The Relationship Between Dating Violence and Bystander Behavior: An Initial Investigation

Abstract

Preliminary research has demonstrated the utility of bystander interventions in reducing sexual assault (Coker et al., 2011; Moynihan & Banyard, 2008), and initial research has begun extending this type of intervention to dating violence broadly (i.e., physical and psychological aggression). However, there are many unexplored factors that may increase or decrease the likelihood that individuals will engage in bystander behavior. One such factor is previous experiences with dating violence and sexual assault. Thus, this study examined prior dating violence and sexual assault experiences and endorsement of bystander behaviors in a large sample of college students (N = 2,430). We hypothesized that individuals with a history of dating and sexual assault victimization would be more likely to report engaging in bystander behaviors relative to nonvictims. The relationship between prior dating violence perpetration on bystander behavior was also explored. Results demonstrated that individuals with physical and sexual, but not psychological, victimization histories reported more frequent bystander behavior. Furthermore, perpetrators of physical violence were more likely than nonperpetrators to report bystander behavior, particularly among females. Findings provide preliminary evidence that prior experiences with dating violence and sexual assault may impact bystander behavior. Implications and directions for future research are discussed.

Bystander Intervention Behavior as Function of Victimization History, Opportunity, and Situational Context

“…These data suggested that this was particularly true for women with a history of either physical or sexual victimization. Psychological victimization did not differentiate bystander intervention in this study (Woods et al, 2016). However, this research did not control for opportunity to intervene relative to reported intervention, nor did it examine differential intervention across situations (low risk, high risk, postassault), thus limiting its ability to detect differences in victimization status and gender as a function of the continuum of potential bystander intervention points.…”

“…While the initial findings in this area are promising, most previous work views bystander intervention as a monolithic construct, and fails to account for (1) potential variance in opportunity, (2) risk that distinct circumstances present, and (3) previous personal experiences with violence (McMahon et al, 2015; Woods et al, 2016). Therefore, the current research addresses these limitations through examination of the contextual features of bystander intervention when individuals have the opportunity to intervene, and systematically examining the range of contexts in which individuals could intervene.…”

The Chivalrous Bystander: The Role of Gender-Based Beliefs and Empathy on Bystander Behavior and Perceived Barriers to Intervention

“…Because women face higher risk for sexual and physical violence victimization than men (Archer, 2000;Edwards et al, 2015), they may feel greater empathy toward others in similar risk situations (Burn, 2009;Woods et al, 2016) and thus be more willing to intervene as a bystander (Abbott & Cameron, 2014;Dovidio et al, 1991;Hortensius & de Gelder, 2018). Although Burn (2009) and Woods et al (2016) theorized that heightened bystander intervention tendencies among women reflect empathetic concerns, they did not include measures of empathy in these studies. In the present study, we examined the unique and additive effects of sexist attitudes and empathy in predicting bystander intervention and perceived barriers.…”

“…Empathy is increased when individuals can identify with, or relate to, the person in need of help (Dovidio et al, 1991;Levine et al, 2005). Because women face higher risk for sexual and physical violence victimization than men (Archer, 2000;Edwards et al, 2015), they may feel greater empathy toward others in similar risk situations (Burn, 2009;Woods et al, 2016) and thus be more willing to intervene as a bystander (Abbott & Cameron, 2014;Dovidio et al, 1991;Hortensius & de Gelder, 2018). Although Burn (2009) and Woods et al (2016) theorized that heightened bystander intervention tendencies among women reflect empathetic concerns, they did not include measures of empathy in these studies.…”

Barriers to Bystander Interventions for Sexual Assault: Impact of Personal History of Sexual Victimization

“…Total scores for each instance of victimization were calculated separately by adding the midpoint for each item response (e.g., a "4" for the response "3-5 times"), with higher scores representing more frequent victimization for each respective subscale. This project only utilized the sexual victimization subscale, and, consistent with previous research (Woods et al, 2016), utilized dichotomous categorization of victims, such that individuals who endorsed experiencing at least one act of violence were considered sexual victims. Example items from the sexual victimization subscale include "My partner made me have sex without a condom" and "My partner insisted on sex when I didn't want to".…”