BYSTANDER INTERVENTION AMONG DRINKING GAMERS Bystander Intervention Among College Student Drinking Gamers: Sexual Assault Attitudes, Self-Efficacy, and Intent to Intervene

Abstract

Heavy drinking and sexual assault warrant significant concern on U.S. college campuses as emerging evidence suggests that the risk for sexual victimization is amplified in the context of high-risk drinking behavior. Despite recent attention to sexual assault (e.g., MeToo Movement), rates of perpetration remain largely unchanged. In applying the bystander intervention framework, our understanding of the relation between key factors that may facilitate or prevent behavioral action, or when and how these factors are most salient, is limited. The present study examined whether bystander attitudes and bystander self-efficacy interact to predict bystander intent to intervene. Hypotheses were tested among college student drinking gamers, a group at particular risk for involvement in situations of sexual violence. Participants (N = 964) were traditional college-aged student drinking gamers recruited from three universities across the East and Southern Central United States. After controlling for Greek affiliation, prior intervention training and social desirability, hypotheses were partially supported. Higher rape supportive attitudes (rape myth acceptance) were negatively associated with bystander intent to intervene across all participants, but bystander self-efficacy significantly moderated the relation between bystander attitudes (rape myth acceptance) and bystander intent to intervene only among women college student drinking gamers. The interaction effect was not significant among men. For all participants, there was a significant relation between bystander self-efficacy and bystander intent to intervene such that as self-efficacy increases, bystander intent to intervene increases. The discussion addresses implications for sexual assault prevention programs on college campuses and directions for future research.

Factors Influencing Sexual Violence Situation Witnessing Experience: For Korean Occupational Soldiers

“…In this study, the social self-efficacy showed a significant difference between the experienced group and the non-experienced group of witnessing sexual violence situations; the higher the social self-efficacy, the higher the experience of witnessing the sexual violence situation (by about 2.2 times). This result supports previous studies which found that, as self-efficacy increased, the bystander's intention to intervene increased [32].…”

Alcohol’s Role in Campus Sexual Assault Bystander Behavior: A Systematic Review

“…Findings are more plentiful, if conflicting, regarding how bystander’s general alcohol use affects their responses to SA situations. Six studies found no relationship between bystander’s alcohol use (typical drinking frequency, alcohol use disorders score, binge drinking, problem drinking, drinking games, and alcohol expectancies) and bystander behavior, intentions, or peer norms (Austin et al, 2016; Fleming & Wiersma-Mosley, 2015; Intagliata, 2017; Pazienza, 2021; Powers et al, 2015; Williams et al, 2021). Four studies found that bystanders who drink more (typical drinking frequency and binge drinking) exhibited fewer bystander behaviors, lower intentions, and more negative perceived consequences of bystander behavior (Fleming & Wiersma-Mosley, 2015; Orchowski et al, 2016; Palmer, 2016; Schipani-McLaughlin et al, 2020).…”

“…Studies frequently labeled proximal proxies of bystander behavior with names that can be misleading out of context, including bystander intervention behavior (Burn, 2009); bystander intervention (Fleming & Wiersma-Mosley, 2015; Hoffman & Daigle, 2020); bystander attitudes (Intagliata, 2017; McMahon, 2010; Pazienza, 2021; Powers et al, 2015); bystander inaction (Katz, 2015); direct bystander intervention (Katz & Nguyen, 2016); bystander non-intervention (Katz et al, 2018); in-the-moment response (Steel et al, 2022); and behavioral interventions (Zelin et al, 2019). In Supplemental Appendix A, we include the measure name as it appears in the study but with a descriptor in brackets (willingness, intentions, or difficulty) to reduce confusion.…”

“…Four studies found that bystanders who drink more (typical drinking frequency and binge drinking) exhibited fewer bystander behaviors, lower intentions, and more negative perceived consequences of bystander behavior (Fleming & Wiersma-Mosley, 2015; Orchowski et al, 2016; Palmer, 2016; Schipani-McLaughlin et al, 2020). Finally, four studies found that bystanders who drink more/are more exposed to alcohol (weekly drinking, drinking games, and hosting parties with alcohol) exhibited more bystander behaviors, greater intentions, and higher self-efficacy (Pazienza, 2021; Silver & Jakeman, 2016; Williams et al, 2021; Zozula et al, 2021). Many studies investigated bystander alcohol use and upstream proxies of bystander behavior in more complex models with additional covariates included (see Table 2).…”

“…Wiersma-Mosley, 2015; Intagliata, 2017;Pazienza, 2021;Powers et al, 2015;Williams et al, 2021). Four studies found that bystanders who drink more (typical drinking frequency and binge drinking) exhibited fewer bystander behaviors, lower intentions, and more negative perceived consequences of bystander behavior (Fleming & Wiersma-Mosley, 2015;Orchowski et al, 2016;Palmer, 2016;Schipani-McLaughlin et al, 2020).…”