Bystander perceptions: Implications for university sexual assault prevention programs

Violence and Victims

www.springerpub.com/vv

With the Compliments of Springer Publishing Company, LLC

© 2012 Springer Publishing Company 563http://dx.doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.27.4.563

Violence and Victims, Volume 27, Number 4, 2012

Bystander Perceptions: Implications for University Sexual

Assault Prevention Programs

Lori E. Koelsch, PhDDuquesne University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Amy L. Brown, PhDUniversity of Louisiana at Lafayette

Leah Boisen, MADuquesne University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

The college party environment comprises a risk factor for unwanted sexual activity but may also provide a safety net, given the presence of bystanders who can potentially intervene in risky situations. Sexual assault prevention programs are increasingly incorporating bystander education into their designs. This article presents findings intended to inform these programs. Qualitative data from single-sex focus groups about typical college party behavior was analyzed for common themes. Analysis of these themes suggests that although some sexual behavior is visible at college parties, most sexual behavior is assumed to occur behind closed doors. In addition, intervention and prevention methods may vary by gender. Multiple factors appear to promote or dissuade bystander intervention in college party situations.

Keywords: sexual assault prevention programs; bystander intervention; college student parties; qualitative research

Despite years of study and multiple intervention strategies, sexual assault on college campuses remains a significant problem. Large national studies conducted for more than two decades indicate that between 11% and 15% of college women

have experienced a completed rape (Kilpatrick, Resnick, Ruggiero, Conoscenti, & McCauley, 2007; Koss, Gidycz, & Wisniewski, 1987; Tjaden & Thoennes, 1998). As many as 50% of college women have experienced some form of sexual victimization (Koss et al., 1987; Messman-Moore & Brown, 2006). Some researchers argue that the college party environment is conducive to sexual assault and rape (Armstrong, Hamilton, & Sweeney, 2006). One contributing factor is the culture of excessive alcohol consumption at college parties.

Binge drinking among college students is a largely social activity (Wechsler, Dowdall, Davenport, & Castillo, 1995), and most drinking among college students is done at parties and bars (Harford, Wechsler, & Seibring, 2002; Single & Wortley, 1993; Vogler, Webber,

Copyright © Springer Publishing Company, LLC

564 Koelsch et al.

Rasor, Bartz, & Levesque, 1994). As part of a campus sexual assault study, researchers found that incapacitated sexual assault was associated with victims’ substance abuse and the frequency of attendance at college fraternity parties (Krebs, Lindquist, Warner, Fisher, & Martin, 2009). This could partly be due to the fact that excessive alcohol consumption, among other effects, slows cognitive functioning and impairs decision-making ability (Peterson, Rothfleisch, Zelazo, & Pihl, 1990). Another important aspect of college culture appears to be the pursuit of sexual behavior outside of relationships or “ hooking up” (Bogle, 2008; Owen, Rhoades, Stanley, & Fincham, 2010; Vander Ven & Beck, 2010). When young adults consume large quantities of alcohol in social settings within a context that encourages casual sexual behavior, the risk of victimization and dangerous or regretted sexual behavior is very likely increased.

Alcohol use by the perpetrator and/or victim has been shown to be a risk factor for sexual assault and rape (Ullman, 2003). In a college sample, Lawyer, Resnick, Bakanic, Burkett, and Kilpatrick (2010) found that drug- and alcohol-related assaults were more common than nondrug- and nonalcohol-related assaults. Additionally, these assaults were most frequently associated with voluntary consumption of alcohol on the part of the victim. Literature reviews (Abbey, 2002; Testa, 2002) suggest that at least 50% of sexual assault incidents involved alcohol use by the perpetrator. Most these assaults are perpetrated by an individual known to the victim (Fisher, Daigle, & Cullen, 2010; Kilpatrick et al., 2007; Koss et al., 1987). Surveys of college students indicate that between 62% (Littleton, Grills-Taquechel, & Axsom, 2009) and 72% (Mohler-Kuo, Dowdall, Koss, & Wechsler, 2004) of female college student sexual assault victims were impaired or incapacitated during the time of the assault. The strong relationship between alcohol use and sexual assault among college students suggests that the key to reducing sexual assault lies in targeting heavy drinking (Testa & Livingston, 2009).

Sexual assault prevention programs come in various formats, although few directly target alcohol use (Testa & Livingston, 2009). Most programs aimed at college students provide information about sexual assault, including challenging rape myths; some programs aim to promote empathy with victims or teach skills to reduce sexual assault risk (Anderson & Whitson, 2005). Reviews indicate that educational programs appear to have some success at improving knowledge about rape and reducing rape-supportive attitudes on campus but show limited success at changing actual behaviors or at reducing the incidence of sexual assault (Anderson & Whitson, 2005; Breitenbecher, 2000). Programs aimed at women that include self-defense training have been shown to be more successful at improving self-efficacy and assertiveness but still have not been consistently shown to actually reduce the incidence of sexual victimization (Lonsway et al., 2009; Orchowski, Gidycz, & Raffle, 2008). One reason may be that seemingly reasonable strategies to promote safety (e.g., encourage students to limit alcohol consumption) are deemed undesirable by students in the college party environment. Students may consume alcohol in party environments for several factors such as lowering social inhibitions and acquiescing to peer pressure. In the minds of partygoers, the potential social costs of not consuming alcohol may be more salient than the risk of negative outcomes. Because engaging in sexual behavior while intoxicated appears to be a current norm of college culture, intervention programs aimed at reducing this behavior without addressing the larger social context are likely to encounter difficulty. Although it is and will continue to be important to educate women about risks and safety, additional interventions are necessary.

One method of intervention that is growing in popularity is to encourage peers to intervene against risky behavior during college party situations (Banyard, Plante, & Moynihan, 2004;


Bystander Perceptions 565

Berkowitz, 2002; Foubert, Langhinrichsen-Rohling, Brasfield, & Hill, 2010; Katz, 1995; McMahon, Postmus, & Koenick, 2011; Potter, Moynihan, Stapleton, & Banyard, 2009). There is reason to predict that programs promoting bystander intervention may be more effective than those targeting potential victims or perpetrators. If the potential victim and/or potential perpetrator are impaired due to alcohol intoxication, then other (less intoxicated) partygoers may have more ability to defuse potentially problematic situations. Furthermore, college students resist seeing themselves as vulnerable to negative events such as sexual assault (Weinstein, 1980) but acknowledge that their peers may be at risk. Therefore, college students may be more inclined to monitor their peers’ behavior than their own. Banyard and colleagues (2004) created a community-based model of sexual intervention based on their comprehensive review of the social psychology literature regarding bystander intervention. There is evidence that this approach of encouraging bystander responsibility has had some success at improving attitudes toward bystander intervention and even at increasing prosocial bystander behavior (Banyard, Moynihan, & Plante, 2007). Qualitative studies have found that all-male rape-prevention programs that include discussions of and training in bystander intervention may lead to long-term attitudinal and behavioral changes in fraternity members (Foubert & Perry, 2007) and in volunteer participants in The Men’s Project (Barone, Wolgemuth, & Linder, 2007).

Because research on and implementation of bystander intervention training programs is still in its early stages, it is necessary to better understand how college students conceptualize risky behavior and bystander intervention, especially in the party environment. One way to conceptualize this form of intervention is by using the bystander intervention model. Latané and Darley (1970) posit that in order for bystanders to intervene in a crisis situa-tion, they must (a) notice the situation, (b) interpret it as an emergency, (c) feel respon-sible, and (d) possess the necessary skills and resources for intervention. Burn (2009) has applied this model to intervention against sexual violence and found that barriers at each “step” of Latané and Darley’s model were negatively correlated with bystander interven-tion behavior. Specifically, Burn posited five barriers to bystander intervention: failure to notice, failure to identify a situation as risky, failure to take intervention responsibility, failure to intervene due to skills deficit, and failure to intervene due to audience inhibition. In summary, Burn’s study suggests that bystanders are less likely to intervene in at-risk sexual assault situations if they do not notice that sexual activity is occurring, do not rec-ognize the sexual situation as a potential assault, do not believe that they are responsible for stopping the assault, do not know how to successfully intervene to stop the assault, and/or experience social forces that prohibit them from intervening (such as a social norm to not interfere in friends’ sexual conquests). Additionally, Burn found that men were more likely than women to experience inhibition due to social forces.

Burn’s (2009) study and other quantitative research on bystander intervention in sexu-ally violent situations (e.g., Banyard, 2008; McMahon, 2010) are necessary for under-standing correlates of bystander attitudes and behaviors. However, they do not tell the whole story about how college students actually interpret and respond to situations that call for bystander intervention. This qualitative study was designed to explore how col-lege students, in their own words, conceptualize and understand risky sexual behavior and bystander intervention in the college party environment. With the goal of further inform-ing sexual assault prevention programs highlighting bystander intervention, this research focuses on two primary questions: (a) Do bystanders notice if a potential sexual assault is occurring at a party? (b) If so, what factors might motivate or prevent bystander interven-tion? The first research question was guided by Latané and Darley’s (1970) model, which


566 Koelsch et al.

proposed that the first step toward bystander intervention involves noticing the problem in the first place. It is as yet unclear the extent to which college students even attend to cues signaling potentially unwanted sexual activity in the party environment. In answering our second question, we were mindful of other stages of Latané and Darley’s model, such as assuming responsibility and perceptions of relevant intervention skills.

METHOD

Participants

Four male (n 5 27) and four female (n 5 24) focus groups each composed of four to nine participants were recruited via flyers and advertisements in college papers. The average age of participants was 20 years old (SD 5 1.14; age range 5 18–23); 35 participants (68.6%) identified as White, 5 as Black, 4 indicated Asian descent, 4 as Hispanic, 1 as Native American, and 2 identified with more than one racial category. Participants were paid for their time and were recruited from multiple colleges in a medium-sized northeastern city. Participants signed up for prescheduled group meeting times as per their availability. The participants in some groups were all enrolled in the same college, whereas other groups included students from separate schools. In general, it seemed that focus group members had not met one another beforehand, but three separate groups contained two participants who appeared to be acquainted.

Procedure

Semistructured focus group interviews were conducted to collect exploratory data about the correlates and consequences of alcohol use at college parties. Focus groups were considered an ideal method because they are particularly suited for exploratory studies (Fontana & Frey, 2000). Furthermore, because college parties are social events, group interviews may better replicate the environment in question than one-on-one interviews or surveys. In other words, decisions about bystander intervention occur in a social context, so recall of party-related attitudes and behaviors may be facilitated by the social context of focus group interviews.

Same-sex interviewers conducted each interview and the female1 lead researcher was present throughout all interviews. The semistructured interview questions addressed topics such as types of parties, alcohol consumption, and sexual behavior (see Appendix for portions of the interview guide2). The questions were developed in consultation with experienced focus group researchers and were piloted with a practice group. It is important to note that participants were not specifically asked about their own behavior at parties, but rather about behaviors they may have observed. Interviews were recorded and tran-scribed, and then portions of the transcription related to sexual behavior were extracted for analysis.

Data Analysis

Thematic analysis was guided by constructivist grounded theory (Charmaz, 2000). This form of grounded theory acknowledges that meanings and interpretations drawn from data are situated within a particular interaction and reading. The themes chosen for analysis were a function of the interview process and expertise of the researchers.3 Two researchers



independently coded the transcribed data for themes and agreed on five primary themes that occurred throughout the transcriptions. A third researcher then independently coded the transcripts in accordance with the themes. We further analyzed material on which all three coders agreed to present and analyze the most robust material. Coding was a complex procedure due to the taboo nature of sexual interactions and underage alcohol consumption. Participants often used vague and ambiguous terms to describe situations and behaviors. Because of this, we present many examples of coded material to provide support for the analysis.

RESULTS

The five identified themes were (a) intervention, (b) responsibility, (c) visibility of sexual behavior, (d) precautions and protection, and (e) negative aspects of sexual behavior. There was occasional overlap of coded material between themes, and some portions of the extracted transcription were not coded. Throughout this section, groups are identified by G (group num-ber, gender); groups 1–4 are female, and groups 5–8 are male. Each theme is described later.

Theme 1: Intervention

This theme contained information about when a bystander may intervene in a potentially risky sexual situation during a college party, why a bystander would (or would not) inter-vene, and how the bystander would intervene. Participants in all groups reported that there are times when intervention is necessary and provided differing examples as to when this might occur. Examples included times when a man is initiating sexual behavior with an unconscious woman (G1f, G4m, G6f); a man is initiating sexual behavior with a woman who is conscious but shows other signs of severe alcohol intoxication such as difficulty walking (G1f, G2f, G6m, G7m); an individual is having sexual relations with someone other than his or her committed partner (G4f, G7m); and when a woman is crying, vocalizing nonconsent, or physically resisting a man’s sexual advances (G3m, G5f, G7m, G8m).

Strategies of intervention included attempting to convince the man to discontinue his behavior (G1f, G3f, G4f, G5m, G8m), attempting to convince the woman to leave the party or discontinue contact with the man (G1f, G2f, G3f, G4f), involving an authority figure such as a bouncer or the police (G1f, G5m), physically positioning oneself between the man and woman without directly addressing the sexual interaction (G2f, G4f), or using physical intimidation with the man (G7m). In general, female participants provided more concrete strategies and examples of intervention than male groups. All male groups discussed intervening, but often they used vague terms such as “jump in” (G6m), “step in” (G5m, G8m), or “get involved” (G7m). Female group members more often gave instances when they or others had intervened or described detailed hypothetical situations. For example, one female group member described a hypothetical yet specific intervention strategy:

If a girl looks uncomfortable, even if you don’t know her and she’s with a guy, generally just approaching her and being like “hey I like your shirt” just to kind of give her a signal that you’re there to get her out of it. (G4f)

Male participants did not supply many specific real or hypothetical intervention scenarios. Instead, they tended to describe vague intervention strategies, for example, “if you’ve just really got a bad feeling about something, you know, you step in” (G8m).


568 Koelsch et al.

Some participants also suggested reasons why one might not intervene in a potentially risky sexual situation. Responses included a belief that the situation might be consensual (G1f, G2f, G3f, G4f, G7m, G8m), fear of physical violence (G5m, G6m, G8m), fear of being labeled a “cock blocker”4 (G4f, G5m), being unaware that the situation is occurring (G2f, G4f, G8m), and a sense that it is generally not one’s “business” (G3f, G5m, G7m, G8m). To illustrate the last response, one participant in G7m stated,

I hate to say it but if [I] don’t know what’s going on, I won’t even get myself involved . . . [because] you can spark something different, you can get yourself in trouble, and it is really nothing to do with you.

This quote also illustrates ambivalence about the nature of the sexual situation. In general, participants reported an awareness that sexual situations were difficult to judge externally, but some participants reported that they would be likely to intervene, if only to “check-in” with the woman. For example, a participant in G2f stated, “I would rather make people be uncomfortable or . . . have one of my friends have an awkward conversation with someone they know than me just watch it happen and not be able to do anything.”

Theme 2: Responsibility

This theme explicitly addressed who is responsible for women’s safety. Information drawn from this theme was complex and contradictory. There was often disagreement within focus groups when this topic was discussed, and not all groups discussed this topic. Alcohol intoxication was often discussed in the context of responsibility because it was generally assumed that an intoxicated woman has difficulty being responsible for her own behavior.

Some participants reported that women are responsible for their own safety, and that often, this is needed to be addressed prior to entering a party situation. One female participant (G1f) stated, “You can’t just plan to drink, you need to plan to do what you’re gonna do around that.” While discussing possible sexual assault during intoxication, another female participant stated, “Obviously it’s her fault too because no one is gonna put alcohol in her mouth and make her drink” (G3f). Part of the responsibility ascribed to women was to remain sober and in control or plan for protection while intoxicated. This theme overlapped with victim blame. A male participant (G7m) stated, “Don’t come to a party by yourself wearing a little halter top and skirt like too sexy.” A male participant in G8m echoed a similar sentiment, “If you’re a girl you don’t want to get into trouble, you have a choice not to go to the party where you don’t know anyone . . . it’s your own responsibility to take care of yourself.”

The previous two quotes also specifically addressed women who come to parties alone. Groups of women (and occasionally male friends) were generally seen as responsible for one another. If a woman is unable to control herself because she has consumed too much alcohol, then her friends are responsible for her safety. For example, a man in G6m stated, “Let’s say if a girl’s completely intoxicated and has no recollection of anything that’s going on, I think it’s more the responsibility of the girl’s friends to take care of her.” However, members of G1f also expressed ambivalence about being responsible for friends. One participant stated, “You weren’t hired to be their fricking bodyguard.” A participant in G8m seemed to agree that female friends are responsible, but ultimately “you gotta make sure you pick the right girlfriends,” indicating this is still the individual woman’s responsibility.



Lastly, some groups discussed the responsibility of men in party situations. One mem-ber of G6m reported that it was the responsibility of the party hosts to be aware of unsafe situations. Male friends can also be responsible to tell other men who appear to be over-stepping boundaries to “like ‘get the hell away from her’” (G6m). If the man involved in the sexual situation is drunk as well, responsibility can become complicated. For example, a participant in G3f reported that if both a man and woman are drunk, “and then they just happen to hook up, I don’t feel that it’s specifically the guy’s fault or specifically the girl’s fault, no matter how drunk both are.”

Theme 3: Visibility of Sexual Behavior

This theme addresses the ability of partygoers to actually see sexual behaviors as they are occurring. All groups described sexual activity that occurred at parties; however, descriptions of that activity were often vague. The activity reported ranged from sexual forms of dancing (“grinding”) to sexual intercourse with multiple partners. Participants evaluated and responded to visible sexual behavior (that they were not participating in) differently within groups. Some reactions included describing it as “gross” (G1f, G6m), cheering on the behavior (G6m), ignoring it (G6m, G7m), and kicking the participants out of the party (G6m). Discussions of visible behavior were often accompanied by laughter and humorous stories in the groups. Seven of the groups (all except G5m) reported that it was normal for partygoers to “make out” in public spaces during the party. “Making out” seemed to refer to kissing and light petting; additional forms of sexual behavior were reported to occur behind closed doors. For example a participant in G6m stated, “You see them making out and stuff, and then you might see them walk up stairs or something and [they] actually do get a room.” Some participants hypothesized that individuals at parties often engage in sexual behavior in the open because of poor judgment due to intoxication. For example, a participant from G2f stated, “You might be walking right past it [sexual activity]. They think they’re in a corner and you’re like ‘you’re really in the middle of a room.’”

All groups reported knowledge that sexual behaviors such as oral sex and intercourse occur at parties but added that this typically occurs in areas other than the main party area. Some group members reported actually seeing such behaviors, although typically by accident. One participant in G7m reported seeing a couple engaging in oral sex at a party but added that it was rare to see this behavior occurring in the main party area. However, the general extent to which there is sexual behavior at parties often seemed unclear to participants. A participant in G3f stated, “If it’s a house party . . . they leave the room and then you never know [what happened sexually].” Although some participants recounted consensual sexual encounters outside the main party area, one male participant (G5m) reported witnessing his friend engage in anal sex with a female partner despite her refusal (during what appeared to be otherwise consensual sexual intercourse).

Theme 4: Precautions and Protections

This theme contains information about ways in which college women can protect themselves against sexual assault. Included in this theme are protective behaviors that are initiated prior to any immediate threat of sexual assault, often before even entering the party. With one exception, this theme was only found in the female groups. All four female groups reported relying on other friends to help ensure safety from risky sexual incidents. Typically, this referred to female friends, but members of G2f also discussed


570 Koelsch et al.

having agreements with male friends who would pretend to be boyfriends if unknown men were to become sexually forward. A participant in G1f stated, “I think the safest way to prepare . . . is just be with people you trust.” The one male group (G8m) who discussed this theme also mentioned female friends, noting, “girls will watch out for each other,” and that women “travel in bunches.”

The process of keeping track of friends seems to be labor intensive. A member of G3f described protecting a particular friend who tends to become intoxicated at parties, “I keep track of her, and I’ll wait until finally someone can help . . . bring her home.” Keeping another individual safe requires extensive monitoring, which may disrupt the party experience for the ones responsible for such monitoring. Sometimes this “job” is left to sober individuals in the friendship group. A member of G4f reported that nondrinkers “always watch out for the people that are drinking.”

There was also discussion among groups regarding the quality of friends. G1f used the phrases “people who care about you” and “good friends” to specify whom one should attend parties with. Thus, it is important for female college students to first gain trusted groups of friends to attend parties safely.

Another precaution discussed extensively by G1f and G2f was carefully watching or covering one’s beverage to avoid being drugged. One member from G2f stated “If I put it [drink] down then it’s not getting picked up again . . . if I have to buy a new drink, I buy a new drink” to avoid the possibility of consuming a beverage that has been drugged. A member of G1f discussed the threat of being drugged in relation to having friends to watch out for her, “If you’re around people that care about you, even if you are roofied [drugged] you can have people to take care of you.”

Theme 5: Negative Aspects of Sexual Behavior

Focus group members occasionally discussed undesirable consequences of seemingly consensual sexual behavior. Many of the comments included discussions of behaviors while intoxicated. Even though an individual cannot legally consent to sexual behavior while intoxicated, these experiences were not labeled as sexual assault, and participants differentiated these from sexual assault and rape.

One category of negative sexual aspects included situations that were consensual during or after the party but were regretted the next day. Most of the groups (G1f, G2f, G5m, G6m, G8m) specifically mentioned the word “regret” when discussing negative consequences. Other groups did not specifically use the word “regret” but described instances that seemed to involve regret, for example, “And then the next day they’re like ‘I don’t know why I thought he was so nice’” (G4f), “You might wake up in the morning and be like ‘what did I do?’” (G3f), and “Sexual things that happen . . . like ‘oh man . . . I wish I didn’t hook up with that person’” (G7m). A subcategory of regret was related to the type of sexual partner, specifically, “[someone] you probably wouldn’t go with if you weren’t drunk” (G5m). On the reverse end of the spectrum, some groups mentioned the negative emotions involved in situations where a woman hoped that a hookup would lead to a continued relationship, and it did not (G4f, G6m).

Three of the four female groups also discussed how sexual behavior at parties could damage a woman’s reputation. Participants in G1f and G4f mentioned “the walk of shame.” One participant described this in detail:

At some frat houses . . . it’s called the walk of shame, where if you hook up with a girl at some party, the next morning when she leaves your dorm room, everybody comes out and



acknowledges that you guys slept together or they’ll have a board of pictures and stuff, and that might not have been the girl’s intention or the guy’s intention; they might have just been too drunk to realize that they had sex, who then people think of them as somebody who does that often. (G4f)

In this example, a one-time incident can permanently negatively affect a woman’s reputation and positively affect a man’s reputation. Similarly, a member of G1f reported that sexual behavior during parties can “show . . . bad character,” and a member of G3f reported that sexual behavior “can give you a reputation.”

Additional negative aspects included engaging in unprotected sex (G3f, G4f) with the possible result of contracting a sexually transmitted infection (G5m), becoming pregnant (G8m), or being unable to remember what sexual behavior had occurred the night before due to intoxication (G4f, G7m). Some of these comments included information about unwanted sexual experiences during or after consensual sexual experiences. For example, a participant in G1f stated, “If [someone] started making out with someone and it did not go well . . . [if] they were unwillingly groped or something like that,” indicating that although the initial contact was consensual, actions were then taken that were not consented to. A member of G4f stated, “A lot of times people don’t admit that [sexual behavior] was unwanted; they’re just like ‘oh I didn’t really care,’ but you could tell that they’re disappointed now.”

DISCUSSION

There has been support for the effectiveness of sexual assault prevention programs in general (Breitenbecher, 2000) and bystander intervention programs in particular (Banyard et al., 2007). The information gained from participants in this study provides a means for improving bystander intervention programs. In particular, this analysis was conducted to gather more information about the visibility of sexual behavior at college parties and factors that might motivate or deter bystander intervention. Results indicated that college students are willing to intervene, at least under certain conditions, to prevent potentially unwanted sexual activity, and that they are already aware of diverse strategies to prevent or reduce sexual assault risk. However, there are also significant barriers to effective intervention. Within these barriers, there is also evidence of gender differences, and these differences should be accounted for when designing and implementing bystander interven-tion programs.

Close examination of the visibility of sexual behavior theme suggests that some sexual behaviors are often visible at college parties. These include grinding (sexual dancing) and making out (kissing and minor petting). Behaviors such as oral sex and intercourse are assumed to happen but behind closed doors. With some notable excep-tions, participants in this study suggested that most sexual behaviors remain unknown to bystanders. After completing multiple interviews about hookup culture, Bogle (2008) suggested that the belief that sexual intercourse among acquaintances is common at col-lege campuses might be more widespread than the actual occurrences of intercourse. Because participants in this study were not asked about their own experiences, it is difficult to examine this hypothesis. However, it seems that participants in this study did believe that intercourse or oral sex during or immediately following college parties is common. This belief may influence the types of behaviors considered appropriate or “normal” at college parties. Further research should investigate this phenomenon. If


572 Koelsch et al.

bystanders believe that drunken hookups are a norm, they may be less likely to intervene in potentially risky sexual situations.

Analysis of the intervention and responsibility themes suggests multiple roadblocks for bystander intervention. Research by Vander Ven and Beck (2010) suggests that college stu-dents have already developed informal strategies to protect others against the risk of sexual assault while intoxicated. This research supports that finding; however, we found that this applied primarily to female college students. Banyard (2008) also found that women reported higher levels of bystander intervention in situations of interpersonal violence. If a woman is seen as the one primarily responsible for her own safety, then bystanders may feel less motivated to intervene in sexual situations.

In general, men appear to take an individualistic approach by indicating that they should stay out of other people’s business. Interestingly, the one male participant who strongly vocalized his proclivity to intervene reported that he had seen the negative effects of rape on a female friend. This suggests that increasing male empathy for rape survivors may increase intervention. One implication is that sexual assault intervention programs will have better success if there are separate programs for men and women. Men may benefit from programs that emphasize empathy and specific intervention strategies, whereas women may ben-efit from programs that include discussions of strategies that women already employ and encouragement to intervene when any woman (not just a friend) appears to be in a danger-ous situation. Furthermore, male bystander intervention groups should emphasize that the safety of women is a responsibility shared by both men and women. Men can be encouraged to observe the behavior of their own male friends and intervene appropriately.

In addition to these general observations, the five themes presented in the results section can be used to inform and expand Burn’s (2009) five barriers to bystander intervention in at-risk sexual situations. This study provides anecdotal support, additional factors for consideration, and potential points of intervention. We believe that these barriers must be understood to implement successful bystander intervention programs.

Barrier 1: Failure to Notice. Because some sexual behaviors (e.g., kissing, petting) are visible in the general college party and others (e.g., oral sex, intercourse) seem to occur in a secluded area, this presents an obvious barrier because sexual behavior occurring behind closed doors would not be noticed by bystanders. Bystanders may be trained to intervene at the time when a couple leaves the general party area after engag-ing in some form of visible sexual behavior. Women appear to have many strategies and should be encouraged to use them at that time. Men can be advised to notice the sexual behaviors of their friends. Additionally, some participants (particularly women) reported a plan to keep track of one another during college parties. Rather than noticing overt sexual behaviors, bystanders may be trained to notice when their friends have been absent from the general party area.

Barrier 2: Failure to Identify a Situation as Risky. Some things that add to this barrier are the difficulty to determine if a sexual situation is consensual or not and the normaliza-tion of regretted sexual behavior while intoxicated. Even if the sexual behavior is occurring in an open area, some participants expressed doubt that they would be able to determine if the behavior is consensual (absent clear resistance and vocalization by one of the parties). For example, if a bystander sees an unknown man escorting a very intoxicated woman into his car, it is not clear if the two are a long-term romantic couple, friends, strangers, and so forth. Furthermore, regretted sexual behavior while intoxicated seems to be an expected and sometimes celebrated aspect of college party culture. The ability to recognize sexual



violence is made more difficult in an environment where it is expected that individuals will engage in behavior (sexual and otherwise) that they will regret the next day. Bystander intervention programs, particularly those aimed at female college students, should include a critical discussion of alcohol and sexuality at college parties.

Barrier 3: Failure to Take Responsibility. This barrier was directly addressed in this study’s responsibility theme. Participants generally suggested that a woman’s safety is her own responsibility and that she should have a safety plan if she intends to drink alcohol. Some focus group discussions about women’s clothing choices echoed research about vic-tim blame (e.g., Workman & Freeburg, 1999) and rape myths (Clarke & Lawson, 2009). Some participants suggested that women who dress provocatively and/or drink to excess shoulder most of the responsibility for sexual assault. Bystanders may not intervene if they believe that each woman is responsible for her own safety. This could be construed as victim blame but may also be a misguided attempt at respecting each individual woman’s autonomy and choices. This tension needs to be acknowledged because it may be a sig-nificant reason why bystanders do not intervene. Men in particular seemed to believe that women were primarily responsible for their own safety and the safety of other women.

Barrier 4: Failure to Intervene Due to Skills Deficit. This category seemed to relate more to men than women. As described in the intervention theme, women reported various techniques that they use to intervene in potential sexual assault situations. Men, however, described vague means of intervention and seemed to be unsure how to intervene in ways that would not lead to physical confrontation. One suggestion for sexual assault prevention programs is to provide concrete examples and advice for male bystanders. If male college students are aware of some of these strategies, they may be more likely to intervene.

Barrier 5: Failure Due to Audience Inhibition. As noted, for some men, fear of physi-cal violence prevented intervention. Additionally, some focus group members suggested that private intimate interactions were simply not their business. Bystanders may worry about the social consequences of becoming involved if the potential assailant is socially influential or if the bystander has misinterpreted the situation and there actually was no threat of sexual assault. If bystander intervention programs can provide skills for defus-ing potential sexual assault situations without specifically accusing one party of being a predator, bystanders may be more likely to intervene in ambiguous or socially awkward situations.

Limitations and Conclusions

There were some limitations to this study. There may be limited generalizability due to the small sample size. Although the sample was somewhat diverse, “party culture” may differ due to location and cultural makeup of a college or university. Because we were interested in observations and experiences related to college parties, students who did not attend par-ties at least occasionally were excluded from the sample. Additionally, although informa-tion about living arrangements was not assessed, comments made by participants suggested that most lived on-campus or in off-campus student housing. As such, the results may not be generalizable to students who still live at home and/or those who attend parties infre-quently. Similarly, due to the nature of the analysis, race was not considered, and this should be a component of future studies. Another important factor was that the interviews were conducted in an academic setting, and participants were assumed to be sober at the time


574 Koelsch et al.

of the interview. Although focus group interviews were conducted to simulate the social nature of a party, in many ways, the setting was very dissimilar to the actual college party environment, which may have affected the responses. However, college party descriptions seemed similar to those observed by Armstrong et al. (2006) in their ethnographic study and the descriptions provided by participants in Bogle’s (2008) qualitative study. Finally, due to the taboo or uncomfortable nature of the subject matter, participant responses were occasionally vague, and thus open to multiple interpretations (e.g., the meaning of “make out”). Researchers who conduct further qualitative studies about this topic should be aware of this phenomenon and further query participants if responses are too vague.

In conclusion, engaging bystanders to confront and prevent sexual violence is an excit-ing and promising strategy. It is crucial that program design be based on a well-developed understanding of how college students perceive and interpret potentially risky sexual behavior. This study helps develop that understanding by elucidating some of the barriers must be overcome and illuminating some potentially significant differences in how men and women see their roles as bystanders. However, this study also provides optimism regarding the success of such programs; the college students interviewed for this study recognized the danger of sexual assault and most were willing to do something to help prevent it. With proper training, they may become engaged and effective bystanders.

NOTES

1. During the male focus groups, the second author, as the female lead researcher, sat outside the circle of participants but asked questions toward the end of the interview. She was present during the male focus groups to assure that the same information was covered in both the male and female groups. Although it is impossible to assess if her presence affected the male groups, she reported that male members seemed to ignore her, except once when a male group member apologized to her for making a sexist comment (it should be noted that her presence did not inhibit this participant from making this comment).

2. Interview questions unrelated to the focus of this manuscript were removed for the sake of brevity.

3. The second author is trained in social psychology and quantitative methods, and the first author is trained in clinical psychology and qualitative methods. During the initial thematic analy-sis, we found that we thought about themes differently due to our particular orientations; however, through discussion, we found that we actually had very similar ideas, and many disagreements were found to actually be differences in discipline-specific terminology. We believe that these differences enriched rather than detracted from our thematic analysis.

4. A “cock blocker” is an individual who prevents sexual activity from occurring when one or more party (usually the male party) desires sexual activity.

REFERENCES

Abbey, A. (2002). Alcohol-related sexual assault: A common problem among college students. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, Supplement, 14, 118–128.

Anderson, L. A., & Whitson, S. C. (2005). Sexual assault education programs: A meta-analytic examination of their effectiveness. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 29, 959–986.

Armstrong, E. A., Hamilton, L., & Sweeney, B. (2006). Sexual assault on campus: A multilevel, integrative approach to party rape. Social Problems, 53(4), 483–499.



Banyard, V. L. (2008). Measurement and correlates of pro-social bystander behavior: The case of interpersonal violence. Violence and Victims, 23, 83–97. http://dx.doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708. 23.1.83

Banyard, V. L., Moynihan, M. M., & Plante, E. G. (2007). Sexual violence prevention through bystander education: An experimental evaluation. Journal of Community Psychology, 35(4), 463–481. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jcop.20159.

Banyard, V. L., Plante, E. G., & Moynihan, M. M. (2004). Bystander education: Bringing a broader community perspective to sexual violence prevention. Journal of Community Psychology, 32(1), 61–79. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jcop.10078

Barone, R. P., Wolgemuth, J. R., & Linder, C. (2007). Preventing sexual assault through engaging college men. Journal of College Student Development, 48, 585–594.

Berkowitz, A. D. (2002). Fostering men’s responsibility for preventing sexual assault. In P. A. Schewe (Ed.), Preventing violence in relationships. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Bogle, K. A. (2008). Hooking up: Sex, dating, and relationships on campus. New York: New York University Press.

Breitenbecher, K. H. (2000). Sexual assault on college campuses: Is an ounce of prevention enough? Applied and Preventative Psychology, 9, 23–52.

Burn, S. M. (2009). A situational model of sexual assault prevention through bystander intervention. Sex Roles, 60, 779–792.

Charmaz, K. (2000). Grounded theory: Objectivist and constructivist methods. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 509–536). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Clarke, A. K., & Lawson, K. L. (2009). Women’s judgments of a sexual assault scenario: The role of prejudicial attitudes and victim weight. Violence and Victims, 24(2), 248–64.

Fisher, B. S., Daigle, L. E., & Cullen, F. T. (2010). Unsafe in the ivory tower: The sexual victimization of college women. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Fontana, A., & Frey, J. H. (2000). The interview: From structured questions to negotiated text. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 645–672). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Foubert, J. D., Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J., Brasfield, H., & Hill, B. (2010). Effects of a rape awareness program on college women: Increasing bystander efficacy and willingness to intervene. Journal of Community Psychology, 38 (7), 813–827. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jcop.20397

Foubert, J. D., & Perry, B. C. (2007). Creating lasting attitude and behavior change in fraternity mem-bers and male student athletes: The qualitative impact of an empathy-based rape prevention pro-gram. Violence Against Women, 13(1), 70–86. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1077801206295125.

Harford, T. C., Wechsler, H., & Seibring, M. (2002). Attendance and alcohol use at parties and bars in college: A national survey of current drinkers. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 63, 726–733.

Katz, J. (1995). Reconstructing masculinity in the locker room: The Mentors in Violence Prevention project. Harvard Educational Review, 65, 163–174.

Kilpatrick, D. G., Resnick, H. S., Ruggiero, K. J., Conoscenti, L. M., & McCauley, J. M. (2007). Drug-facilitated, incapacitated, and forcible rape: A national study (NCJ 219181). Washington, DC: Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.

Krebs, C. P., Lindquist, C. H., Warner, T. D., Fisher, B. S., & Martin, S. L. (2009). The differential risk factors of physically forced and alcohol- or other drug-enabled sexual assault among university women. Violence and Victims, 24(3), 302–321.

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.

Latané, B., & Darley, J. M. (1970). The unresponsive bystander: Why doesn’t he help? Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.


576 Koelsch et al.

Lawyer, S., Resnick, H., Bakanic, V., Burkett, T., & Kilpatrick, D. (2010). Forcible, drug-facilitated, and incapacitated rape and sexual assault among undergraduate women. Journal of American College Health, 58(5), 453–460).

Littleton, H., Grills-Taquechel, A., & Axsom, D. (2009). Impaired and incapacitated rape victims: Assault characteristics and post-assault experiences. Violence and Victims, 24(4), 439–457. http://dx.doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.24.4.439

Lonsway, K. A., Banyard, V. L., Berkowitz, A. D., Gidycz, C. A., Katz, J. T., & Koss, M. P. (2009). Rape prevention and risk reduction: Review of the research literature for practitioners. VAWnet: The National Online Research Center on Violence Against Women, January 1–20. http://www .vawnet.org/sexual-violence/summary.php?doc_id=1655&find_type=web_desc_AR

McMahon, S. (2010). Rape myth beliefs and bystander attitudes among incoming college students. Journal of American College Health, 59, 3–11.

McMahon, S., Postmus, J. L., & Koenick, R. A. (2011). Conceptualizing the engaging bystander approach to sexual violence prevention on college campuses. Journal of College Student Development, 52, 115–130.

Messman-Moore, T. L., & Brown, A. L. (2006). Risk perception, rape, and sexual revictimization: A prospective study of college women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30, 159–172.

Mohler-Kuo, M., Dowdall, G. W., Koss, M. P., & Wechsler, H. (2004). Correlates of rape while intoxicated in a national sample of college women. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 65, 37–45.

Orchowski, L. M., Gidycz, C. A., & Raffle, H. (2008). Evaluation of a sexual assault risk reduction and self-defense program: A prospective analysis of a revised protocol. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 32, 204–218.

Owen, J. J., Rhoades, G. K., Stanley, S. M., & Fincham, F. D. (2010). “Hooking up” among college students: Demographic and psychosocial correlates. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39, 653–663. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10508-008-9414-1

Peterson, J. B., Rothfleisch, J., Zelazo, P. D., & Pihl, R. O. (1990). Acute alcohol intoxication and cognitive functioning. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 51, 114–122.

Potter, S. J., Moynihan, M. M., Stapleton, J. G., & Banyard, V. L. (2009). Empowering bystanders to prevent campus violence against women. Violence Against Women, 15, 106–121.

Single, E., & Wortley, S. (1993). Drinking in various settings as it relates to demographic variables and level of consumption: Findings from a national survey in Canada. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 54, 590–599.

Testa, M. (2002). The impact of men’s alcohol consumption on perpetration of sexual aggression. Clinical Psychology Review, 22, 1239–1263.

Testa, M. & Livingston, J. A. (2009). Alcohol consumption and women’s vulnerability to sexual vic-timization: Can reducing women’s drinking prevent rape? Substance Use & Misuse, 44(9–10), 1349–1376. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10826080902961468

Tjaden, P., & Thoennes, N. (1998). Prevalence, incidence, and consequences of violence against women: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey (Research in Brief, NCJ 172837). Washington, DC: Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice and U.S. Department of Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Ullman, S. E. (2003). A critical review of field studies on the link of alcohol and adult sexual assault in women. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 8, 471–486.

Vander Ven, T., & Beck, J. (2010). Getting drunk and hooking up: An exploratory study of the rela-tionship between alcohol intoxication and casual coupling in a university sample. Sociological Spectrum, 29, 626–648. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02732170903051417

Vogler, R. E., Webber, N. E., Rasor, R., Bartz, W. R., & Levesque, J. (1994). What college students need to know about drinking. Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education, 39, 99–112.

Wechsler, H., Dowdall, G. W., Davenport, A., & Castillo, S. (1995). Correlates of college student binge drinking. American Journal of Public Health, 85, 921–926.



Weinstein, N. D. (1980). Unrealistic optimism about future life events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 806–820.

Workman, J. E., & Freeburg, E. W. (1999). An examination of date rape, victim dress, and perceiver variables within the context of attribution theory. Sex Roles, 41, 261–277.

Acknowledgments. This research was supported by a grant awarded to the second author through the Research Development Program at the Research Institute on Addictions, University at Buffalo, State University of New York. We would like to thank Hannah Fassel, Carol Marx, and Tom Yufik for their assistance conducting and transcribing focus group interviews.

Correspondence regarding this article should be directed to Lori E. Koelsch, PhD, Psychology Department, Duquesne University, Pittsburgh, PA 15282. E-mail: [email protected]


578 Koelsch et al.

APPENDIX

Focus Group Question Protocol

1. Basically, I’m just trying to get a better idea of what the party scene is like for people your age. Can anyone tell me what the typical party is like for people in your social group?

a. Are there different categories of parties that you’re aware of?

b. What are the similarities—if there are any—between these different types of social gatherings?

c. (If people have described very different types of parties . . .) For the remainder of this discussion, I’m mostly interested in the general category of “parties” that all the different types of gatherings you’ve mentioned fit into. But if you think that some of the topics that we talk about are only relevant to certain types of parties, or if you think the experiences are very different in different types of parties, it would be great if you could be specific about the relevant party situation in your response.

2. Probe 1: Drinking (5 minutes) a. How important is drinking at parties?

b. Why do people like to drink at parties?

c. Are there things that happen at parties because people are drinking that maybe wouldn’t happen if there wasn’t alcohol?

3. I’m also interested in sexual activity that goes on at parties. (If sex has already been mentioned, follow up on what was said; 10–15 minutes)

a. What kinds of sexual activity occur at parties?

i. (if “hooking up” isn’t already mentioned) I’ve heard people talk about “hookups.” Do people go to parties to hook up?

ii. What happens in a hookup?

b. How do you know that these kinds of activities happen at parties?

c. I’m interested in what sorts of behaviors are actually observable. Even if most sexual activity happens in private, are there things that happen in the open that are likely to lead to sexual activity?

d. What do you think of these kinds of activities (any party-related sexual behavior—whether it occurs in public or private)? When this stuff occurs, is it a good thing or a bad thing?

i. (Probe for negative aspects of sex at parties and find out what makes sexual encounters potentially negative.)

e. Do you think sexual activity ever occurs when one person doesn’t want it to?

f. How would you know if unwanted sexual activity was occurring?

4. Now, I want to find out about a few specific kinds of situations and if you’ve ever been aware of something like that happening. (If any of these events have already been mentioned, just ask for more information; 10–15 minutes)

a. I’m curious about things like someone slipping a drug in someone’s drink. I know we’ve all heard stories about “date rape drugs” and stuff, but has anyone actually known it to happen?

b. What happened and how did you know about it?

c. What about situations where a girl is really drunk—like she’s having major problems walking or talking—and a guy tries to engage in sexual activity with her. Have you ever known of anything like that to happen?



d. What happened and how did you know about it?

e. (Probe for what they’ve heard about after the fact and what could have been known about when it was happening.)

f. We talked earlier about people maybe intervening to keep something bad from happening when we talked about drunk driving and fights. Are there situations where there might be reasons for someone to intervene if something sexual is going on?

g. Why might people be unlikely to intervene in sexual situations, even if something bad was happening?

h. What might make a person more likely to intervene?


Bystander perceptions: Implications for university sexual assault prevention programs

Documents

Transcript of Bystander perceptions: Implications for university sexual assault prevention programs