is a critical component of dating and sexual aggression prevention; however, little is known about barriers and facilitators of bystander action among high school youth and in what situations youth are willing to engage in bystander action. The current study examined bystander action in situations of dating and sexual aggression using a mixed methodological design. Participants included primarily Caucasian (83.0%, n = 181) male (54.6%, n = 119) and female (44.5%, n = 97) high school youth (N = 218). Most (93.6%) students had the opportunity to take action during the past year in situations of dating or sexual aggression; being female and histories of dating and sexual aggression related to bystander action. Thematic analysis of the focus group data identified barriers (e.g., the aggression not meeting a certain threshold, anticipated negative consequences) to bystander action, as well as insight on promising forms of action (e.g., verbally telling the perpetrator to stop, getting a teacher); problematic intervention methods (e.g., threatening or using physical violence to stop the perpetrator) were also noted. Implications for programming are discussed.

Perceptions of Community Norms and Youths’ Reactive and Proactive Dating and Sexual Violence Bystander Action

“…In other words, though the majority of youth had the inclination to provide help in most situations when they could take action, not all did. Although we did not investigate the reasons why some youth did not take action, possibilities include that there were some who lacked the skills, resources, safety or motivation to do so (Edwards et al., ). Therefore, some students may benefit from further action skills training.…”

“…Researchers continue to document the concerning rates of and deleterious outcomes associated with dating and sexual violence (DSV) among high school students (Kann et al., ). As many as 20% of U.S. high school‐attending girls, and 10% of boys, report experiencing physical or sexual dating violence in the past year (Vagi, Olsen, Basile, & Vivolo‐Kantor, ), and approximately 94% will directly witness or hear about an incident of DSV in a given year (Edwards, Rodenhizer‐Stämpfli, & Eckstein, ). Consequently, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, researchers, and practitioner experts have issued repeated calls for effective primary prevention approaches, and particularly encouraged strategies that influence community norms and bystander behavior (Banyard, Weber, Grych, & Hamby, ; Basile et al., ; Rothman, Bair‐Merritt, & Tharp, ; U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, ).…”

School Personnel's Bystander Action in Situations of Teen Relationship Abuse and Sexual Assault: Prevalence and Correlates

“…Modeled after previous research, we created 12 statements comprising the Bystander Efficacy Scale‐School Personnel (BES‐SP) that assess school personnel's confidence in their ability to perform various bystander actions in situations of teen RA and SA. On each of the items (eg, “Speak up to a student at my school who is making excuses for forcing someone to have sex with them).” participants rated their confidence to perform the behavior on a scale from 0 ( quite uncertain ) to 100 ( very certain ).…”

The Architecture of Rural Life: The Dangers of Dense Collective Efficacy for At‐Risk Girls

“…The density of acquaintanceships leads individuals to “work out interpersonal agreements” (Freudenburg 1986:31). Regarding interpersonal violence (IPV), data suggest that people in rural communities may be less willing to help IPV survivors because “everyone knows everyone's business,” and reputations are at stake (Edwards, Rodenhizer‐Stämpfli, and Eckstein 2015). According to Donnermeyer (2015), neighborhood‐based norms may constrain residents from reporting crime to formal authority, even when collective efficacy is high.…”