Raising a Red Flag on Dating Violence: Evaluation of a Low-Resource, College-Based Bystander Behavior Intervention Program

Abstract

Encouraging bystanders to intervene safely and effectively in situations that could escalate to violence-known as bystander behavior programs-is a growing yet largely untested strategy to prevent dating violence. Using a quasi-experimental design, we evaluate a low-resource, low-intensity intervention aimed at preventing dating violence among college students. The integrated behavioral model (IBM) was used to guide the evaluation. We also assess which IBM variables were most strongly associated with bystander behaviors. Participants were drawn from two Virginia colleges that predominantly train females in the health profession sciences. The intervention group ( n = 329) participated in a university-wide bystander behavior intervention consisting of a 30-min presentation on dating violence at new-student orientation and a week-long "red flag" social marketing campaign on campus to raise awareness of dating violence. Controlling for changes at the comparison university, results showed an increase in bystander behaviors, such as encouraging a friend who may be in an abusive relationship to get help, after the intervention and adjusting for potential confounders (increase of 1.41 bystander behaviors, p = .04). However, no significant changes were found for bystander intentions, self-efficacy, social norms, or attitudes related to dating violence from pre- to post-intervention. Self-efficacy had a direct relationship with bystander behaviors. Results suggest that low-resource interventions have a modest effect on increasing bystander behaviors. However, higher resource interventions likely are needed for a larger impact, especially among students who already demonstrate strong baseline intentions to intervene and prevent dating violence.

Efficacy of a bystander intervention for preventing dating violence in Brazilian adolescents: short-term evaluation

“…Nevertheless, such positive evidence contrasts with the findings of other studies which have shown a lack of efficacy regarding the intent to help, self-efficacy, social norms, attitudes related to dating violence (Borsky et al, 2018), rape myth acceptance, and utilization of bystander behaviors (Moynihan et al, 2011). Furthermore, mixed results on utilization of bystander behaviors (Katz, Heisterkamp, & Fleming, 2011;Miller et al, 2012) and willingness to intervene (Miller et al, 2012) have been found.…”

“…The current study extends prior research by examining the short-term effects of a peer-and bystander approach-based intervention to improve the intent to offer help, empathy, and bystander attitude outcomes at the level of the individual in response to dating violence in a Brazilian sample of adolescents. While the intention to help (Amar et al, 2015;Borsky et al, 2018;Miller et al, 2012;Peterson et al, 2018) and bystander attitudes (Amar et al, 2015) have been investigated in previous studies, empathy has been poorly explored in studies evaluating bystander interventions for preventing dating violence, though there is evidence for it as one of the protection factors for dating violence (McCloskey & Lichter, 2003) and it is considered an outcome of interest in bystander interventions in other types of violence (Jenkins & Nickerson, 2017). These short-term outcomes were considered precursors of medium-term (helpseeking and help-offering between friends in dating violence situation and friendship quality) and longterm (number of friends who are perpetrators and victims of dating violence and victimization and perpetration of dating violence) outcomes ( Fig.…”

“…Although theoretical models centered on spectator help have long been available and practical applications in various contexts have been developed (Fischer et al, 2011), interventions based on the bystander approach for preventing violence in affective-sexual relationships remain of very recent vintage (Amar et al, 2015;Borsky, Mcdonnell, Turner, & Rimal, 2018;Coker et al, 2011;Coker et al, 2016;Coker, Bush, Brancato, Clear, & Recktenwald, 2018;Jaime et al, 2018;Miller et al, 2012;Palm Reed at al., 2015;Peterson et al, 2018). A systematic review of the literature (Storer, Casey, & Herrenkohl, 2016) identified nine programs with this purpose, and of them, only three sought to prevent dating violence, while the others focused exclusively on sexual violence not associated with dating.…”

#WhyITold: A Pilot Test of Twitter Messages Aimed at Promoting Bystander Intervention against Domestic Violence

“…According to Baxter and Montgomery (1996), when individuals decide whether to disclose information four risks are present: rejection, reduction of personal autonomy and integrity, loss of control or self-efficacy and hurting or embarrassing the listener. With these risks in mind, Shirley, Powers and Sawyer (2007) found that when individuals believe they are being psychologically abused they disclose less often, and when they do disclose they tend to be dishonest about the realities of their situation.…”

Intimate Partner Violence on College Campuses: An Appraisal of Emerging Perspectives

“…In order to address these problems, it is essential for institutions of higher education to take necessary steps and address these problems. One strategy to prevent dating violence (and IPV) on college campuses is to focus on intervention efforts targeting the bystanders (Borsky, McDonnell, Turner, & Rimal, 2016). This can be accomplished by implementing prevention programs that train students from being potential bystanders to those who can step-in to help diffuse risky situations, identify and challenge perpetrators, and assist in support of victims (Moynihan, Banyard, Cares, Potter, Williams, & Stapleton, 2015).…”