Download Bystander Behavior Intervention in Risky Sexual Assault Situations

Bystander Behavior Intervention in Risky Sexual Assault Situations: An Examination of
Social Norms and Situational Factors
A thesis presented to
the faculty of
the College of Arts and Sciences of Ohio University
In partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree
Master of Science
Joel D. Wyatt
December 2016
© 2016 Joel D. Wyatt. All Rights Reserved.
2
This thesis titled
Bystander Behavior Intervention in Risky Sexual Assault Situations: An Examination of
Social Norms and Situational Factors
by
JOEL D. WYATT
has been approved for
the Department of Psychology
and the College of Arts and Sciences by
Christine A. Gidycz
Professor of Psychology
Robert Frank
Dean, College of Arts and Sciences
3
ABSTRACT
Wyatt, Joel D., M.S., December 2016, Psychology
Bystander Behavior Intervention in Risky Sexual Assault Situations: An Examination of
Social Norms and Situational Factors
Director of Thesis: Christine A. Gidycz
Sexual assault is a well-documented problem on college campuses. One way to
prevent sexual assault is for bystanders to intervene, and social norms theory posits that
an individual’s decision to intervene in a risky situation is influenced by perceived peer
norms and situational factors (e.g., alcohol consumption, riskiness for the victim,
knowing the potential victim). Previous research has provided evidence that perceived
peer norms are associated with whether or not bystanders decide to intervene in risky
situations, but these studies have been limited by typically using measures to assess
bystander behavior that do not account for whether an individual has an opportunity to
intervene. Further, many of the situational variables that have been examined have been
limited in that they have been dichotomized when the construct that is being measured is
inherently continuous (e.g., relationship with a potential victim). The purpose of this
study is to predict bystander intervention using a set of social norm variables (perception
of peers’ rape myth acceptance, prosocial tendencies and hypergender ideology) and
individual-level variables in a sample of college men and women, as well as examine
situational-specific variables at the time of an event. Perceptions of peer norms were
unrelated to bystander behavior; however, perceived impact of alcohol use, perceived risk
for a bystander, perceived closeness to a potential victim and previous intervention were
related to bystander behavior. Implications of the findings are discussed.
4
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express appreciation and gratitude to my advisor, Dr. Christine
Gidycz, for her support and guidance through this process. I would also like to thank my
other committee members, Dr. Ryan Shorey and Dr. Brian Wymbs for their consideration
and insight.
5
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………3
Acknowledgements………………………………………………………………………..4
List of Tables…………………………………………………...……….………………...7
List of Figures……………………………………………………………………………..8
Chapter 1: Introduction……………………………………………………………………9
Chapter 2: Methods………………………………………………………………………20
Participants…………………………………………………………………….…20
Procedure……...……………………………………………………………........20
Measures……………………………………………………………………........21
Chapter 3: Results………………………………………………..………………………31
Descriptive Statistics……………………………………………………………..31
Specific Hypothesis and Corresponding Analyses………………………………32
Exploratory Analyses…………………………………………………………….44
Chapter 4: Discussion……………………………………………………………...…….47
References………………………………………………………………………………..57
Appendix A: Demographics Questionnaire ……….……………………………….……64
Appendix B: Sexual Experiences Survey – Victimization…………………….………...67
Appendix C: Sexual Experiences Survey – Perpetration……………………….…….….70
Appendix D: Revised Conflict Tactics Scale …………...……………………………….74
Appendix E: Rape Myth Acceptance Scale – Self………………………………………75
Appendix F: Rape Myth Acceptance Scale – Peers……………………………………..77
Appendix G: Hypergender Ideology Scale – Self……………………………………….79
6
Appendix H: Hypergender Ideology Scale – Peers……………….………………….....81
Appendix I: Prosocial Tendencies Measure – Self…………...…………………………83
Appendix J: Prosocial Tendencies Measure – Self……………..……………………….85
Appendix K: Bystander Opportunity Scale……………………………………………..87
Appendix L: Bystander Behavior Scale………….………………………………………91
Appendix M: Situational Follow-up Questionnaire…………………………………...…95
7
LIST OF TABLES
Table
Page
1. Demographic Characteristics of the Sample…………………………………………..21
2. Frequency of Endorsement of Each Risky Situation in the Situational Analyses…….29
3. Descriptive Statistics for Social Norms Analyses…………………………………….31
4. Correlations Matrix of Social Norms Analyses Variables……………………………32
5. Descriptive Statistics for Continuous Variables in the Situational Analyses…………33
6. Summary of Support for Each Hypothesis……………………………………………34
7. Summary of Hierarchical Linear Regression Predicting Bystander Behavior Frequency
from Gender, Individual Level, and Social Norms Level Factors……………………….36
8. Exploratory Logistic Regression Coefficients…………………………….………......45
8
LIST OF FIGURES
Figures
Page
1. Model containing influences of bystander behavior, including individual, social norms
level and situational factors…………………………...…………………………………10
2. Predicted bystander frequencies by individual rape myth acceptance for men and
women at 1 SD below the mean and 1 SD above the mean……………………………..37
3. Predicted bystander frequencies by individual hypergender ideology for men and
women at 1 SD below the mean and 1 SD above the mean……………………………..38
9
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
Sexual assault, defined as any unwanted sexual act (e.g., touching someone in a
sexual way without consent, coercing someone either verbally or by force or threats of
force to engage in sexual acts they do not want to engage in), is a well-documented
problem on college campuses (Fisher, Daigle, Cullen, & Turner, 2003; Koss, Gidycz, &
Wisniewski, 1987). Research has shown that approximately 25% of college women and
6% of college men will be victims of some form of sexual assault during their college
career (Gross, Winslett, Roberts, & Gohm, 2006; Krebs, Lindquist, Warner, Fisher, &
Martin, 2007; Koss et al., 1987). Further, the consequences of sexual assault can be
devastating for victims, affecting both mental and physical health (e.g., Campbell,
Dworkin, & Cabral, 2009; Tansill, Edwards, Kerns, Gidycz, & Calhoun, 2012).
As a result of these high rates of sexual assault victimization and negative
physical and mental health consequences associated with victimization, colleges and
universities have implemented programming to prevent sexual assault. Although there are
many approaches to reducing and preventing sexual assault, one way is for bystanders to
intervene (Banyard, 2011). Bystanders are individuals who are not directly involved in a
situation, but have the ability to impact it. The White House Task Force to Protect
Students from Sexual Assault has identified bystander intervention as a “promising
practice” for sexual assault prevention (2014). Although development of current
bystander programs is ongoing and informed by research, much is still unknown
regarding predictors of bystander behavior in risky sexual assault situations and there is
only limited evidence to date that programs that focus on bystander intervention are
10
effective (Banyard, Moynihan, & Plante, 2007; Gidycz, Orchowski, & Berkowitz, 2011;
McMahon, 2015). Thus, the purpose of this thesis is to examine predictors of bystander
behavior in situations that are potentially risky for sexual assault in order to inform
bystander intervention programs. The current investigator will examine variables related
to broad social norms, as well as situational factors that influence bystander intervention
(see Figure 1).
Figure 1. Model containing influences of bystander behavior, including individual, social
norms level and situational level factors.
11
One theoretical approach used to create bystander intervention education
programs is social norms theory (Berkowitz, 2002; 2010). According to Berkowitz
(2002), social norms theory posits that bystander intentions and behaviors are dependent
upon perceived peer bystander attitudes, intentions, and behaviors. Berkowitz posits that
actions are often based on misinformation about or misperceptions of others’ attitudes
and/or beliefs. Put simply, people behave because they think that others believe that they
should behave that way, and what they think others believe is often incorrect. For
example, Dardis, Murphy, Bill, & Gidycz (2015) surveyed dyads of men and found that
perpetrators of sexual assault often overestimated a close friend’s sexual assault
perpetration and rape supportive beliefs and attitudes. Research in the bystander literature
also has shown men are less likely to report intent to intervene if they perceive that their
peers are supportive of sexually aggressive acts (Brown & Messman-Moore, 2010), or if
they perceive peers to have low intentions of intervening (Brown, Banyard, & Moynihan,
2014), regardless of the beliefs or attitudes about sexual aggression and intervening that
they may have. Thus, these misperceptions of social norms may impact whether or not an
individual intervenes.
Furthermore, Berkowitz (2010) states that these misperceptions are passively
accepted, and individuals do not actively intervene to change then. Thus, if no one
intervenes or speaks against those who actively voice these misperceptions, the
misperception and the related impact will be reinforced; thus creating a self-perpetuating
cycle. Fabiano, Perkins, Berkowitz, Linkenbach, and Stark (2003) found that those who
believe that sexual aggression is a normal part of society are less likely to intervene,
12
especially when these beliefs are generated from interactions with peers. Fortunately,
Berkowitz (2010) argues that when individuals are given the correct information, it may
break this self-perpetuating cycle and encourage change. Gidycz et al. (2011) found that
participants in their bystander education program, which utilized a social norms exercise
addressing misperceptions, found sexual assault behavior less reinforcing, associated
with sexually aggressive peers less, believed friends would be more likely to intervene,
and engaged in less sexually aggressive behavior.
However, many variables found to predict bystander intentions and behaviors
have not been examined from a social norms theory approach (i.e., taking into account
individual’s perceptions of peers’ beliefs), such as rape myth acceptance, hypergender
ideology, and prosocial tendencies. Given the limited empirical support behind social
norms theory and how it relates to bystander behavior, as well as the fact that it is the
foundation for bystander interventions, it is important to examine predictors and
correlates of bystander behavior from a social norms theory approach (McMahon, 2015).
Individual’s endorsements of rape myth acceptance (i.e., attitudes or beliefs that
are held by most, despite being generally false, which help justify sexual aggression
towards women; Lonsway & Fitzgerald, 1994) and hypergender ideology (i.e., the extent
to which one is socialized adherent to traditional gender norms, such as masculinity and
femininity) have been found to be positively related to sexual assault perpetration
(Murnen et al., 2002; Swartout, 2013) and negatively related to bystander intentions and
behavior (Austin, Dardis, Wilson, Gidycz, & Berkowitz, 2015; Banyard & Moynihan,
2011; Brown & Messman-Moore, 2010; Carlson, 2008; McMahon, 2010). However,
13
research is yet to examine how perceptions of peers’ endorsement of these variables
impact bystander behavior. Dardis et al., (2015) found that men who commit sexual
assault believe that their peers endorse higher levels of rape myth acceptance and
hypergender ideology, suggesting that perceptions of these peer beliefs may impact
behavior related to risky sexual assault situations. Theoretically, if one believes that their
peers endorse high levels of rape myth acceptance and hypergender ideology, they may
be less likely to intervene in risky sexual assault situations, due to fear of negative
evaluation from peers, such as looking “weak” in front of peers (Carlson, 2008).
The majority of research assessing bystander behaviors have examined barriers or
beliefs that are negatively associated with bystander intervention (e.g., Burn, 2009).
However, variables associated with helping are equally as important, given they may
have an impact on whether or not an individual intervenes. One potential facilitator of
bystander intervention is an individual’s general tendency to engage in prosocial
behaviors. Bennett, Banyard, and Garnhart (2014) found prosocial tendencies were
significantly related to helping strangers, suggesting that those who are willing to help
more generally (i.e., have prosocial tendencies) may be more likely to intervene.
However, perceptions of peers’ prosocial tendencies have yet to be examined in the
bystander literature. If people perceive peers to be prosocial, it may make them want to
fit in as a failure to intervene may lead to negative evaluation from peers.
In addition to factors related to social norms, history of sexual assault is another
important factor when considering bystander behavior among college students, as history
of sexual assault victimization is thought to be positively related to bystander behavior
14
(Banyard & Moynihan, 2011; Banyard, Plante, & Moynihan, 2004) and history of sexual
assault perpetration is thought to be negatively related to bystander behavior. However,
few studies have actually empirically examined the relationship between sexual assault
victimization or perpetration and bystander behavior. Murphy (2012) found that female
victims of sexual assault reported engaging in a higher percentage of bystander behaviors
over an eight-week period than non-victims but failed to find any difference among
perpetrators, which may have been due to the small percentage (i.e., 13%) of participants
who endorsed perpetration (Murphy, 2012).
However, there are several limitations that are important to note related to studies
that have examined social norms and previous sexual assault history, and their
relationship to bystander behavior. A major limitation in the current literature is the lack
of research examining both men and women in studies measuring bystander behavior.
Berkowitz (2002) argues that it is the responsibility of men to prevent sexual violence of
other men, which may be a key factor contributing to the exclusion of women in studies
examining bystander intervention of sexual violence. However, college women are
commonly in situations where they can also be active bystanders and intervene in risky
sexual assault situations. More importantly, research has shown that women report that
they are more likely to intervene than men (Banyard, 2008). Yet, it is also the case that
women do not intervene 100% of the time, thus examining factors that encourage or
discourage women from intervening is also important. Furthermore, men and women
often endorse differing levels of beliefs about sexual assault (e.g., men endorse higher
15
levels of rape myth acceptance than women; McMahon & Farmer, 2011), and it may be
fruitful to examine how these differences impact bystander behavior.
In addition to the lack of women in studies of bystander behavior, there have been
difficulties in measuring bystander behavior. Until recently studies examining bystander
behavior have not taken into account opportunity to intervene (e.g., Banyard, Palmer,
Murphy, & Gidycz, in press; Murphy, 2012). In previous measures of bystander behavior
(e.g., Banyard, 2008), questions were asked about specific behaviors (e.g. “I interfered
with another guy’s “action” because I thought it might stop them from possibly
committing a sexual assault”), but not about opportunities, in “yes/no” format.
Participants, then, may select no for one of two reasons: either they were in the situation
where they could have intervened and choose not to intervene, or were not in the situation
at all. If participants are selecting “no” because they just did not have the opportunity and
they are still included in analyses, this may artificially skewed the results in a way that
does not accurately reflect how much people are actually intervening such that it lowers
estimates of bystanders who intervene. Thus, the opportunity to intervene must be taken
into account in order to accurately reflect the extent of intervention behavior. Murphy
(2012) recently developed a new measure that sufficiently takes into account
opportunities for bystander behavior in light of the current gaps in the field’s ability to
measure bystander behavior.
Furthermore, there are several situational-specific variables that may impact
intervention. One challenge that has faced researchers studying bystander behavior is that
each risky sexual assault situation is often unique in nature, making it difficult to fully
16
capture the barriers (i.e. what makes it more difficult to intervene) and facilitators (i.e.,
what makes it easier to intervene) in each unique situation. Previous research has shown
that individuals are more likely to intervene if there is a close relationship with the
victim, but not the perpetrator (Bennett & Banyard, 2014), if there is not a relationship
between the potential victim and perpetrator (Murphy, 2012), if there are fewer people
present at the time of the event (Katz, 2015; Katz et al., 2015), and if the situation is high
risk for the victim (McMahon, Banyard, & McMahon, 2015) or low-risk for the potential
bystander (Bennett et al., 2014). Moreover, alcohol consumption at the time of the event
has been examined (e.g., number of drinks consumed prior to the event), but not found to
be a significant predictor in the presence of other variables (Austin et al., 2015).
However, limited evidence suggests that alcohol use may increase helping behavior
(Steele, Critchlow, & Liu, 1985), as the disinhibiting effects of alcohol consumption may
help those overcome the consequences associated with helping (e.g., audience inhibition).
Furthermore, it may be the subjective experience of the effects of alcohol use (e.g.,
perceived intoxication) that impact whether or not an individual intervenes, rather than
the actual number of drinks.
However, many of the findings of studies that examine situational factors are
difficult to generalize, as the methodology used to draw conclusions has relied primarily
on having participants imagine themselves in hypothetical situations, rather than actual
retrospective experiences of potentially risky sexual assault situations, or has failed to
take into account important factors that may influence whether or not a potential
bystander intervenes when faced with a risky sexual assault situation. Gender differences
17
in these situational factors may be important, as previous research has shown different
barriers to bystander intervention for women and men, such that women report lacking
the skills to intervene and men do not (Burn, 2009). Moreover, many of the variables
assessed (e.g., risk, perceived relationships) have been dichotomized, rather than
examined continuously, which limits conclusions drawn from the results (e.g., Bennet &
Banyard, 2014; Katz, 2015; McMahon et al., 2015; Murphy, 2012). Furthermore, the
majority of variables have only been examined in linear relationships with helping, which
may not be appropriate. In particular, with alcohol use, it may be that a curvilinear
relationship between alcohol use and bystander behavior intervention exists (Steele et al.,
1985).
The purpose of this study is to improve upon the previous literature by
investigating predictors of bystander behavior from a social norms approach utilizing a
measure of bystander behavior that takes into consideration the opportunity to intervene.
Specifically, I will explore how peer perceived rape myth acceptance, hypergender
ideology, and prosocial tendencies correlate with bystander behavior. I also hope to
further assess how previous victimization and perpetration history relate to bystander
behavior, as previous research has insinuated such a relationship exists, but few studies
have examined this assumption empirically (Murphy, 2012).
Furthermore, the current study will explore the relationship between group size
and bystander behavior by considering the amount of “close” friends who were nearby,
rather than just the total number of people at the time of an event, such as in previous
research (Austin et al., 2015). The relationship between bystander behavior and a
18
bystander’s relationship to a victim and their relationship to a potential perpetrator by
assessing perceived closeness of the relationship will also be explored, as previous
research has just focused on whether the potential bystander knew the victim or not
(Banyard, 2008; Bennett & Banyard, 2014). I will also assess bystander behavior when
the potential bystander perceives a relationship between a potential victim and a potential
perpetrator by assessing how close they perceive that relationship to be. Moreover, I hope
to further expand our understanding of the relationship between perceived risk and
bystander behavior by assessing perceived risk at the time of the event for both the
potential victim and the potential bystander using a continuous measure or risk, rather
than dichotomizing situations as “high risk” or “low risk” as has been done in previous
research (Katz, 2015; Katz et al., 2015; McMahon et al., 2015). Furthermore, the
relationship between alcohol consumption and bystander behavior will be examined by
assessing perceived impairment and intoxication at the time of an event, rather than just
the total number of drinks (Austin et al., 2015; Murphy, 2012).
In light of previous research, the following are the hypotheses for the whole
sample. I predict that (1) perceptions of peers’ rape myth acceptance, hypergender
ideology and prosocial behavior tendencies variables will significantly predict bystander
behavior percentage, controlling for individual levels of these variables. This is,
perceptions of peers’ rape myth acceptance and hypergender ideology will predict a
decrease in bystander behavior percentage, and perceptions of peers’ prosocial tendencies
will positively predict bystander behavior percentage. Furthermore, I predict that (2)
victims of sexual assault will perceive more opportunities to intervene and intervene
19
more than non-victims, and that (3) perpetrators of sexual assault will perceive less
opportunities to intervene and intervene less than non-perpetrators.
The following hypotheses refer to the most recent situation participants have
observed (for possible situations, see Appendix M), where each participant indicated that
they had the opportunity to intervene. I predict that individuals who intervene will (4)
report having a lower percentage of close friends with them at the time of an incident, (5)
perceive having a stronger relationship with the potential victim, (6) perceive having a
stronger relationship with the potential perpetrator, (7) perceive a weaker relationship
between the potential perpetrator and potential victim, (8) perceive a situation as more
risky for a victim, and (9) perceive the situation as less risky for themselves than those
who do not intervene. I also predict that (10) individuals will be more likely to intervene
if someone else has already intervened and that (11) whether or not an individual
intervenes will have a curvilinear relationship with perceived impairment due to alcohol
at the time of the event, such that at low (e.g., sober) and high levels (e.g., drunk or very
drunk) of perceived intoxication bystanders will be less likely to intervene, and at
medium levels (e.g., buzzed; tipsy) of intoxications bystander will more likely to
intervene.
Furthermore, the researcher will explore gender as a moderator of the relationship
between the individual level, social norm level, and situational variables and bystander
behavior, as well as examine which situational factors that are bivariately associated with
bystander behavior are predictive of bystander behavior in the presence of all other
factors.
20
CHAPTER 2: METHODS
Procedure
All procedures were approved by the university institutional review board (IRB).
Participants were recruited through the university psychology subject pool. Each
participant completed an online consent form prior to beginning the survey. After
completing several questionnaires, participants were debriefed and provided with mental
health resources on campus. Each participant was granted course credit for their
participation.
Participants
Data were collected from 347 undergraduate students from a psychology subject
pool at a medium-sized Midwestern university. Seventeen participants were omitted from
the analyses because they either did not complete the necessary measures (N = 16) or
they did not endorse any of the 35 opportunities for intervention (N = 1). Thus 330
participants were included in the analyses. The mean age of the sample was 19.23 years
old and the majority of participants were 1st year college students (65.2%; N = 215).
Consistent with the university demographics, 85.2% identified as white (N =281), 93.3%
identified as heterosexual (N = 308), and 76.7% identified as female (N = 253).
Furthermore, 23% (N = 76) of participants reported being involved in fraternity and
sorority life, and 41.2% (N = 136) of participants reported previous participation in a
sexual assault prevention or risk reduction program. See Table 1 for demographic factors.
21
Measures
Demographics
Participants completed a demographics questionnaire (Appendix A) to assess
variables such as age, sex, race/ethnicity, year in college, and history of participation of
sexual assault risk reduction/prevention programing.
Table 1
Demographic Characteristics of the Sample (N = 330)
Demographic Factor
Gender
Male
Female
Race
Caucasian, Non-Hispanic
African American
Latino or Hispanic
Asian or Pacific Islander
Two or more races
Other
Sexual Orientation
Heterosexual
Bisexual
Homosexual
Asexual
Year in College
1st Year
2nd Year
3rd Year
4th Year
5th Year +
Fraternity/Sorority Life
Yes
No
Previous Program Participation
Yes
No
Frequency (N)
Percentage
77
253
23.3
76.7
281
13
8
15
9
4
85.2
3.9
2.4
4.5
2.7
1.2
308
15
4
3
93.3
4.6
1.2
.9
215
71
27
13
4
65.2
21.5
8.2
3.9
1.4
76
254
23.0
77.0
136
194
41.2
58.8
22
Sexual Assault Victimization
The Sexual Experiences Survey – Short Form Victimization (SES-SFV; Koss et
al., 2007) was used to assess history of participants’ sexual assault victimization
experience in adolescence and early adulthood since age 14 (see Appendix B). The SES
was revised from the original Sexual Experience Survey (Koss & Oros, 1982), and
consists of 7-behaviorally specific experiences related to sexual assault victimization
(e.g., A man put his penis into my vagina, or someone inserted fingers or objects without
my consent). Each experience has five possible tactics that could have been used to
coerce the victim (e.g., Using force, for example holding me down with their body weight,
pinning my arms, or having a weapon), which creates 35 combinations of behaviors and
tactics. Participants were asked to indicate whether or not each of these experiences has
happened to them since age 14. A range of sexually aggressive experiences (i.e.,
unwanted sexual contact, sexual coercion, attempted rape, and rape) were assessed using
this measure. Internal consistency in the current study was good (Cronbach’s alpha =
.95). Furthermore, several researchers have found support for the measure’s convergent
and discriminant validity (Cecil & Matson, 2006; Johnson et al., in press). The final
variable was dichotomized because we were interested comparing any victimization to
non-victimization. Participants who endorsed any of the items of the SES-SFV received a
score of 1, and those who did not endorse any items on the SES-SFV received a score of
0.
23
Sexual Assault Perpetration
The Sexual Experience Survey – Short Form Perpetration (SES-SFP; Koss et al.,
2007), a revised version of the Sexual Experiences Survey (Koss & Oros, 1992), was
used to assess men’s history of sexual assault perpetration since age 14 (see Appendix C).
A range of sexually aggressive experiences (i.e., unwanted sexual contact, sexual
coercion, attempted rape, and rape) were assessed using this measure. The survey
consists of 7 behaviorally-specific experiences each with five possible tactics for a
combination of 35 combinations of behaviors and tactics. Participants were asked to
indicate whether they have engaged in these behaviors since age 14 (yes/no). In the
current study, the SES-SFP had strong internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = .98).
Furthermore, evidence supports convergent and predictive validity of the SES-SFP
(Johnson et al., in press). Scores were dichotomized to compare perpetrators to nonperpetrators. Participants who endorsed any of the items of the SES-SFP received a score
of 1, and those who did not endorse any items on the SES-SFP will received a score of 0.
A modified version of 7-items of the Revised Conflict Tactics Scales - Sexual
Violence Subscale (CTS2; Straus, Hamby, McCoy & Sugarman, 1996) pertaining to
sexual violence was used as an additional measure of sexual perpetration (Appendix D).
Participants reported the number of times they have engaged in sexual violence
perpetration (e.g., I used threats to force someone to have sex) from 0 times to 20 or more
times since age 14. Internal consistency for the current study was good (Cronbach’s alpha
= .94). Furthermore, Straus et al. (1996) have found evidence for the convergent validity
of the measure. Participants who endorsed any item on the CTS2 received a score of 1,
24
and those who did not endorse any item received a score of 0. The CTS2 was combined
with the SES-SFP to form a total sexual assault perpetration history variable for analyses.
Rape Myth Acceptance
The Updated Illinois Rape Myth Acceptance Scale (IRMA; Payne, Lonsway &
Fitzgerald, 1999; McMahon & Farmer, 2011) was used to assess participants’ individual
rape myth acceptance as well as participants’ perceptions of peers’ rape myth acceptance
(Appendix E & F). The scale was originally created by Payne et al. (1999) and McMahon
and Farmer (2011) updated the scale recently to measure modern vernacular among
young people (e.g. when girls go to parties wearing slutty clothes, they are asking for
trouble). Participants answered the 22-item questionnaire two times; once for how much
they endorsed the rape myths and once for how they believed their peers endorsed the
rape myths. Participants rated each item on a 5-point rating scale, ranging from 1
(strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). In the current study, internal consistencies for
self (Cronbach’s alpha = .93) and peer (Cronbach’s alpha = .96) versions of the
questionnaire were high. Furthermore, McMahon and Farmer (2011) found the updated
measure to have sufficient criterion and construct validity. Scores were summed, with
higher scores indicating higher levels of rape myth acceptance
Hypergender Ideology
The Hypergender Ideology Scale – Short Form (HGIS-SF; Hamburger, Hogben,
McGown, & Dawson, 1996) was used to assess participants’ endorsement of
stereotypical gender roles and participants’ perception of peers’ endorsement of
stereotypical gender roles (Appendix G & H). Participants were asked to answer the 18-
25
item questionnaire two times; once in respect to their own beliefs and once in respect to
how much they believe their peers endorse these beliefs. Each item was rated on a 6-point
scale, from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). The HGIS is a unidimensional
scale for both men and women, with questions asking about stereotypes each gender
would typically endorse (e.g., A true man knows how to command others). Hamburger et
al. (1996) found that the HGIS is highly correlated with scales that measure
hypermasculinity (r = .61) and hyperfemininity (r = .60), implying support for
convergent validity of the measure. In the current study, internal consistencies were
strong for the self (Cronbach’s alpha = .92) and peer (Cronbach’s alpha = .94) versions of
the scale. Scores were summed, with higher scores indicating higher levels of
hypergender ideology.
Prosocial Tendencies
The Prosocial Tendencies Measure – Revised (PTM-R; Carlo, Hausmann,
Christiansen, & Randall, 2003) was used to assess participants’ endorsement of
engagement in prosocial behaviors and participants’ perception of peers’ involvement in
prosocial behaviors (Appendix I & J). Participants were asked to answer the 25-item
questionnaire two times; once in respect to their own behaviors and once in respect to
how much they believe their peers engage in these behaviors. Each item was rated on a 1
(strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree) scale with a sample item being “I often help
even if I don’t think I will get anything out of helping.” In the current study, internal
consistencies were acceptable for the self (Cronbach’s alpha = .75) and peer (Cronbach’s
alpha = .76) versions of the scale. Furthermore, in a previous study, the PTM was
26
correlated with the global prosocial behavior scale (Rushton, Chrisjohn, & Fekken, 1981)
providing evidence for convergent validity of the measure. Scores were summed, with
higher scores indicating higher levels of prosocial tendencies.
Bystander Opportunities
The Bystander Opportunity Scale (BOS; Murphy, 2012) was used to assess
whether or not participants witnessed situations in which bystander behavior was
warranted (i.e., situations in which sexual assault risk markers are present) in 35
situations (e.g., I heard someone plan to give someone alcohol to get sex) over the last
four months (Appendix K). Four months was chosen because it was believed to be an
adequate amount of time for college students to have witnessed a situation. Recognizing
that many measures of bystander behavior lacked opportunity, Murphy (2012) created the
BOS to address this gap in the literature. Each item on the BOS corresponds with an item
on the Bystander Behavior Scale – Revised (BBS-R), which was adapted from items
from Burn’s (2009) Bystander Intervention Behavior Scale and Banyard et al.’s (2005)
Bystander Behavior Scale. Participants were asked to indicate how many times they
witnessed each item/incident. Items were summed in order to create a total score with
higher scores indicating a greater number of sexual assault risk markers witnessed over
the last four months. Internal consistency of the BOS was adequate in the current study
(Cronbach’s alpha = .72), consistent with Murphy (2012) (Cronbach’s alpha = .83). As
recommended by Murphy (2012), the BOS was used in conjunction with the (BBS-R) to
compute the dependent variable, percentage of bystander behavior.
27
Bystander Behavior
The Bystander Behavior Scale – Revised (BBS-R; Murphy, 2012) was used to
measure 35 behaviors (one for each situation in the BOS) individuals could have used to
respond to emergency situations endorsed on the BOS (e.g., I confronted someone who
planned to give someone alcohol to get sex) over the last four months (Appendix L).
Items were stated in the past tense and students were instructed to read each item and
indicate how many times they had engaged in that behavior over the last four months.
The items were summed to create a total score, with higher scores indicating higher
number of bystander intervention behaviors. The internal consistency of the items in the
Bystander Behavior Scale – Revised has been found to be good in previous research
(Cronbach’s alpha = .87) and in the present study (Cronbach’s alpha = .86).
Situational Variables
The Specific Sexual Assault Situations with Situational Follow-Up Items
Questionnaire (SFQ) was created for the purposes of this study and adapted from
Murphy’s (2012) measure (Appendix M). Participants were asked if they had visually
witnessed at least one of six potentially risky sexual assault situations over the last four
months. The situations were selected from the BOS (Murphy, 2012; e.g., I saw a man
talking to a woman at a bar. He was sitting very close to her and by the look on her face I
could see she was uncomfortable; I saw someone’s drink get spiked with a drug; I saw
someone trying to take advantage of someone’s intoxicated state to have sex with them).
Only participants who reported observing one of the six potential risky sexual assault
situations were then asked to respond to follow-up questions about the situation they
28
most recently observed. If participants witnessed more than one situation over the last
four months or the same situation multiple times over the last four months, they were
asked to answer the follow-up questions regarding the situation in which they most
recently observed. The six situations were grouped in the analyses. See table 2 for the
percentage of people who endorsed each situation.
The follow-up items assessed the following information: (1) whether or not an
individual intervened (yes, no), (2) participants’ alcohol consumption and subjective
intoxication at the time of the event, (3) group size, including number of close friends
present, (4) the relationship between the participant and the potential victim, including
their perception of the closeness of that relationship, (5) the relationship between the
participant and the potential perpetrator, including their perception of the closeness of
that relationship, (6) the relationship between the potential victim and the potential
perpetrator, including their perception of the closeness of that relationship, (7) perceived
risk for the potential victim at the time of the event, (8) perceived physical, social, legal
and emotional risk associated with intervention for the participant at the time of the
event, and (9) whether or not someone else had already intervened.
29
Table 2
Frequency of Endorsement of Each Risky Situation in the Situational Analyses (N = 153)
Situation
1. I saw a man talking to a women at a bar. He was sitting
very close to her and by the look on her face, I could see
she was uncomfortable.
1. I saw someone’s drink get spiked with a drug.
2. I saw someone who looked drunk go to a room with
someone else at a party
3. I saw someone trying to take advantage of someone’s
intoxicated state to have sex with them.
4. I saw/heard about someone who was hooking up with
someone who was passed out.
5. I saw someone doing things that might meet the
definition of sexual assault.
Frequency
(N)
84
Percentage
3
40
2.0%
26.1%
14
9.2%
5
3.3%
7
4.6%
54.9%
Specific to alcohol consumption, participants were asked how many drinks they
had consumed up until the event over how much time. Then, participants were asked on a
scale from 1 (sober) to 5 (very drunk) how intoxicated they were at the time of the event.
Participants were also asked on a scale from 1 (not impaired) to 7 (very impaired) how
impaired from alcohol use they were at the time of the event. Specific to group size,
participants were asked to estimate how many people were present at the time of the
event, and asked to identify how many of those people they would consider their “close
friend.” The number of close friends were divided by the number of people present to
create a percentage of close friends present during the time of the event. Specific to the
perceived relationship between the participant and the victim or perpetrator, or the
perceived relationship between the victim and perpetrator, participants were asked to rate
how close the perceived relationship was on a scale of 1 (not close at all) to 7 (very
30
close). Specific to perceived risk for the potential victim, individuals were asked how
risky the situation was on a scale of 1 (not at all risky) to 7 (very risky). Specific to
perceived risk for the participant (bystander), participants were asked four questions
regarding perceived social, physical, emotional and legal risk to intervention on a scale
from 1 (not at all risky) to 7 (very risky). Scores were summed, with higher scores
indicative of greater perceived risk of intervention for the bystander. The perceived risk
for the bystander scale was found to be reliable in the present study (Cronbach’s alpha =
.87)
31
CHAPTER 3: RESULTS
Descriptive Statistics
There was a total of 323 individuals who completed all of the measures to be
included in the social norm analyses. On average, participants reported having observed
54.63 potential bystander situations over a four-month period and reported intervening an
average of 25.67 times. Descriptive statistics and t-tests for gender differences for the
social norms and individual level variables can be found in Table 3. Women intervened
more frequently than men, as well as endorsed higher levels of individual and perceived
peer prosocial tendencies. Men endorsed higher levels of individual rape myth acceptance
and hypergender ideology, as well as higher levels of perceived peer hypergender
ideology than women. A correlation matrix of the social norm and individual level
variables can be found in Table 4.
Table 3
Descriptive Statistics for Social Norms Analyses (N = 323)
Total
Men
Women
Variable
Mean (SD)
Mean (SD)
Mean(SD)
t (321)
Bystander Frequency
.47 (.32)
.37 (.30)
.50 (.32)
-3.12**
RMA – Self
43.01 (14.30)
52.86 (13.60)
40.14 (13.12)
7.20**
RMA – Peers
54.73 (18.61)
56.89 (16.19)
54.08 (19.28)
1.30
HGI – Self
34.89 (14.51)
46.43 (15.88)
31.56 (12.18)
8.49**
HGI – Peers
50.06 (18.94)
54.12 (19.58)
48.84 (18.71)
2.09*
PT – Self
74.70 (10.25)
71.98 (9.54)
75.72 (10.14)
-2.81**
PT– Peers
70.91 (10.02)
67.76 (9.25)
72.08 (9.82)
-3.33*
Note. *p < .05, **p < .01; RMA = Rape Myth Acceptance Scale; HGIS = Hypergender
Ideology; PT = Prosocial Tendencies
32
Table 4
Correlations Matrix of Social Norms Analyses Variables (N = 323)
Measure
1
2
3
4
5
1. Bystander
-.28*
-.16
-.33**
-.11
Frequency
2. RMA – Self
.06
.51**
.72**
.21
3. RMA – Peers
-.03
.39**
.32**
.67**
4. HGI – Self
.08
.67*
.15*
.46**
5. HGI – Peers
-.00
.16*
.60**
.28**
6. PTM - Self
.15*
-.17*
-.10
-.25**
-.06
7. PTM – Peers
.13*
-.04
-.18**
-.09
-.18**
Note. *p < .05, **p < .01; Males are above and Females are below
6
.26*
7
.07
-.09
.10
-.35**
-.06
.37*
.09
-.06
-.09
-.05
.43*
-
Of those who completed the sexual assault victimization (N = 324) and
perpetration (N = 327) measures, 27.8% reported some form of sexual victimization and
26.6% reported some form of sexual assault perpetration. Specifically for sexual assault
perpetration, 3.1% of participants endorsed sexual assault perpetration on the SES-SFV
only, 17.1% of participants endorsed sexual assault perpetration on the CTS-2 only, and
6.4% of participants endorsed sexual assault perpetration on both. Women (31.1%) were
more likely than men (15.8%) to report sexual assault victimization, χ2(1, N = 323) =
6.39, p < .05, OR = 2.34, and men (41.6%) were more likely than women (21.7%) to
report sexual assault perpetration, χ2(1, N = 327) = 12.86, p < .05, OR = 2.34.
There were a total of 153 individuals (22.9% male, 77.1% female) who endorsed
observing one of the six situations required to be included in the situational analyses.
Bystander intervention was coded dichotomously (yes, no), and 37.3% of the sample
intervened in their most recent situation. In 17% of the situations, someone else had
already intervened, and 89% of individuals reported that they had consumed alcohol at
33
the time of the event. Descriptive statistics of the continuous variables included in the
situational analyses can be found in Table 5. For perceived risk for oneself, men (M =
8.89, SD = 4.89) perceived higher risk than women (M = 6.76, SD = 4.20), t(150) = 2.29,
p < .05. There were no other gender differences for any of the other situational variables.
Table 5
Descriptive Statistics for Continuous Variables in the Situational Analyses
Total
Men
Variable
Mean (SD) Mean (SD)
Percentage of Close Friends
.25 (.13)
.23 (.30)
Present
Perception of Alcohol Impact
5.16 (2.66) 5.33 (2.84)
Perceived Closeness with Victim
2.03 (1.68) 2.14 (1.59)
Perceived Closeness with
1.51 (1.19) 1.65 (1.23)
Perpetrator
Perceived Closeness between
2.24 (1.49) 2.11 (1.49)
Victim and Perpetrator
Perceived Risk for the Victim
2.16 (1.33) 2.31 (1.60)
Perceived Risk for Bystander
7.20 (4.43) 8.67 (4.89)
Note. *p < .05, **p < .01; N’s ranged from 140-153
Women
Mean (SD)
.26 (.33)
T
-.57
5.11 (2.63)
1.99 (1.70)
1.47 (1.17)
.42
.50
.84
2.27 (1.48)
-.54
2.12 (1.24)
6.76 (4.20)
.76
2.30*
Specific Hypotheses and Corresponding Analyses
A summary of the findings can be found in Table 6.
34
Table 6
Summary of Support for Each Hypothesis
Hypothesis
Support
1. Perceptions of peers’ rape myth acceptance, hypergender ideology and
No
prosocial behavior tendencies variables will significantly predict bystander
behavior percentage, controlling for individual levels of these variables and
gender
2. Victims will perceive more opportunities to intervene than non-victims
Yes
Victims will intervene more than non-victims
Yes
3. Perpetrators will perceive less opportunities than non-perpetrators
No
Perpetrators will intervene less than non-perpetrators
No
4. Individuals who intervene will report having a lower percentage of close
No
friends present
5. Individuals who intervene will perceive a stronger relationship between
Yes
themselves and the potential victim
6. Individuals who intervene will perceive a stronger relationship between
No
themselves and the potential perpetrator
7. Individuals who intervene will perceive a weaker relationship between
No
the potential victim and potential perpetrator
8. Individuals who intervene will perceive a situation as more risky for the
No
victim
9. Individuals who intervene will perceive a situation as less risky for
Yes
themselves
10. Individuals will be more likely to intervene if someone else has already
intervened
11. There will be a curvilinear relationship between perceived impairment
No
due to alcohol and bystander intervention
Perceptions of peers’ rape myth acceptance, hypergender ideology and prosocial
behavior tendencies variables will significantly predict bystander behavior percentage,
controlling for individual levels of these variables and gender. It was hypothesized that
perceptions of peers’ rape myth acceptance and hypergender ideology would predict
decrease in bystander behavior percentage, and perceptions of peers’ prosocial tendencies
would positively predict bystander behavior percentage. A hierarchical liner regression
was conducted to test hypothesis 1. Gender was entered into the first block, individual
35
levels of rape myth acceptance, hypergender ideology, and prosocial tendencies were
entered in the second block, and social norms levels of rape myth acceptance,
hypergender ideology, and prosocial tendencies were entered in the third block (see Table
7). When regressed on bystander behavior frequency, block 1 was significant, F(1, 321)
= 9.70, p < .01, Adj. R2 = .03. There was a significant F change from block 1 to block 2,
F∆(3, 318) = 3.08, p < .05 R2∆ = .03. However, contrary to hypothesis 1, there was no
significant F change from block 2 to block 3, p = .61. In the final model, the main effect
of gender was significantly predictive of bystander frequency, β = .15, t(321) = 2.42, p <
.05, such that women intervened more than men, and a main effect of individual level
prosocial tendencies also significantly predicted increases in bystander frequency, β =
.15, t(321) = 2.37, p < .05. All other predictors were not significant, p > .05.
Follow-up analyses positing gender as a moderator of the relationship between all
predictors in the final model and bystander frequencies were explored. Six total
hierarchal linear regression analyses were conducted. Each of the six regressions were
identical for the first three blocks, where gender was entered into the first block,
individual levels of rape myth acceptance, hypergender ideology, and prosocial
tendencies were entered in the second block, and social norms levels of rape myth
acceptance, hypergender ideology, and prosocial tendencies were entered in the third
block. The interaction term between gender and each predictor was unique to each
analysis, and was the fourth and final block entered into the model.
36
Table 7
Summary of Hierarchical Linear Regression Predicting Bystander Behavior Frequency
from Gender, Individual Level, and Social Norms Level Factors (N = 323)
Predictor Variable
Block 1
Gender
Block 2
Gender
Rape Myth Acceptance – Self
Hypergender Ideology – Self
Prosocial Tendencies – Self
Block 3
Gender
Rape Myth Acceptance – Self
Hypergender Ideology – Self
Prosocial Tendencies – Self
Rape Myth Acceptance – Other
Hypergender Ideology – Other
Prosocial Tendencies – Other
Note. *p < .05, **p < .01
B
SE B
β
.13
.04
.17**
.12
.00
.00
.01
.05
.00
.00
.00
.15*
.00
.02
.17**
.11
.00
.00
.01
.00
.00
.02
.05
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.02
.15*
.03
.00
.15*
-.06
.02
.06
ΔF
9.71**
ΔR2
.03
3.08**
.03
.60
.01
Of the six separate analyses that were conducted, only two had significant
interaction terms and will be reported here. In the analyses containing the interaction
between individual rape myth acceptance and gender, the final block was significant,
F∆(1, 312) = 6.70, p = .01 R2∆ = .02. Controlling for all other variables in the model, the
interaction between individual rape myth acceptance and gender was significant, β = .17,
t(312) = 2.58, p < .05, such that there was no relationship between individual rape myth
acceptance and bystander frequency for women, and as individual rape myth acceptance
increased for men, bystander frequency marginally decreased (β = -.26, p = .07). A plot
of the estimated marginal means can be found in Figure 2.
37
Figure 2. Predicted bystander frequencies by individual rape myth acceptance for men
and women at 1 SD below the mean and 1 SD above the mean.
In the analyses containing the interaction between individual hypergender
ideology and gender, the final block was significant, F∆(1, 312) = 7.84, p = .005 R2∆ =
.02. Controlling for all other variables in the model, the interaction between individual
hypergender ideology and gender was significant, β = .17, t(312) = 2.80, p < .01, such
that there was no relationship between individual hypergender ideology and bystander
frequency for women, and as hypergender ideology increased for men, bystander
frequency marginally decreased (β = -.24, p = .06). A plot of the estimated marginal
means can be found in Figure 3.
38
Figure 3. Predicted bystander frequencies by individual hypergender ideology for men
and women at 1 SD below the mean and 1 SD above the mean.
Victims of sexual assault will perceive more opportunities to intervene and
intervene at a higher percentage than non-victims. Two separate 2 X 2 completely
between-subjects factorial analyses of variances (ANOVAs) with bystander opportunities
and bystander behavior frequency as the dependent variables were conducted. Previous
victimization (victim, non-victim) and gender (male, female) were the between-subjects
variables. The interaction between gender and previous victimization on opportunities
39
was not significant, F(1, 320) = .25, p = .62. However, a main effect of previous
victimization was significant, F(1, 320) = 4.913, p < .05, partial η2 = .02, such that
victims (M = 68.19, SD = 46.99) perceived more opportunities than non-victims (M =
49.68, SD =41.49). The main effect of gender was not significant, p = .86.
In the analyses where bystander behavior frequency was the outcome variable, the
interaction between gender and previous victimization was also not significant, F(1, 320)
= 3.11, p = .08. However, a main effect of previous victimization was significant, F(1,
320) = 5.34, p < .05, partial η2 = .02, such that victims (M = .53, SD = .29) intervened at a
higher percentage than non-victims (M = .45, SD = .33) The main effect of gender was
also not significant, p = .21.
Perpetrators of sexual assault will perceive fewer opportunities to intervene and
intervene at a lower percentage than non-perpetrators. Two separate 2 X 2 completely
between-subjects factorial analyses of variances (ANOVAs) with bystander opportunities
and bystander behavior frequency as the dependent variables were conducted to test
hypothesis 3. Previous perpetration (perpetrator, non-perpetrator) and gender (male,
female) were the between-subjects variables. The interaction between gender and
previous perpetration on bystander opportunities was not significant, F(1, 323) = .42, p =
.52. Contrary to hypothesis 3, there was a main effect of previous perpetration, F(1, 323)
= 4.09, p < .05, partial η2 = .01, such that perpetrators (M = 64.52, SD = 53.25) perceived
more opportunities to intervene than non-perpetrators (M = 51.17., SD = 39.33). The
main effect of gender was not significant, p = .53.
40
In the next analyses, the interaction between gender and previous perpetration on
bystander frequency was not significant, F(1, 323) = .43, p = .51. Also contrary to
hypothesis 3, the main effect of previous perpetration on bystander behavior frequency
was also not significant, F(1, 323) = .65, p = .42. There was a main effect for gender,
F(1, 323) = 13.04, p < .01, partial η2 = .04, such that females (M = .50, SD = .32)
intervened at a higher percentage than men (M = .36, SD = .29).
Individuals who intervene will report having a lower percentage of close friends
with them at the time of an incident than those who do not intervene. An independent
samples t-test was conducted to test hypothesis 4. There was no difference in percentage
of close friends present at the time of the event for those who did intervene (M = .28, SD
= .36) and those who did not intervene (M = .22, SD = .25), p = .34, contrary to
hypothesis 4. A logistic regression analyses was conducted to examine gender as a
moderator of the relationship between percentage of close friends present at the time of
the event and bystander intervention. Bystander intervention was regressed on gender,
percentage of friends one considers close present at the time of the event, and the
interaction between gender and percentage of friends one considers close. The model was
not significant, χ2(3, N =140) = .91, p = .82, therefore percentage of close friends at the
time of the incident was unrelated to whether or not a bystander intervened.
Individuals who intervene will report having a stronger perceived relationship
with the potential victim at the time of an incident than those who do not intervene. An
independent samples t-test was conducted to test hypothesis 5. Consistent with hypothesis
5, those who intervened perceived a closer relationship with the victim (M = 2.57, SD =
41
2.04) than those who did not intervene (M = 1.71, SD = 1.33), t(150) = 3.15, p < .05,
Cohen’s d = .51. A logistic regression analyses was conducted to examine gender as a
moderator of the relationship between perceived closeness with the potential victim and
bystander intervention. Bystander intervention was regressed on gender, perceived
closeness to the perceived victim at the time of the event, and the interaction between
gender and perceived closeness to the perceived victim. The model was significant, χ2(3,
N =150) = 9.68, p < .05, Nagelkerke’s R2 = .08, but the interaction between perceived
closeness to the potential victim and gender was not significant, p = .63, therefore gender
does not moderate the relationship between perceived closeness of the bystander to the
potential victim and bystander intervention.
Individuals who intervene will report having a stronger perceived relationship
with the potential perpetrator at the time of an incident than those who do not intervene.
An independent samples t-test was conducted to test hypothesis 6. There was no
difference in perceived closeness to perpetrator between those who intervened (M = 1.40,
SD = 1.05) and those who did not intervene (M = 1.57, SD = 1.26), p = .40, contrary to
hypothesis 6. A logistic regression analyses was conducted to examine gender as a
moderator of the relationship between perceived closeness with the potential perpetrator
and bystander intervention. Bystander intervention was regressed on gender, perceived
closeness to the perceived perpetrator at the time of the event, and the interaction
between gender and perceived closeness to the perceived perpetrator. The model was not
significant, χ2(1, N =152) = 1.71, p = .64, thus gender did not moderate the relationship
42
between perceived closeness to the potential perpetrator and bystander intervention at the
time of an event.
Individuals will be more likely to intervene if they perceive a weak relationship
between the potential victim and the potential perpetrator than if they perceived a strong
relationship. An independent samples t-test was conducted to test hypothesis 7. There
was no difference in perception of the relationship between the victim and the perpetrator
for those who intervened (M = 2.14, SD = 1.53) and those who did not intervene (M =
2.29, SD = 1.47). A logistic regression analyses was conducted to examine gender as a
moderator of the relationship between the perceived relationship between the potential
victim and potential perpetrator, and bystander intervention. Bystander intervention was
regressed on gender, perceived closeness of the relationship between the perceived
perpetrator and perceived victim at the time of the event, and the interaction between
gender and perceived closeness of the relationship between the perceived perpetrator and
perceived victim. The model was not significant, χ2(3, N =153) = 2.86, p = .41, therefore
perceived closeness of the relationship between the perceived perpetrator and perceived
victim was unrelated to whether or not a bystander intervened.
Individuals who intervene will perceive a situation as more risky for the potential
victim than individuals who do not intervene. An independent samples t-test was
conducted to test hypothesis 8. There was no difference in perceived riskiness for the
potential victim for those who intervened (M = 2.26, SD = 1.23) and those who did not
intervene (M = 2.12, SD = 1.39). A logistic regression analyses was conducted to
examine gender as a moderator of the relationship between perceived riskiness for the
43
potential victim and bystander intervention. Bystander intervention was regressed on
gender, perceived risk for the perceived victim at the time of the event, and the
interaction between gender and perceived risk for the perceived victim. The model was
not significant, χ2(3, N =153) = 1.233, p = .75, therefore perceived risk was unrelated to
whether or not a bystander intervened.
Individuals who intervene will perceive a situation as less risky for themselves
than individuals who do not intervene. An independent samples t-test was conducted to
test hypothesis 9. Those who intervened perceived a situation as less risky for themselves
(M = 6.29, SD = 3.65) than those who did not intervene (M = 7.78, SD = 4.78), t(149) =
2.02, p < .05, Cohen’s d = .38. A logistic regression analyses was conducted to examine
gender as a moderator of the relationship between perceived risk for self and bystander
intervention. Bystander intervention was regressed on gender, perceived risk for the
bystander at the time of the event, and the interaction between gender and perceived risk
for the bystander. The model was marginally significant, χ2(3, N =152) = 6.9, p = .08,
Nagelkerke’s R2 = .06, but the interaction between riskiness for self and gender was not
significant, p = .13
Individuals will be more likely to intervene in situations where someone else has
already intervened than in situations where others have not intervened. A chi-square test
of association was conducted to test hypothesis 10. Contrary to hypothesis 10, individuals
were more likely to intervene in situations where there was no previous intervention than
in situations when someone had intervened, χ2 (1, N = 153) = 8.86, p < .01, OR = 5.68. A
logistic regression analyses was conducted to examine gender as a moderator of the
44
relationship between previous intervention at the time of an event and bystander
intervention. Bystander intervention was regressed on gender, previous intervention at the
time of the event was entered into the first block, and the interaction between previous
intervention and gender was entered into the second block. The block with the interaction
term was not significant, χ2(1, N =153) = .37, p = .55
Whether or not an individual intervenes will have a curvilinear relationship with
perceived impairment due to alcohol at the time of the event, such that at low (e.g., sober)
and high levels (e.g., drunk or very drunk) of perceived intoxication bystanders will be
less likely to intervene, and at medium levels (e.g., buzzed; tipsy) of intoxications
bystander will more likely to intervene. A logistic regression analyses was conducted to
test hypothesis 11. In step 1, bystander intervention was regressed on gender and
perceived impact of alcohol at the time of the event. In step 2, perceived impact of
alcohol at the time of the event squared was added to the model. The step 1 model was
significant, χ2(2, N =153) = 8.71, p < .05, Nagelkerke’s R2 = .08. There was a main effect
of perceived impact of alcohol, such that perceived impact of alcohol was negatively
associated with bystander intervention, β = -.19, p < .01, Exp(B) = .82. The step 2 model
was not significant, χ2(1, N =153) = 2.35, p = .13, therefore perceived impact of alcohol
does not have a curvilinear relationship with bystander intervention, contrary to
hypothesis 11.
Exploratory Analyses
To explore which situational factors are significant in the presence of others, a
logistic regression analyses was conducted. Bystander intervention was regressed on,
45
perceived closeness to the perceived victim, perceived risk for the bystander, previous
intervention, and perceived impact of alcohol (see Table 8). The model was significant,
χ2(4, N =148) = 32.00 p < .001, Nagelkerke’s R2 = .27. Perceived closeness to the
perceived victim was positively related to bystander intervention (Β = .38, p < .05), and
perceived impact of alcohol was negatively related to bystander intervention (Β = -.22, p
< .05; perceived risk for the potential bystander was no longer significant (p > .05).
Furthermore, individuals were more likely to intervene if no one else had previously
intervened than if someone else had already intervened (Β = 1.90, p < .05).
Table 8
Summary of Exploratory Logistic Regression Coefficients for N = 148
Perception of Alcohol Impact
Perceived Closeness with Victim
Perceived Risk for the Bystander
Previous Intervention
Note. *p < .05, **p < .01.
B
-.22
.38
-.07
1.90
S.E.
.08
.13
.05
.70
Exp(B)
.80**
1.47**
.93
6.70**
Because of the null findings with the social norms variables, possible indirect
relationships between the social norms variables and bystander intervention were
explored. Given that only some situations factors (e.g., perceived impairment from
alcohol use, perceived riskiness for the bystander, previous intervention occurring,
perceived closeness with the victim) were significantly related with bystander
intervention, only these variables were considered. Intuitively, perceived closeness with
the victim, previous intervention, and alcohol use likely would not be influenced by
46
social norms. However, the perceived riskiness for the bystander could be influenced by
social norms, as perceived risk for the bystander includes risk of emotional and social
consequences. Thus, the researcher explored the relationships between social norms,
perceived risk for the bystander and whether an individual intervened in their situation.
Perceived risk for the bystander was negatively related to bystander intervention, r = -.16,
p < .05. Furthermore, upon a closer examination of the perceived risk for the bystander
variable, perceived emotional risk for the bystander (i.e., made fun of for intervening)
was negatively related to bystander behavior, r = -.22, p < .05, but social, physical, and
legal risk were unrelated to bystander behavior p > .05.
Furthermore, perceived emotional risk for the potential bystander was positively
related to peer perceived rape myth acceptance (r = .26, p < .01) and peer perceived
hypergender ideology (r = .20, p < .05), as well as negatively related to peer perceived
prosocial tendencies (r = -.20, p < .05). Perceived social risk for the potential bystander
was positively related to peer perceived rape myth acceptance (r = .20, p < .05) and peer
perceived hypergender ideology (r = .20, p < .05), as well as negatively related to peer
perceived prosocial tendencies (r = -.17, p < .05).
47
CHAPTER 4: DISCUSSION
The present study assessed individual and social norms levels of rape myth
acceptance, hypergender ideology, and prosocial tendencies, as well as previous sexual
assault history and situational factors as predictors of bystander intervention in risky
sexual assault situations in college men and women. Furthermore, the researcher explored
the impact of gender on the relationships between these factors and bystander
intervention, as well as examined which situational variables predict bystander behavior
in the presence of other similar factors. The current study is one of the first to use a
measure of bystander behavior which controlled for opportunity to intervene (Murphy,
2012), and the first to examine the social norms levels of rape myth acceptance,
hypergender ideology and prosocial tendencies. Furthermore, the present study is the first
to examine situational variables continuously (e.g., perceived relationships) and the
perceived impact of alcohol, and bystander behavior intervention.
Results indicated that, on average, individuals report intervening in about 47% of
perceived risky sexual assault situations, which is a larger percentage than previous
research has found (23%; Murphy, 2012). Women intervened at a higher percentage than
men, which is consistent with previous literature (Banyard, 2008). Men endorsed higher
levels of individual rape myth acceptance and hypergender ideology, as well as lower
levels of prosocial tendencies, which is also consistent with previous research (Bennet et
al., 2014; McMahon, 2010). For men, the individual level and social norms level
variables were moderately correlated, which is consistent with previous research (Dardis
et al., 2015), whereas for women they were weakly to moderately correlated.
48
The first aim of our study was to examine the relationship between individual and
social norm level variables and bystander behavior by using a measure of bystander
behavior that takes opportunity to intervene into account. Inconsistent with previous
research (e.g., Brown & Messman-Moore, 2010; Murphy, 2012) and social norms theory
(Berkowitz, 2010), social norms level variables did not significantly predict frequency of
bystander behavior in the presence of gender and individual level variables. In fact, there
were no significant correlations between any of the social norm level variables and
bystander behavior frequency for either gender, with the exception of perception of
peers’ prosocial tendencies having a weak correlation with bystander behavior frequency
for females. However, the relationship between peer perceived prosocial tendencies and
bystander frequency did not remain significant when controlling for other variables in the
model. Although these social norm beliefs may contribute and perpetuate a rape-prone
culture (Berkowitz, 2010), they may not be impactful when facing a risky sexual assault
situation. It may be that proximal factors, such as those influencing each unique risky
situation, are more important to consider, and social norms may influence these proximal
factors. For example, results showed significant associations between our social norms
variables and perceived risk for the potential bystander, which is a proximal risk factor
that may be more influential than social norms when in a potentially risky situation.
Moreover, the failure to find a relationship between the social norm level
variables and bystander behavior could be explained by the type of norms (i.e.,
descriptive norms) and who were the norms were reference too (i.e., peers). First, the
researcher only examined perceptions of descriptive norms (i.e., what people do or
49
believe) rather than perceptions of injunctive norms (i.e., what peers approve of). Limited
research has found support for the relationship between injunctive norms (e.g., peer
approval for sexual assault, peer comfort with sexism) and bystander intervention (Brown
& Messman-Moore, 2010; Murphy, 2012), but these variables were not examined in this
study. A second explanation for the null findings may be that what is normative in any
given situation may depend on the peers that are present (e.g., close friends versus
acquaintances), which could vary in any given situation and is difficult to capture using a
retrospective, self-report measure. Previous research that has examined descriptive norms
and sexual assault examined descriptive norms by utilizing differing levels of
relationships in which the norms were based on (e.g., close friend, average student at that
university; Dardis et al., 2015). It may be that examining perceptions of close friend’s
beliefs rather than “peers” would be more fruitful. The results found in the current study
indicate that addressing descriptive social norms with regards to their “peers” about rape
myth acceptance, hypergender ideology and prosocial tendencies may not be a fruitful
target in bystander programming, but addressing injunctive norms or proximal factors
(e.g., perceived impairment due to alcohol) should receive more attention in programs
aimed at both men and women. Moreover, future research aimed at better understanding
how injunctive norms, specifically norms within close peer groups, regarding rape myth
acceptance, hypergender ideology, and prosocial tendencies may find results.
Interestingly, only individual level prosocial tendencies and gender predicted
bystander behavior in the presence of all other social norms and individual level
predictors in the model. One explanation for the null findings of individual levels of rape
50
myth acceptance and hypergender ideology may be that these variables are less relevant
for women. Given women exhibited significantly lower levels of individual hypergender
ideology and rape myth acceptance, it may be that these variables do not apply to this
population. Furthermore, gender was a significant moderator of the relationships between
individual beliefs and bystander behavior frequency, which suggests that rape myth
acceptance and hypergender ideology have a negative influence on men’s bystander
behavior and do not seem to influence women’s bystander behavior. These results
suggest that programs for men and women may need to have different aims, goals, and
content, as some factors that are relevant for men may not be relevant for women.
The present study found mixed results in regards to the relationship between
previous sexual assault history and bystander behavior. Consistent with previous research
(Murphy, 2012), victims of sexual assault perceived more opportunities to intervene as
well as intervened at a higher percentage than non-victims. It is plausible that victims of
sexual assault perceived more opportunities because they are more vigilant as a result of
their experience, and that they intervene more frequently because they have added
empathy for other victims as a result of their own victimization experiences (Vonderhaar
& Cormody, 2015). Contrary to what was hypothesized but consistent with previous
research (Murphy, 2012), perpetrators perceived more opportunities to intervene than did
non-perpetrators, but perpetrators and non-perpetrators did not differ in bystander
intervention frequency. Perpetrators may be more likely to be in places where they are
more likely to witness risky situations, such as bars or other parties. Given the behavioral
way in which we asked the questions related to bystander opportunity, it is possible that
51
they may have endorsed being in situations where there was opportunity to intervene, but
may not have actually identified several of the situations as problematic or worthy of
intervention. According to the situational model of bystander intervention, one must
identify a situation as problematic in order to intervene (Latane & Darley, 1970), but if
perpetrators do not identify these situations as problematic it may prevent them from
engaging in intervention. These results suggest that future research is needed to examine
why perpetrators identify a greater number of risky situations, and ask perpetrators if they
actually identify these situations as problematic, as well as identify other reasons why
they are not intervening more (e.g., peer influences, personal beliefs).
The second aim of this study was to examine situational factors as they related to
actual experiences, rather than using hypothetical situations or vignettes. The current
study failed to find a significant relationship between percentage of close friends present
and bystander behavior, which suggests that total number of close friends may not be
related, but rather the qualities of those who are there may matter more. It is possible that
individuals who are surrounded by prosocial peers in one situation may be more likely to
act in that situation than they would be if they were around peers who were less prosocial
or held more positive attitudes or beliefs towards sexual assault (Gidycz, Wyatt,
Galbreath, & Axelrad, 2016). Consistent with previous research, individuals who
intervened perceived themselves as closer to the potential victim (Bennett & Banyard,
2014), which could imply that individuals are more likely to protect those who they care
about. Furthermore, perceived closeness to the perceived perpetrator and perceived
closeness of the relationship between the individuals involved in the incident were both
52
unrelated to whether an individual intervened. Taken together, these findings suggest that
individuals help when they see their friends in a risky situation, may not perceive their
close friends as being potential perpetrators, and intervene at the same rate regardless of
how close they believe the perceived perpetrator and victim are. Thus, future
programming efforts should aim to help individuals overcome barriers associated with
intervening in situations in which they do not know the potential victim. Based on our
results, bystander intervention programs may also need to focus on fostering discussions
that help participants identify the situations that they commonly see as problematic.
Furthermore, there was no difference in perceived riskiness for the potential
victim between those who intervened and did not intervene, which is contrary to previous
research (McMahon et al., 2015). One potential explanation for this finding was the
overall low mean and variability reported in riskiness, as well as how the question was
asked. Participants were asked about imminent danger, rather than overall risk for a
sexual assault to eventually occur, which could have skewed the results. For example, the
situation that the most participants identified as their most recent situation was “I saw a
man talking to a woman at a bar. He was sitting very close to her and by the look on her
face I could see she was uncomfortable.” Although this may be more dangerous if further
actions were taken, it is unlikely that someone would commit an active act of sexual
assault in a crowded bar. Although perceived riskiness for the victim was not significant,
perceived riskiness to intervene for the bystander did impact bystander intervention, such
that those who intervened felt safer than those who did not. Interestingly, men perceived
more risk than females did, which is surprising given previous research has found that
53
skills deficits, including fearing for one’s own safety, is negatively related to bystander
intervention for women, but not men (Burn, 2009). However, the measure we used
encompassed individual risk beyond physical risk, including social, emotional, and legal
risk. Our findings suggest that perceived risk may vary by gender, and certain types of
perceived individual risk may matter more (e.g., emotional risk). Furthermore, it is
possible that perceived risk may vary by whom one is with, such that emotional and
social risk may matter more when individuals are with individuals they know, as the
consequences associated with those peers are greater when they know them. Current
programs could emphasize that the risk associated with intervention is minimal, given
that nearly 80% of those who intervened in one sample have reported positive outcomes
related to their intervention (Murphy, 2012).
Contrary to hypothesized, we found that individuals were more likely to intervene
if no one else had intervened than if someone else had already intervened. It makes sense
that one may not intervene if intervention is already taking place; the perceived need for
them to intervene at that point may be quite low. Furthermore, one may be more inclined
to intervene if no one is addressing the situation, which is one aim of bystander
intervention programs (e.g., Gidycz et al., 2011). It may be worth examining other
dynamics in future research, such as how much support one gives to a friend if a friend or
close peer chooses to intervene, or assess necessity for further intervention once someone
else has intervened. In terms of programming applications, this finding elucidates the
importance of educating individuals to intervene if intervention is already taking place,
even if it as simple as asking, “Is everything okay?”
54
Although results did not support a curvilinear relationship between perceived
alcohol intoxication and bystander behavior, we found a linear relationship; something
previous research has failed to do (Murphy, 2012). As alcohol consumption increases,
participants’ bystander intervention decreased, even when controlling for other situational
factors. One potential explanation that we failed to find a curvilinear relationship is the
scale we used and our sample size; two questions on Likert scales may not produce
enough variability to find this relationship in a sample of 153. Furthermore, it may be
difficult to gauge subjective impairment and intoxication retrospectively, and future
research in laboratory settings that measure actual blood alcohol level may yield more
fruitful results. Nonetheless, our findings imply that it is imperative to integrate alcohol
education into bystander education programs and other sexual assault prevention
programming (e.g., Gilmore, Lewis, & George, 2015).
Although our findings may have implications for bystander intervention
programs, there are several limitations that must be taken into consideration. Although
the demographic characteristics are consistent with the population of the location where
the data were collected, a primarily Caucasian, female, heterosexual sample limits
generalizability of these findings. In addition to the methodological considerations noted
above, in many instances one question was used to assess what may be complex
constructs (e.g., risk for the victim), which makes it difficult to reliably make claims
related to our results. Moreover, we used retrospective self-report measures, which may
not always be accurate, especially when an individual may be trying to remember an
event that occurred two, or even three months prior. In addition, the measure of bystander
55
behavior contained flaws worth noting. Each opportunity was paired with one specific
intervention strategy, and it may be that participants intervened in some other way, which
would not be captured by our measure. The bystander opportunity scale had some
questions that counted as opportunities to intervene that may not have indicated any real
risk for sexual assault, such as “I went to a party.”
Despite these limitations, there are notable strengths to the study. Our study was
one of the first to examine bystander behavior while accounting for opportunity to
intervene and we used a measure that assessed actual bystander behavior rather than
attitudes towards intervention or intent to intervene as a proxy for actual behavior. The
finding that participants intervened in 47% of opportunities is nearly double what was
found in previous research utilizing the same instrument to assess intervention behavior
(Murphy, 2012), which may be a promising finding for bystander intervention educators.
Furthermore, we asked participants about actual events, rather than using vignettes to
create situations that they may or may not actually be in. To our knowledge, we are the
first to examine the perceived risk for the potential bystander, previous intervention in
any given situation, subjective intoxication and impairment related to alcohol use, and
their relationships to whether or not an individual intervened in a variety of situations.
Furthermore, the majority of our findings can be used to inform bystander educational
programming, which could potentially have far-reaching implications.
Future research should aim to address more diverse samples, given that race and
sexual orientation have been found to contribute to bystander intervention (Brown et al.,
2014; Katz, 2015). Moreover, future research should continue to evaluate measures of
56
bystander behavior, and explore different ways in which we can account for opportunity
while accurately measuring intervention frequency (McMahon et al., in press). Future
research should also further explore several of the situational variables in more depth,
such as riskiness for the victim (e.g., what determines what is “risky” for a victim) or
perceived impairment from alcohol (e.g., alcohol use in laboratory settings). Despite our
null findings, research should continue to examine social norms variables, specifically the
impact of injunctive social norms regarding sexual violence and related constructs (e.g.,
rape myth acceptance) and evaluate the use of a social norms approach to understanding
bystander behavior (McMahon, 2015).
57
REFERENCES
Austin, M. J., Dardis, C., Wilson, S., Gidycz, C. A., & Berkowitz, A. D. (2015).
Predictors of sexual assault-specific prosocial bystander behavior and
intentions: A prospective analysis. Violence Against Women.
Banyard, V. L. (2008). Measurement and correlates of pro-social bystander behavior: The
case of interpersonal violence. Violence and Victims, 23, 85–99.
doi:10.1891/0886670823183
Banyard, V. L. (2011). Who will help prevent sexual violence: Creating an ecological
model of bystander intervention. Psychology of Violence, 1, 216–229.
doi:10.1037/a0023739
Banyard, V. L. & Moynihan, M. M. (2011). Variation in bystander behavior related to
sexual and intimate partner violence prevention: Correlates in a sample of college
students. Psychology of Violence, 4, 101-115.
Banyard, V. L., Moynihan, M. M., & Plante, E. G. (2007). Sexual violence prevention
through bystander education: An experimental evaluation. Journal of Community
Psychology, 35, 463–481. doi:10.1002/jcop.20159
Banyard, V. L., Plante, E., & Moynihan, M. M. (2004). Bystander education: Bringing a
broader community perspective to sexual violence prevention. Journal of
Community Psychology, 32, 61-79. doi:10.1002/jcop.10078
Banyard, V.L., Plante, E., Ward, S., Cohn, E.S., Moorhead, C., & Walsh, W. (2005).
Revisiting unwanted sexual experiences on campus: A 12 year follow- up.
Violence Against Women, 11, 426 – 446. doi: 10.1177/1077801204274388
58
Bennett, S., & Banyard, V. L. (2014). Do friends really help friends? The effect of
relational factors and perceived severity on bystander perception of sexual
violence. Psychology of Violence. Advance online publication.
Bennett, S., Banyard, V. L., & Garnhart, L. (2014). To act or not to act, that is the
question? Barriers and facilitators of bystander intervention. Journal of
Interpersonal Violence, 29, 476-496. doi: 10.1177/0886260513505210
Berkowitz, A. D. (2002). Fostering men’s responsibility for preventing sexual assault. In
P. A. Schewe (Ed.), Preventing violence in relationships (pp. 163–
196).Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Berkowitz, A. D. (2010). Fostering healthy norms to prevent violence and abuse: The
social norms approach. In K. Kaufman (Ed.), Preventing Sexual Violence and
Exploitation: A Sourcebook (pp. 415-447). Holyoke, MA: Neari Press.
Brown, A. L., Banyard, V. L., & Moynihan, M. M. (2014). College students as helpful
bystanders against sexual violence: Gender, race, and year in college moderate the
impact of perceived peer norms. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 38, 350-362.
doi: 10.1177/0361684314526855
Brown, A. L., & Messman-Moore, T. L. (2010). Personal and perceived peer attitudes
supporting sexual aggression as predictors of male college students’ willingness
to intervene against sexual aggression. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25,
503–518. doi: 10.1177/0886260509334400
Burn, S. (2009). A situational model of sexual assault prevention through bystander
intervention. Sex Roles, 60, 779–792. doi:10.1007/s11199-008–9581-5
59
Campbell, R., Dworkin, E., & Cabral, G. (2009). An ecological model of the impact of
sexual assault on women’s mental health. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 10, 225246. doi:10.1177/1524838009334456
Carlo, G., Hausmann, A., Christiansen, S., & Randall, B. A. (2003). Sociocognitive and
behavioral correlates of a measure of prosocial tendencies for adolescents.
Journal of Early Adolescence, 23, 107–134.
Carlson, M. (2008). I’d rather go along and be considered a man: Masculinity and
bystander intervention. Journal of Men’s Studies, 16, 3-17. doi:
10.3149/jms.1601.3
Cecil, H., & Matson, S. C. (2006). Sexual victimization among African American
adolescent females: Examination of the reliability and validity of the Sexual
Experiences Survey. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 21, 89-104.
doi:10.1177/0886260505281606
Dardis, T. M., Murphy, M. J., Gidycz, C. A. & Bill, A. (2015). An investigation of the
tenets of social norms theory as they relate to sexually aggressive attitudes and
sexual assault perpetration: A comparison of men and their friends. Psychology of
Violence. doi: 10.1037/a0039443
Fabiano, P. M., Perkins, H. W., Berkowitz, A., Linkenbach, J., & Stark, C. (2003).
Engaging men as social justice allies in ending violence against women: Evidence
for a social norms approach. Journal of American College Health, 52, 105–112.
60
Fisher, B. S., Daigle, L. E., Cullen, F. T., & Turner, M. G. (2003). Reporting sexual
victimization to the police and others: Results from a national-level study of
college women. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 30, 6-38.
Gidycz, C. A., Orchowski, L. M., & Berkowitz, A. D. (2011). Preventing sexual
aggression among college men: An evaluation of a social norms and bystander
intervention program. Violence Against Women, 17, 720–742.
doi:10.1177/1077801211409727
Gilmore, A. K., Lewis, M. A., & George, W. H. (2015). A randomized control trial
targeting alcohol use and sexual assault risk among college women at high risk
for victimization. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 74, 38-49. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2015.08.007
Gross, A. M., Winslett, A., Miguel, R., & Gohm, C. L. (2006). An examination of sexual
violence against college women. Violence Against Women, 12, 288-300. doi:
10.1177/1077801205277358
Hamburger, M. E., Hogben, M., McGowan, S., & Dawson, L. J. (1996). Assessing
hypergender ideologies: Development and initial validation of a gender-neutral
measure of adherence to extreme gender-roles. Journal of Research in
Personality, 30, 157-178.
Katz, J. (2015). Effects of group status and victim sex on male bystanders’ responses
to a potential party rape. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment, & Trauma,
24, 588-602. doi: 10.1080/10926771.2015.1029184
Katz, J., Colbert, S., & Colangelo, L. (2015). Effects of group status and victim sex
61
on female bystanders’ responses to a potential party rape. Violence and
Victims, 30, 265-. doi:10.1891/0886-6708.VV-D-13-00099
Koss, M.P., Abbey, A., Campbell, R., Cook, S., Norris, J., Testa, M., Ullman, S.,
West, C., & White, J. (2007). Revising the SES: A collaborative process to
improve assessment of sexual aggression and victimization. Psychology of
Women Quarterly, 31, 357-370. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-6402.2007.00385.x
Koss, M. P., Gidycz, C. A., & Wisniewski, N. (1987). The scope of rape: Incidence and
prevalence of sexual aggression and victimization in a national sample of higher
education students. Journal of Counseling and Clinical Psychology, 55, 162-170.
Koss, M. P. & Oros, C. J. (1982). Sexual Experiences Survey: A research instrument
investigating sexual aggression and victimization. Journal of Consulting and
Counseling Psychology, 50, 455-457. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.50.3.455
Krebs, C. P., Lindquist, C. H., Warner, T. D., Fisher, B. S., & Martin, S. L. (2007). The
campus sexual assault (CSA) study. Washington, DC: National Institute of
Justice, US Department of Justice.
Latané, B., & Darley, J. M. (1970). The unresponsive bystander: Why doesn’t he help?
New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Lonsway, K. A., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (1994). Rape myths: In review. Psychology of
Women Quarterly, 18, 133–164.
McMahon, S. (2010). Rape myth beliefs and bystander attitudes among incoming college
students. Journal of American College Health, 59, 3–11. doi:10.1080/
07448481.2010.483715
62
McMahon, S. (2015). Call for research on bystander intervention to prevent sexual
violence: The role of campus environments. American Journal of Community
Psychology, 55, 472-489. doi:10.1007/s10464-015-9724-0
McMahon, S., Banyard, V. L., & McMahon, S. M. (2015). Incoming college
students’ bystander behaviors to prevent sexual violence. Journal of College
Student Development, 56, 488-493.
McMahon, S., Banyard, V. L., Palmer, J. E., Murphy, M., & Gidycz, C. A. (in
press). Chances to reduce violence: Measuring bystander behavior in the
context of opportunity to help. Journal of Interpersonal Violence.
McMahon, S., & Farmer, G. L. (2011). An updated measure for assessing subtle
rape myths. Social Work Research, 35, 71-81. doi: 10.1093/swr/35.2.71
Murnen, S. K., Wright, C., & Kaluzny, G. (2002). If “boys will be boys” then girls will
be victims? A met-analytic review of the research that relates to masculine
ideology to sexual aggression. Sex Roles, 46, 359-375.
Murphy, M. J. (2012). Sexual assault-specific bystander behavior: Accounting for
opportunity in a prospective analysis of the effects of individual, social norms,
and situational variables. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Ohio University,
Athens.
Obama, B. (2014, January 22) Memorandum -- Establishing a white house task force to
protect students from sexual assault. Retrieved from
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/01/22/memorandumestablishing-white-house-task-force-protect-students-sexual-a
63
Payne, D. L., Lonsway, K. A., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (1999). Rape myth acceptance:
Exploration of its structure and its measurement using the Illinois rape myth
acceptance scale. Journal of Research in Personality, 33, 27-68.
Rushton, J. P., Chrisjohn, R. D., & Fekken, G. C. (1981). The altruistic personality and
the self-report altruism scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 2, 1-11.
Swartout, K. M. (2013). The company they keep: How peer networks influence male
sexual aggression. Psychology of Violence, 3, 157-171. doi: 10.1037/a0029997
Steele, C. M., Critchlow, B. C., & Liu, T. J. (1985). Alcohol and social behavior II: The
helpful drunkard. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 35-46.
Tansill, E. C., Edwards, K. M., Kearns, M. C., Gidycz, C. A., & Calhoun, K. S. (2012).
The mediating role between trauma-related symptoms in the relationship between
sexual victimization and physical health symptomatology in undergraduate
women. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 25, 79-85. doi: 10.1002/jts.21666
Vonderhaar, R. L., & Carmody, D. C. (2015). There are no “innocent victims”: The
influence of just world beliefs and prior victimization on rape myth acceptance.
Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 30, 1615-1632.
doi:10.1177/0886260514549196
64
APPENDIX A: DEMOGRAPHICS
Demographic Questionnaire
DIRECTIONS: Please choose the best response for each question.
1. What is your age?
A. 18
B. 19
C. 20
D. 21
E. 22
F. 23
G. 24
H. 25
I. Other _________
2. What is your current year in college?
A. First
B. Second
C. Third
D. Fourth
E. Fifth or above
F. Graduate student
G. Other ___________
3. Where do you currently live?
A. College dormitory or residence hall
B. Sorority house
C. Other University/college housing
D. Off-campus house or apartment
E. Parent/Guardian’s home
F. Other
4. What is your race/ethnicity?
A. Caucasian, Non-Hispanic
B. African American
C. Latino or Hispanic
D. Asian or Pacific Islander
E. American Indian or Alaska Native
F. Two or more races
G. Other
5. What is your religion?
65
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
Catholic (Christian)
Protestant (Christian)
Jewish
Muslim
Nondenominational
Other
None
6. Approximately what is your parents’ yearly income?
A. Unemployed or disabled
B. $10,000 – $20,000
C. $21,000 - $30,000
D. $31,000 - $40,000
E. $41,000 - $50,000
F. $51,000 - $75,000
G. $76,000 - $100,000
H. $100,000 - $150,000
I. $151,000 or more
7. What is your sexual orientation?
A. Exclusively heterosexual
B. Predominantly heterosexual, only incidentally homosexual
C. Predominantly heterosexual, but more than incidentally homosexual
D. Equally heterosexual and homosexual.
E. Predominantly homosexual, but more than incidentally heterosexual
F. Predominantly homosexual, only incidentally heterosexual
G. Exclusively homosexual
H. Asexual, or Non-Sexual
8. What is your current marital status?
A. Never married
B. Cohabitating (living together)
C. Married
D. Divorced
E. Widowed
9. What is your current dating status?
A. I do not date
B. I date casually
C. I date seriously
D. I am involved in a long-term monogamous relationship (more than 6-months)
E. I live with my partner
F. I am engaged
G. I am married
10. Have you ever participated in a sexual assault prevention or risk reduction program?
66
A. Yes
B. No
11. If yes, how long ago? _________
12. Are you in a sorority/fraternity?
A. Yes
B. No
13. Are you on a sports team?
A. Yes, collegiate/varsity
B. Yes, club
C. Yes, intramural
D. No
14. Height: __________
15. Current Weight: ____________
16. How do you identify?
A. Male
B. Female
C. FTM (female-to-male)
D. MTF (male-to-female)
E. Intersex
F. Genderqueer/Androgynous
G. Other (please fill in): ____________________
67
APPENDIX B: SEXUAL EXPERIENCES SURVEY - VICTMIZATION
Sexual Experiences Survey – Short Form Victimization
The following questions concern sexual experiences that you may have had that
were unwanted. We know that these are personal questions, so we do not ask your name
or other identifying information. Your information is completely confidential. We hope
that this helps you to feel comfortable answering each question honestly. Place a check
mark in the box (□) showing that this experience has happened to you. If several
experiences occurred on the same occasion—for example, if one night someone told you
some lies and had sex with you when you were drunk, you would check both boxes a
and c. Answer the questions for the time period "Since age 14 up until today”
Sexual Experiences
1.

Someone fondled, kissed, or rubbed up against the private areas of
my body (lips, breast/chest, crotch or butt) or removed some of my
clothes without my consent (but did not attempt sexual penetration)
by:
a. Telling lies, threatening to end the relationship, threatening to
spread rumors about me, making promises I knew were untrue, or
continually verbally pressuring me after I said I didn't want to.
b. Showing displeasure, criticizing my sexuality or attractiveness,
getting angry but not using physical force, after I said I didn't want to.
c. Taking advantage of me when I was too drunk or out of it to stop
what was happening.
d. Threatening to physically harm me or someone close to me.
e. Using force, for example holding me down with their body weight,
pinning my arms, or having a weapon.
2.
Someone had oral sex with me or made me have oral sex with
them without my consent by:
a. Telling lies, threatening to end the relationship, threatening to
spread rumors about me, making promises I knew were untrue, or
continually verbally pressuring me after I said I didn't want to.
b. Showing displeasure, criticizing my sexuality or attractiveness,
getting angry but not using physical force, after I said I didn't want to.
c. Taking advantage of me when I was too drunk or out of it to stop
what was happening.
d. Threatening to physically harm me or someone close to me.
e. Using force, for example holding me down with their body weight,
pinning my arms, or having a weapon.
This has
happened
to me
since age
14
□
□
□
□
□
This has
happened
to me
since age
14
□
□
□
□
□
68
3.
A man put his penis into my vagina, or someone inserted fingers
or objects without my consent by:
a. Telling lies, threatening to end the relationship, threatening to
spread rumors about me, making promises I knew were untrue, or
continually verbally pressuring me after I said I didn't want to.
b. Showing displeasure, criticizing my sexuality or attractiveness,
getting angry but not using physical force, after I said I didn't want to.
c. Taking advantage of me when I was too drunk or out of it to stop
what was happening.
d. Threatening to physically harm me or someone close to me.
e. Using force, for example holding me down with their body weight,
pinning my arms, or having a weapon.
4.
A man put his penis into my butt, or someone inserted fingers or
objects without my consent by:
a. Telling lies, threatening to end the relationship, threatening to
spread rumors about me, making promises I knew were untrue, or
continually verbally pressuring me after I said I didn't want to.
b. Showing displeasure, criticizing my sexuality or attractiveness,
getting angry but not using physical force, after I said I didn't want to.
c. Taking advantage of me when I was too drunk or out of it to stop
what was happening.
d. Threatening to physically harm me or someone close to me.
e. Using force, for example holding me down with their body weight,
pinning my arms, or having a weapon.
5.
Even though it did not happen, someone TRIED to have oral sex
with me, or make me have oral sex with them without my consent
by:
a. Telling lies, threatening to end the relationship, threatening to
spread rumors about me, making promises I knew were untrue, or
continually verbally pressuring me after I said I didn't want to.
b. Showing displeasure, criticizing my sexuality or attractiveness,
getting angry but not using physical force, after I said I didn't want to.
c. Taking advantage of me when I was too drunk or out of it to stop
what was happening.
d. Threatening to physically harm me or someone close to me.
e. Using force, for example holding me down with their body weight,
pinning my arms, or having a weapon.
This has
happened
to me
since age
14
□
□
□
□
□
This has
happened
to me
since age
14
□
□
□
□
□
This has
happened
to me
since age
14
□
□
□
□
□
69
6.

7.
Even though it did not happen, a man TRIED to put his penis into
my vagina, or someone tried to stick in fingers or objects without
my consent by:
a. Telling lies, threatening to end the relationship, threatening to
spread rumors about me, making promises I knew were untrue, or
continually verbally pressuring me after I said I didn't want to.
b. Showing displeasure, criticizing my sexuality or attractiveness,
getting angry but not using physical force, after I said I didn't want to.
c. Taking advantage of me when I was too drunk or out of it to stop
what was happening.
d. Threatening to physically harm me or someone close to me.
e. Using force, for example holding me down with their body weight,
pinning my arms, or having a weapon.
Even though it did not happen, a man TRIED to put his penis into
my butt, or someone tried to stick in objects or fingers without my
consent by:
a. Telling lies, threatening to end the relationship, threatening to
spread rumors about me, making promises I knew were untrue, or
continually verbally pressuring me after I said I didn't want to.
b. Showing displeasure, criticizing my sexuality or attractiveness,
getting angry but not using physical force, after I said I didn't want to.
c. Taking advantage of me when I was too drunk or out of it to stop
what was happening.
d. Threatening to physically harm me or someone close to me.
e. Using force, for example holding me down with their body weight,
pinning my arms, or having a weapon.
This has
happened
to me
since age
14
□
□
□
□
□
This has
happened
to me
since age
14
□
□
□
□
□
8. Did any of the experiences described in this survey happen to you one or more times? Yes
No
9. What was the sex of the person or persons who did them to you?
Female only
Male only
Both females and males
I reported no experiences
10. Have you ever been raped? Yes
No
70
APPENDIX C: SEXUAL EXPERIENCES SURVEY – PERPETRATION
Sexual Experiences Survey – Short Form Perpetration
The following questions concern sexual experiences. We know these are personal
questions, so we do not ask your name or other identifying information. Your
information is completely confidential. We hope this helps you to feel comfortable
answering each question honestly. Place a check mark in the box
for each of the
experiences below that has happened. If several experiences occurred on the same
occasion--for example, if one night you told some lies and had sex with someone who
was drunk, you would check both boxes a and c. Since age 14 refers to your life
starting on your 14th birthday and stopping one year ago from today. Answer the
questions for the time period "Since age 14 up until today”
Sexual Experiences
1.
I fondled, kissed, or rubbed up against the private areas of
someone’s body (lips, breast/chest, crotch or butt) or removed some
of their clothes without their consent (but did not attempt sexual
penetration) by:
a. Telling lies, threatening to end the relationship, threatening to spread
rumors about them, making promises about the future I knew were
untrue, or continually verbally pressuring them after they said they
didn’t want to.
b. Showing displeasure, criticizing their sexuality or attractiveness, getting
angry but not using physical force after they said they didn’t want to.
c. Taking advantage when they were too drunk or out of it to stop
what was happening.
d.
e.
2
Threatening to physically harm them or someone close to them.
Using force, for example holding them down with my body weight,
pinning their arms, or having a weapon.
I had oral sex with someone or had someone perform oral sex on me
without their consent by:
a.
This has
happened
to me
since age
14
Telling lies, threatening to end the relationship, threatening to spread
rumors about them, making promises about the future I knew were
untrue, or continually verbally pressuring them after they said they
didn’t want to.
This has
happened
to me
since age
14
71
b.
c.
3.
d.
Threatening to physically harm them or someone close to them.
e.
Using force, for example holding them down with my body weight,
pinning their arms, or having a weapon.
I put my penis (men only) or I put my fingers or objects (all
respondents) into a woman’s vagina without her consent by:
a.
b.
c.
4.
Showing displeasure, criticizing their sexuality or attractiveness, getting
angry but not using physical force after they said they didn’t want to.
Taking advantage when they were too drunk or out of it to stop
what was happening.
Telling lies, threatening to end the relationship, threatening to spread
rumors about them, making promises about the future I knew were
untrue, or continually verbally pressuring them after they said they
didn’t want to.
Showing displeasure, criticizing their sexuality or attractiveness, getting
angry but not using physical force after they said they didn’t want to.
Taking advantage when they were too drunk or out of it to stop
what was happening.
d.
Threatening to physically harm them or someone close to them.
e.
Using force, for example holding them down with my body
weight, pinning their arms, or having a weapon.
I put in my penis (men only) or I put my fingers or objects (all
respondents) into someone’s butt without their consent by:
a.
b.
c.
d.
This has
happened
to me
since age
14
Telling lies, threatening to end the relationship, threatening to spread
rumors about them, making promises about the future I knew were
untrue, or continually verbally pressuring them after they said they
didn’t want to.
Showing displeasure, criticizing their sexuality or attractiveness,
getting angry but not using physical force after they said they didn’t
want to.
Taking advantage when they were too drunk or out of it to stop
what was happening.
Threatening to physically harm them or someone close to them.
This has
happened
to me
since age
14
72
e.
Using force, for example holding them down with my body
weight, pinning their arms, or having a weapon.
This has
happened
to me
since age
14
5.
Even though it did not happen, I TRIED to have oral sex with
someone or make them have oral sex with me without their consent
by:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
6.
Telling lies, threatening to end the relationship, threatening to
spread rumors about them, making promises about the future I
knew were untrue, or continually verbally pressuring them after
they said they didn’t want to.
Showing displeasure, criticizing their sexuality or attractiveness,
getting angry but not using physical force after they said they didn’t
want to.
Taking advantage when they were too drunk or out of it to stop
what was happening.
Threatening to physically harm them or someone close to
them.
Using force, for example holding them down with my body
weight, pinning their arms, or having a weapon.
Even though it did not happen, I TRIED put in my penis (men
only) or I tried to put my fingers or objects (all respondents) into a
woman’s vagina without their consent by:
a.
b.
c.
Telling lies, threatening to end the relationship, threatening to
spread rumors about them, making promises about the future I
knew were untrue, or continually verbally pressuring them after
they said they didn’t want to.
Showing displeasure, criticizing their sexuality or attractiveness,
getting angry but not using physical force after they said they didn’t
want to.
Taking advantage when they were too drunk or out of it to stop
what was happening.
d.
Threatening to physically harm them or someone close to them.
e.
Using force, for example holding them down with my body
weight, pinning their arms, or having a weapon.
This has
happened
to me
since age
14
73
7.
Even though it did not happen, I TRIED to put in my penis (men
only) or I tried to put my fingers or objects (all respondents) into
someone’s butt without their consent by:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
This has
happened
to me
since age
14
Telling lies, threatening to end the relationship, threatening to
spread rumors about them, making promises about the future I
knew were untrue, or continually verbally pressuring them after
they said they didn’t want to.
Showing displeasure, criticizing their sexuality or attractiveness,
getting angry but not using physical force after they said they
didn’t want to.
Taking advantage when they were too drunk or out of it to
stop what was happening.
Threatening to physically harm them or someone close to
them.
Using force, for example holding them down with my body
weight, pinning their arms, or having a weapon.
8. Did you do any of the acts described in this survey 1 or more times? Yes
9. If yes, what was the sex of the person or persons to whom you did them?
Female only
Male only
Both females and males
I reported no experiences
10. Do you think you may have you ever raped someone? Yes
No
No
74
APPENDIX D: REVISED CONFLICT TACTICS SCALE
CTS2
Directions: Please select below how many times you did each of these things in since
age 14.
1 = Once since age 14
5 = 11-20 times since age 14
2 = Twice since age 14
6 = More than 20 times since age 14
3 = 3-5 times since age 14
before
7 = Not since age 14 but it did happen
4 = 6-10 times since age 14
0 = This has never happened
1. I made someone have sex without a
condom.
2. I used force (like hitting, holding
down, or using a weapon) to make
someone have oral or anal sex.
3. I used force (like hitting, holding
down, or using a weapon) to make
someone have sex.
4. I insisted on sex when the other
person did not want to (but did not
use physical force).
5. I used threats to make someone have
oral or anal sex.
6. I insisted someone have oral or anal
sex (but did not use physical force).
7. I used threats to make my someone
have sex.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
75
APPENDIX E: RAPE MYTH ACCEPTANCE – SELF
Illinois Rape Myth Acceptance Scale – Self
Directions: For the following questions, please rate how much YOU agree with the
following statements:
1
2
3
4
5
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly
Agree
1. If a girl is raped while she is drunk, she is at least somewhat responsible for
letting things get out of control.
1
2
3
4
5
2. When girls go to parties wearing slutty clothes, they are asking for trouble.
help her.
1
2
3
4
5
3. If a girl goes to a room alone with a guy at a party, it is her own fault is she
is raped
1
2
3
4
5
4. If a girl acts like a slut, eventually she is going to get into trouble.
1
2
3
4
5
5. When girls are raped, it’s often because the way they said “no” is often unclear. 1
2 3
4
5
6. If a girl initiates the kissing or hooking up, she should not be surprised if a
a guy assumes she wants to have sex.
1
2
3
4
5
7. When guys rape, it is usually because of their strong desire for sex.
1
2 3
4
5
8. Guys don’t usually intend to force sex on a girl, but sometimes they get too
sexually carried away.
1
2
3
4
5
9. Rape happens when a guy’s sex drive gets out of control.
1
2 3
4
5
10. If a guy is drunk, he might rape someone unintentionally.
1
2
3
4
5
11. It shouldn’t be considered rape if a guy is drunk and didn’t realize what he
was doing
1
2
3
4
5
12. If both people are drunk, it can’t be rape.
1
2 3
4
5
13 If a girl doesn’t physically resist sex – even if protesting verbally – it can’t
be considered rape
1
2
3
4
5
14. If a girl doesn’t physically fight back, you can’t really say it was rape.
1
2
3
4
5
15. A rape probably didn’t happen if the girl has no bruises or marks.
1
2
3
4
5
76
16. If the accused “rapist” doesn’t have a weapon, you can’t really call it rape.
1
2
3
4
5
17. If a girl doesn’t say “no” she can’t claim rape.
1
2
3
4
5
18. A lot of times, girls who say they were raped agreed to have sex and then
regret it.
1
2 3
4
5
19. Rape accusations are often used as a way of getting back at guys.
1
2 3
4
5
20. A lot of times, girls who say they were raped often led the guy on and then
had regrets.
1
2
3
4
5
21. A lot of times, girls who claim they were raped just have emotional
problems.
1
2
3
4
5
22. Girls who are caught cheating on their boyfriends sometimes claim that
it was rape.
1
2
3
4
5
77
APPENDIX F: RAPE MYTH ACCEPTANCE – PEERS
Illinois Rape Myth Acceptance Scale – Peers
Directions: For the following questions, please rate how much YOU BELIEVE YOUR
PEERS AT OHIO UNIVERSITY agree with the following statements:
1
2
3
4
5
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly
Agree
1. If a girl is raped while she is drunk, she is at least somewhat responsible for
letting things get out of control.
1
2 3
4
5
2. When girls go to parties wearing slutty clothes, they are asking for trouble.
help her.
1
2 3
4
5
3. If a girl goes to a room alone with a guy at a party, it is her own fault is she
is raped
1
2
3
4
5
4. If a girl acts like a slut, eventually she is going to get into trouble.
1
2
3
4
5
5. When girls are raped, it’s often because the way they said “no” is often unclear. 1
2
3
4
5
6. If a girl initiates the kissing or hooking up, she should not be surprised if a
a guy assumes she wants to have sex.
1
2 3
4
5
7. When guys rape, it is usually because of their strong desire for sex.
1
2 3
4
5
8. Guys don’t usually intend to force sex on a girl, but sometimes they get too
sexually carried away.
1
2
3
4
5
9. Rape happens when a guy’s sex drive gets out of control.
1
2
3
4
5
10. If a guy is drunk, he might rape someone unintentionally.
1
2 3
4
5
11. It shouldn’t be considered rape if a guy is drunk and didn’t realize what he
was doing
1
2
3
4
5
12. If both people are drunk, it can’t be rape.
1
2
3
4
5
13 If a girl doesn’t physically resist sex – even if protesting verbally – it can’t
be considered rape
1
2
3
4
5
14. If a girl doesn’t physically fight back, you can’t really say it was rape.
1
2 3
4
5
15. A rape probably didn’t happen if the girl has no bruises or marks.
1
2 3
4
5
78
16. If the accused “rapist” doesn’t have a weapon, you can’t really call it rape.
1
2
3
4
5
17. If a girl doesn’t say “no” she can’t claim rape.
1
2 3
4
5
18. A lot of times, girls who say they were raped agreed to have sex and then
regret it.
1
2 3
4
5
19. Rape accusations are often used as a way of getting back at guys.
1
2 3
4
5
20. A lot of times, girls who say they were raped often led the guy on and then
had regrets.
1
2 3
4
5
21. A lot of times, girls who claim they were raped just have emotional
problems.
1
2
3
4
5
22. Girls who are caught cheating on their boyfriends sometimes claim that
it was rape.
1
2 3
4
5
79
APPENDIX G: HYPERGENDER IDEOLOGY SCALE - SELF
Hypergender Ideology Scale – Self
Directions: For the following questions, please rate how much YOU agree with the
following statements:
1
2
3
4
5
6
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Slightly Disagree
Agree
Slightly Agree
Strongly
Agree
1. A true man knows how to command others.
1
2
3
4
5
6
2. The only thing a lesbian needs is a good stiff cock.
1
2 3
4
5
6
3. Men should be ready to take any risk, if the payoff is large enough.
1
2
3
4
5
6
4. No wife is obliged to provide sex for anybody, even her husband.
1
2
3
4
5
6
5. Women should break dates with female friends when guys ask them out.
1
2 3
4
5
6
6. Men have to expect that most women will be something of a prick-tease.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7. A real man can get any women to have sex with him.
1
2 3
4
5
6
8. Women instinctively try to manipulate men.
1
2
3
4
5
6
9. Get a woman drunk, high, or hot and she’ll let you do whatever you want.
1
2
3
4
5
6
10. Men should be in charge during sex.
1
2
3
4
5
6
11. It’s okay for a man to be a little forceful during sex.
1
2
3
4
5
6
12. Women don’t mind a little force in sex sometimes because they know it
means they must be attractive.
1
2 3
4
5
6
12. Homosexuals can be just as good at parenting as heterosexuals.
1
2 3
4
5
6
13. Gays and lesbians are just like everybody else.
1
2
3
4
5
6
14. Pickups should expect to put out.
1
2
3
4
5
6
15. If men pay for a date, they deserve something in return.
1
2
3
4
5
6
16. Effeminate men deserved to be ridiculed.
1
2
3
4
5
6
17. Any man who is a man needs to have sex regularly.
1
2
3
4
5
6
80
18. I believe some women lead happy lives without having male partners.
1
2
3
4
5
6
81
APPENDIX H: HYPERGENDER IDEOLOGY SCALE - PEERS
Hypergender Ideology Scale - Peers
Directions: For the following questions, please rate how much YOU BELIEVE YOUR
PEERS AT OHIO UNIVERSITY agree with the following statements:
1
2
3
4
5
6
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Slightly Disagree
Agree
Slightly Agree
Strongly
Agree
1. A true man knows how to command others.
1
2
3
4
5
6
2. The only thing a lesbian needs is a good stiff cock.
1
2 3
4
5
6
3. Men should be ready to take any risk, if the payoff is large enough.
1
2
3
4
5
6
4. No wife is obliged to provide sex for anybody, even her husband.
1
2
3
4
5
6
5. Women should break dates with female friends when guys ask them out.
1
2 3
4
5
6
6. Men have to expect that most women will be something of a prick-tease.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7. A real man can get any women to have sex with him.
1
2 3
4
5
6
8. Women instinctively try to manipulate men.
1
2
3
4
5
6
9. Get a woman drunk, high, or hot and she’ll let you do whatever you want.
1
2
3
4
5
6
10. Men should be in charge during sex.
1
2
3
4
5
6
11. It’s okay for a man to be a little forceful during sex.
1
2
3
4
5
6
12. Women don’t mind a little force in sex sometimes because they know it
means they must be attractive.
1
2 3
4
5
6
12. Homosexuals can be just as good at parenting as heterosexuals.
1
2 3
4
5
6
13. Gays and lesbians are just like everybody else.
1
2
3
4
5
6
14. Pickups should expect to put out.
1
2
3
4
5
6
15. If men pay for a date, they deserve something in return.
1
2
3
4
5
6
16. Effeminate men deserved to be ridiculed.
1
2
3
4
5
6
17. Any man who is a man needs to have sex regularly.
1
2
3
4
5
6
82
18. I believe some women lead happy lives without having male partners.
1
2
3
4
5
6
83
APPENDIX I: PROSOCIAL TENDENCIES MEASURE – SELF
Prosocial Tendencies Measure – Self
Directions: Below are a number of statements which may or may not describe you.
Please indicate HOW MUCH EACH STATEMENT DESCRIBES YOU by using the
scale below:
1
2
3
4
5
Does Not
Describes Me
Greatly
Describes Me A
Little
Somewhat
Describes Me
Describes Me
Well
Describes
Me
Greatly
1. I can help others best when people are watching me.
1
2
3
4
5
2. It is most fulfilling to me when I can comfort someone who is very distressed.
1
2
3
4
5
3. When other people are around, it is easier for me to help needy others.
1
2 3
4
5
4. I think that one of the best things about helping others is that it makes me look 1
good.
2
3
4
5
5. I get the most out of helping others when it is done in front of others.
1
2
3
4
5
6. I tend to help people who are in a real crisis or need.
1
2
3
4
5
7. When people ask me to help them, I don't hesitate.
1
2 3
4
5
8. I prefer to donate money anonymously.
1
2 3
4
5
9. I tend to help people who hurt themselves badly.
1
2 3
4
5
10. I believe that donating goods or money works best when it is tax-deductible.
1
2 3
4
5
11. I tend to help needy others most when they do not know who helped them.
1
2
3
4
5
12. I tend to help others particularly when they are emotionally distressed.
1
2 3
4
5
13. Helping others when I am in the spotlight is when I work best.
1
2 3
4
5
14. It is easy for me to help others when they are in a dire situation.
1
2 3
4
5
15. Most of the time, I help others when they do not know who helped them.
1
2 3
4
5
16. I think there should be more recognition for the time and energy people
spend on charity work.
1
2
4
5
3
84
17. I respond to helping others best when the situation is highly emotional.
1
2 3
4
5
18. I never hesitate to help others when they ask for it.
1
2 3
4
5
19. I think that helping others without them knowing is the best type of situation. 1
2 3
4
5
20. One of the best things about doing charity work is that it looks good on my
resume
1
2 3
4
5
21. Emotional situations make me want to help needy others.
1
2
3
4
5
22. I often make anonymous donations because they make me feel good.
1
2
3
4
5
23. I feel that if I help someone, they should help me in the future.
1
2
3
4
5
85
APPENDIX J: PROSOCIAL TENDENCIES MEASURE – PEERS
Prosocial Tendencies Measure – Peers
Directions: Below are a number of statements which may or may not describe your
peers. Please indicate HOW MUCH EACH STATEMENT DESCRIBES YOUR
PEERS by using the scale below:
1
2
3
4
5
Does Not
Describes Me
Greatly
Describes Me A
Little
Somewhat
Describes Me
Describes Me
Well
Describes
Me
Greatly
1. I can help others best when people are watching me.
1
2
3
4
5
2. It is most fulfilling to me when I can comfort someone who is very distressed.
1
2
3
4
5
3. When other people are around, it is easier for me to help needy others.
1
2 3
4
5
4. I think that one of the best things about helping others is that it makes me look 1
good.
2
3
4
5
5. I get the most out of helping others when it is done in front of others.
1
2
3
4
5
6. I tend to help people who are in a real crisis or need.
1
2
3
4
5
7. When people ask me to help them, I don't hesitate.
1
2 3
4
5
8. I prefer to donate money anonymously.
1
2 3
4
5
9. I tend to help people who hurt themselves badly.
1
2 3
4
5
10. I believe that donating goods or money works best when it is tax-deductible.
1
2 3
4
5
11. I tend to help needy others most when they do not know who helped them.
1
2
3
4
5
12. I tend to help others particularly when they are emotionally distressed.
1
2 3
4
5
13. Helping others when I am in the spotlight is when I work best.
1
2 3
4
5
14. It is easy for me to help others when they are in a dire situation.
1
2 3
4
5
15. Most of the time, I help others when they do not know who helped them.
1
2 3
4
5
16. I think there should be more recognition for the time and energy people
spend on charity work.
1
2
3
4
5
17. I respond to helping others best when the situation is highly emotional.
1
2 3
4
5
86
18. I never hesitate to help others when they ask for it.
1
2 3
4
5
19. I think that helping others without them knowing is the best type of situation. 1
2 3
4
5
20. One of the best things about doing charity work is that it looks good on my
resume
1
2 3
4
5
21. Emotional situations make me want to help needy others.
1
2
3
4
5
22. I often make anonymous donations because they make me feel good.
1
2
3
4
5
23. I feel that if I help someone, they should help me in the future.
1
2
3
4
5
87
APPENDIX K: BYSTANDER OPPORTUNITY SCALE
Bystander Opportunity Scale
Directions: Please read the list of situations below and estimate the number of times that
you witnessed each situation over the past 4 months. If you did not see, hear, or
suspect the item, please circle 0. If you witnessed or had this experience more than 5
times, please enter the number of times.
1. I heard someone yelling and fighting.
0 1 2 3 4 5
____
2. I saw a drunk person get left behind by their friends at a
party.
0 1 2 3 4 5
____
3. I saw someone at a party who had had too much to drink.
0 1 2 3 4 5
____
4. Someone said that they had an unwanted sexual
experience.
0 1 2 3 4 5
____
5. I saw a woman being shoved or yelled at by a man.
0 1 2 3 4 5
____
6. I heard what sounded like yelling and fighting through my
dorm walls.
0 1 2 3 4 5
____
7. I saw someone grabbing, pushing, or insulting their partner.
0 1 2 3 4 5
____
8. I heard someone talking about forcing someone else to have
sex with them.
0 1 2 3 4 5
____
9. I saw someone’s drink get spiked with a drug.
0 1 2 3 4 5
____
10. Someone told me they were sexually assaulted.
0 1 2 3 4 5
____
Please read the list of situations below and estimate the number of times that you
witnessed each situation over the past 4 months. If you did not see, hear, or
suspect the item, please circle 0. If you witnessed or had this experience more than
88
5 times, please enter the number of times.
11. I suspected someone was in an abusive relationship.
0 1 2 3 4 5
____
12. I suspected someone had been sexually assaulted.
0 1 2 3 4 5
____
13. I suspected someone of engaging in behaviors that are
abusive to others.
0 1 2 3 4 5
____
14. I heard sexist jokes.
0 1 2 3 4 5
____
15. I saw commercials that depict violence against women.
0 1 2 3 4 5
____
16. I heard someone explain that women like to be raped.
0 1 2 3 4 5
____
17. I heard someone say “she deserved to be raped.”
0 1 2 3 4 5
____
18. I had a drink with friends at a party.
0 1 2 3 4 5
____
19. I went to a party with friends.
0 1 2 3 4 5
____
Please read the list of situations below and estimate the number of times that you
witnessed each situation over the past 4 months. If you did not see, hear, or
suspect the item, please circle 0. If you witnessed or had this experience more than
5 times, please enter the number of times.
20. I heard a sexist comment.
0 1 2 3 4 5
____
21. I saw a man and his girlfriend get in a heated argument.
0 1 2 3 4 5
____
89
22. I saw a man talking to a woman at a bar. He was sitting
very close to her and by the look on her face I could see she
was uncomfortable.
0 1 2 3 4 5
____
23. Someone told me that they had had an unwanted sexual
experience.
0 1 2 3 4 5
____
24. I knew of information about an incident of sexual
violence.
0 1 2 3 4 5
____
25. I saw someone who looked drunk go to a room with
someone else at a party.
0 1 2 3 4 5
____
26. I heard someone use the words “ho,” “bitch,” or “slut” to
describe girls.
0 1 2 3 4 5
____
27. I heard someone plan to give someone alcohol to get sex.
0 1 2 3 4 5
____
Please read the list of situations below and estimate the number of times that you
witnessed each situation over the past 4 months. If you did not see, hear, or
suspect the item, please circle 0. If you witnessed or had this experience more than
5 times, please enter the number of times.
28. I witnessed an activity in which girls’ appearances were
ranked/rated.
0 1 2 3 4 5
____
29. I saw/heard about someone who was hooking up with
someone who was passed out.
0 1 2 3 4 5
____
30. I heard rumors that someone forced sex on someone else.
0 1 2 3 4 5
____
31. I heard that someone had committed a rape.
0 1 2 3 4 5
____
32. I saw someone doing things that might meet the definition
of sexual assault.
0 1 2 3 4 5
____
33. I saw someone trying to take advantage of someone’s
intoxicated state to have with them.
0 1 2 3 4 5
____
34. I heard someone talking about women in sexually
0 1 2 3 4 5
90
degrading ways.
35. I saw someone possibly committing a sexual assault.
____
0 1 2 3 4 5
____
91
APPENDIX L: BYSTANDER BEHAVIOR SCALE
Bystander Behavior Scale – Revised
Please read the list below and indicate the number of times you have actually engaged in
each of the BEHAVIORS below over the past 4 months. Please select 0 if you did not
engage in this behavior over the past 8 weeks. If you engaged in this behavior more than
5 times, please enter the number of times.
1. I Called 911 when I heard someone yelling and fighting.
0 1 2 3 4 5
___
2. I talked to the friends of a drunk person to make sure they didn’t
leave their drunk friend behind at the party.
0 1 2 3 4 5
___
3. I asked someone I saw at a party who had had too much to drink
if they needed to be walked home so they could go to sleep.
0 1 2 3 4 5
___
4. When someone said that they had an unwanted sexual
experience but they didn’t call it “rape” I questioned them further.
0 1 2 3 4 5
___
5. I asked a woman who was being shoved or yelled at by a man if
she needed help.
0 1 2 3 4 5
___
6. I knocked on the door to see if everything was ok or talked with
a resident counselor or someone who could help when I heard what
sounded like yelling and fighting through my dorm walls.
0 1 2 3 4 5
___
7. When I saw someone grabbing, pushing, or insulting their
partner I confronted them or got help from other friends or
university staff.
0 1 2 3 4 5
___
8. I heard someone talking about forcing someone to have sex with
them, and I spoke up against it and/or expressed concern for the
person who was forced.
0 1 2 3 4 5
___
9. I grabbed someone else’s cup and poured their drink out after I
saw that someone slip something into it or I said something to the
person whose drink was spiked even though I didn’t know them.
0 1 2 3 4 5
___
92
10. I called a rape crisis center or talked to a resident counselor for
help after someone told me they were sexually assaulted.
0 1 2 3 4 5
___
Please read the list below and indicate the number of times you have actually
engaged in each of the BEHAVIORS below over the past 4 months. Please select
0 if you did not engage in this behavior over the past 8 weeks. If you engaged in this
behavior more than 5 times, please enter the number of times.
11. I approached someone when I thought they were in an abusive
relationship and let them know that I’m here to help.
0 1 2 3 4 5
___
12. I let someone I suspected had been sexually assaulted know
that I was available for help and support or shared information with
them about sexual assault and violence.
0 1 2 3 4 5
___
13. I confronted someone who made excuses for abusive behavior
by others.
0 1 2 3 4 5
___
14. I spoke up against sexist jokes.
0 1 2 3 4 5
___
15. I spoke up against commercials that depicted violence against
women.
0 1 2 3 4 5
___
16. I spoke up when someone explained that women like to be
raped.
0 1 2 3 4 5
___
17. I spoke up when I heard someone say “she deserved to be
raped.”
0 1 2 3 4 5
___
18. I watched my drinks and my friends’ drinks at parties.
0 1 2 3 4 5
___
19. I made sure I left the party with the same people I came with.
0 1 2 3 4 5
___
20. I heard a sexist comment and indicated my displeasure.
0 1 2 3 4 5
___
Please read the list below and indicate the number of times you have actually
engaged in each of the BEHAVIORS below over the past 4 months. Please select
0 if you did not engage in this behavior over the past 8 weeks. If you engaged in this
93
behavior more than 5 times, please enter the number of times.
21. I saw a man and his girlfriend in a heated argument. The man’s
fist was clenched and his partner looked upset. I asked if
everything was ok.
0 1 2 3 4 5
___
22. I saw a man talking to a woman at a bar. He was sitting very
close to her and by the look on her face I could see she was
uncomfortable. I asked her if she was ok.
0 1 2 3 4 5
___
23. I encouraged people who said they had had unwanted sexual
experiences to keep quiet so they didn’t get others in trouble.
0 1 2 3 4 5
___
24. I knew information about an incident of sexual violence, and I
told authorities what I knew in case it is helpful.
0 1 2 3 4 5
___
25. I checked in with someone who looked drunk when s/he went
to a room with someone else at a party.
0 1 2 3 4 5
___
26. I challenged someone who used “ho,” “bitch,” or “slut” to
describe girls.
0 1 2 3 4 5
___
27. I confronted someone who planned to give someone alcohol to
get sex.
0 1 2 3 4 5
___
28. I refused to participate in activities where girls’ appearances are
ranked/rated.
0 1 2 3 4 5
___
Please read the list below and indicate the number of times you have actually
engaged in each of the BEHAVIORS below over the past 4 months. Please select
0 if you did not engage in this behavior over the past 8 weeks. If you engaged in this
behavior more than 5 times, please enter the number of times.
29. I confronted someone who was hooking up with someone who
was passed out.
0 1 2 3 4 5
___
30. I confronted someone when I heard rumors that s/he forced sex
on someone.
0 1 2 3 4 5
___
31. I reported someone who had committed a rape.
0 1 2 3 4 5
___
94
32. To keep someone out of trouble, I stopped them from
doing things that might meet the definition of sexual assault.
0 1 2 3 4 5
___
33. I intervened when I saw someone trying to take advantage of
someone else’s intoxicated state to have with them.
0 1 2 3 4 5
___
34. I discouraged someone from talking about women in sexually
degrading ways.
0 1 2 3 4 5
___
35. I interfered with another guy’s “action” because I thought it
might stop them from possibly committing a sexual assault.
0 1 2 3 4 5
___
95
APPENDIX M: SITUATIONAL FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONNAIRE
Situational Follow-Up Questionnaire
Directions: Please answer the following questions to the best of your ability.
1. Please indicate which of the following situations you were most recently in over the
last 4 months:
1. I saw a man talking to a woman at a bar. He was sitting very close to her and by
the look on her face I could see she was uncomfortable.
2. I saw someone’s drink get spiked with a drug.
3. I saw someone who looked drunk go to a room with someone else at a party.
4. I saw someone trying to take advantage of someone’s intoxicated state to have sex
with them.
5. I saw/heard about someone who was hooking up with someone who was passed
out.
6. I saw someone doing things that might meet the definition of sexual assault.
7. I was not in any of these situations in the past 4 months
2. Did you intervene or do anything to disrupt or help the situation?
A. Yes
B. No
3. If yes: How did you intervene (if you did not intervene, leave blank)?
__________________________________________________________
4. About how long ago did this happen in weeks? ________
5. Where were you when you saw this happen?
a) Dorm room
b) Bar
c) Fraternity/Sorority House
d) House party
e) Other _____________________________
6. Approximately how many drinks had you had when you witnessed this event?
___________
7. Approximately how long had you been drinking when this event occurred? ________
8. How impaired were you from alcohol use when this event occurred?
Not
impaired
A little
Somewhat
impaired impaired
Moderately
impaired
Impaired
Very
impaired
Extremel
y
96
1
2
3
4
5
impaired
7
6
9. How drunk were you from alcohol use?
Sober
Buzzed
Tipsy
Drunk
1
2
3
4
Very
Drunk
5
10. Estimate how many other people were present when this occurred.
______________
11. Of the people who were present, how many did you consider your “close friend” were
present when this event occurred? _______
12. What was your relationship to the (INSERT RESPONSE HERE) at the time of the
event?
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
Stranger
Acquaintance
Friend
Teammate
Sorority Sister/Fraternity Brother
Boyfriend/girlfriend
Casual date
Other ______________________
13. How close were you with the (INSERT RESPONSE HERE) at the time of the event?
Not
close
at all
1
Moderately
Close
2
3
4
Extremely
Close
5
6
7
14. What was the sex of the (INSERT RESPONSE HERE) at the time of the event?
i) Male
ii) Female
15. Was (INSERT RESPONSE HERE) under the influence of alcohol or drugs at the
time of the event?
A. Yes
B. No
97
C. I don’t know
16. What was your relationship to the person you (INSERT RESPONSE HERE) at the
time of the event?
A. Stranger
B. Acquaintance
C. Friend
D. Teammate
E. Sorority Sister/Fraternity Brother
F. Boyfriend/girlfriend
G. Casual date
H. Other ___________________
17. How close were you with the (INSERT RESPONSE HERE) at the time of the event?
Not
very
close
1
Moderately
close
2
3
4
Very
close
5
6
7
18. What was the sex of the (INSERT RESPONSE HERE) at the time of the event?
A. Male
B. Female
19. Was the (INSERT RESPONSE HERE) under the influence at the time of the event?
A. Yes
B. No
C. I don’t know
20. What your perception of the relationship between the person who (INSERT
RESPONSE HERE) and the person who (INSERT RESPONSE HERE) at the time of
the event?
A. Strangers
B. Acquaintances
C. Friends
D. People on a first date
E. Boyfriend and girlfriend
21. How close do you believe that these two people were?
Not
close
Moderately
close
Very
close
98
at all
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
22. On a scale from 1 to 7 where 1 = “No imminent danger posed” and 7 = “Most
imminent danger posed” how dangerous did you perceive the situation to be for
(INSERT RESPONDS HERE)
No
imminent
danger
posed
1
2
3
Moderate
imminent
danger
posed
4
5
6
Most
imminent
danger
posed
7
23. On a scale from 1 to 7 where 1 = “Not at all risky” and 7 = “Very risky” how much
physical risk (e.g., you would physically get hurt) did you perceive to be for
yourself?
Not at
all
risky
1
Moderately
risky
2
3
4
Very
risky
5
6
7
24. On a scale from 1 to 7 where 1 = “Not at all risky” and 7 = “Very risky” how much
social risk (e.g., you would lose friends) did you perceive to be for yourself?
Not at
all
risky
1
Moderately
risky
2
3
4
Very
risky
5
6
7
25. On a scale from 1 to 7 where 1 = “Not at all risky” and 7 = “Very risky” how much
legal risk (e.g., get arrested) did you perceive there to be for yourself?
Not at
all
risky
1
Moderately
risky
2
3
4
Very
risky
5
6
7
99
26. On a scale from 1 to 7 where 1 = “Not at all risky” and 7 = “Very risky” how much
emotional risk (e.g., you would be insulted, made fun of) did you perceive there to
be for yourself?
Not at
Moderately
all
risky
risky
1
2
3
4
5
6
27. Had someone already intervene in the situation you noticed?
A. Yes
B. No
Very
risky
7
28. How did the (INSERT RESPONSE HERE) react to your intervention, if you
intervened? (If you did not intervene, please leave blank)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
__________________
29. How did (INSERT RESPONSE HERE) react to your intervention? (If you did not
intervene, please leave blank
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
__________________
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Thesis and Dissertation Services
!