THE EFFECTS OF EXPOSURE TO CONSEQUENCES OF BYSTANDER INTERVENTION

ON INTENTIONS TO INTERVENE IN INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE

SITUATIONS

By

NICOLE OLA CAMERON

A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY Edward R. Murrow College of Communication

JULY 2018

© Copyright by NICOLE OLA CAMERON, 2018 All Rights Reserved

© Copyright by NICOLE OLA CAMERON, 2018 All Rights Reserved

ii

To the Faculty of Washington State University: The members of the Committee appointed to examine the dissertation of NICOLE OLA

CAMERON find it satisfactory and recommend that it be accepted.

Stacey J. T. Hust, Ph.D., Chair

Alexis Tan, Ph.D.

Jessica Fitts Willoughby, Ph.D.

Kathleen Boyce Rodgers, Ph.D.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

Leaving home to live and study in a foreign country is a challenge, so I am grateful to

everyone who contributed my journey to accomplish this task. I thank my husband, Patrick, who

unwaveringly supported my decision to leave home for four long years. As my number one

supporter, and cheerleader, all my achievements are his as well.

I also thank my advisor, Dr. Stacey Hust, for always being there to help clarify my ideas,

to review my work and to mold me into a better scholar. Without her support and brilliance, this

dissertation and my time at Murrow would not be the same. I am forever indebted. I am also

grateful to my other committee members, Dr. Alexis Tan, Dr. Kathleen Boyce Rodgers and Dr.

Jessica Fitts Willoughby for their guidance and feedback throughout this process. I also thank

my other professors who contributed to my understanding of research and whose love for

knowledge will live with me always.

I am also grateful to my family, which includes my church family here in Pullman, and

back home in Jamaica. My family never fails to support me in whatever I do, and I am truly

grateful. In Pullman, I found a church family that made my constant homesickness easier to bear.

I truly appreciate every interaction, and all the opportunities to serve.

One of the joys of graduate school is also the lifelong bonds that develop. I thank all my

friends on campus, and I am truly excited to watch all our careers grow.

I thank a loving God who provides me with all the people in my life, all the blessings I

enjoy, and who watches over me during the difficult times.

iv

THE EFFECTS OF EXPOSURE TO CONSEQUENCES OF BYSTANDER INTERVENTION

ON INTENTIONS TO INTERVENE IN INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE

SITUATIONS

Abstract

by Nicole Ola Cameron, Ph.D. Washington State University

July 2018

Chair: Stacey J. T. Hust

Widespread acts of violence within romantic relationships have created a worldwide public

health epidemic, with approximately one in three women reporting having experienced either

physical or sexual violence by their partners in their lifetime. College students also report

experiencing high rates of intimate partner violence on college campuses. Previous studies

suggest that bystander intervention is extremely effective at reducing campus violence as it

promotes a community response to violence. However, ways to increase bystander intervention

is needed. Entertainment-education is one strategy that could prove useful. Despite its proven

effectiveness to promote attitude and behavior change, it is unclear how one important

mechanism of EE works. EE programs use rewards and punishment of prosocial attitudes and

behaviors to increase motivation to adopt those behaviors. However, research is yet to examine

the effects on viewers’ intentions to intervene in situations of intimate partner violence.

v

The purpose of the study was to investigate these effects on viewers’ attitudes, normative

and self-efficacy perceptions, in addition to their intentions to intervene. This study also

investigated the role identification with key characters in EE messages play in predicting

prosocial attitudes and intentions. An online pre-posttest experiment was conducted in which

participants (n=424) completed the pretest, watched three short videos in each experimental

condition and then answered the posttest measures. Results indicate that mere exposure to

consequences of bystander intervention was not a strong motivating factor. However, gender was

a significant factor. Women exhibited lower rape myth acceptance, higher intentions to

intervene, and more positive normative and self-efficacy perceptions. Results also indicate that

identification with bystanders was a strong predictor of prosocial attitudes. The results suggest

that EE messages aimed at increasing motivation through bystander education should consider

multiple motivational factors. Finally, the results demonstrate that gender differences are

important factors when developing messages for health-based interventions related to romantic

and sexual relationships.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................................................ iii

ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................. iv

LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................ vii

LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................................... viii

CHAPTER

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................ 1

CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ..................................................... 6

CHAPTER THREE: MESSAGE STIMULI PRETESTING ............................................ 29

CHAPTER FOUR: MAIN STUDY METHODS .............................................................. 44

CHAPTER FIVE: RESULTS ............................................................................................ 51

CHAPTER SIX: DISCUSSION ........................................................................................ 65

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 74

APPENDICES

APPENDIX I: PILOT STUDY MATERIALS ................................................................. 98

APPENDIX II: MAIN STUDY MATERIALS ................................................................ 103

vii

LIST OF TABLES

Page

Table 3.1: Scripts and Descriptions for Message Stimuli.. ........................................................... 30

Table 3.2: Post Hoc Multiple Comparisons for Identifying Character Roles ............................... 37

Table 3.3: Post Hoc Multiple Comparisons for all Videos for Identifying Character Roles ........ 38

Table 3.4: Results of the One-way ANOVA and Post Hoc Multiple Comparisons

For Identifying Consequences of Bystander Intervention ........................................... 39

Table 5.1: Descriptive Statistics of Key Measures ....................................................................... 51

Table 5.2: Results of the Factorial ANOVA predicting Effects of Exposure to

Differential Consequences to on Outcome Measures ................................................. 56

Table 5.3: Regression Models Predicting Effects of Identification

with the Bystander after Exposure to Positive Consequences .................................... 60

Table 5.4: Regression Models Predicting Effects of Identification

with the Bystander after Exposure to Negative Consequences .................................. 62

Table 5.5: Regression Models Predicting Effects of Identification

with the Bystander to Negative Consequences ........................................................... 64

viii

LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Figure 5.1: Estimated Marginal Means of Rape Myth Acceptance .............................................. 52

Figure 5.2: Estimated Marginal Means of Normative Perceptions ............................................... 53

Figure 5.3: Estimated Marginal Means of Perceived Efficacy ..................................................... 54

Figure 5.4: Estimated Marginal Means of Intentions to Intervene ............................................... 55

Figure 5.5: Interaction Effects of Gender and Identification on

Perceived Norms ......................................................................................................... 58

Figure 5.6: Interaction Effects of Gender and Identification on

Rape Myth Acceptance ............................................................................................... 63

ix

Dedication

To Brittany

1

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

Widespread acts of violence within romantic relationships have created a worldwide public

health epidemic with approximately one in three women reporting having experienced either

physical or sexual violence by their partners in their lifetime (WHO, 2017). In addition, 38%

percent of murders of women worldwide are committed by a male intimate partner (WHO,

2017). Domestic violence, dating violence, spousal abuse or intimate partner violence are terms

used to describe violence that occurs within romantic relationships. Both married and unmarried

individuals, and men and women, are at risk of this type of violence. However, worldwide,

women are the main victims of such violence and suffer the most (Hamberger & Larsen, 2015).

As a subset of interpersonal violence, intimate partner violence is characterized by acts of

aggression involving physical assault, sexual assault, financial abuse, coercive controlling

behaviors and attitudes aimed at a current or former intimate partner (Catalano, 2013). Victims

of these acts of aggression suffer in numerous ways including depression, physical injury,

sexually transmitted diseases, post-traumatic stress disorder and suicide attempts (Krug et al,

2002; Garcia – Moreno et al, 2005).

Young adults fall prey to acts of violence in their intimate relationships as well. One

review highlights that approximately 80% of college students report being either the victim or

perpetrator of some type violence in their romantic relationships (Dardis, Dixon, Edwards, &

Turchik, 2015). Furthermore, approximately 20% to 30% of college dating couples report

experiencing at least one act of physical aggression from their dating partners (Renison and

Rand, 2003; Jain et al, 2010; Shorey, Cornelius, & Bell, 2008). On college campuses, intimate

2

partner violence puts college students at risk of academic underperformance in addition to the

known health risks (DeKeseredy and Schwartz, 1998; Mason & Smithey, 2012). Some young

adults are at a higher risk of intimate partner violence due to risk factors such as a history of

abuse in their relationships, and individual characteristics such as low self-esteem and heavy

alcohol and drug use. In addition, environmental influences such as community violence, weak

community sanctions against intimate partner violence, and widespread attitudes accepting

violence put individuals at risk as well (Capaldi, Knoble, Shortt & Kim, 2012; Kaukinen, 2014;

WHO, 2017).

Given the high rates of intimate partner violence, strategies to lower risk and to prevent

campus violence are needed. Some scholars argue that bystander intervention is the most

effective means of campus interpersonal violence reduction (Banyard, 2011; Berkowitz, 2002).

A bystander is one who is not directly involved in the violent act, but who is present, and

therefore has the potential to intervene (Latane` & Darley, 1970; Banyard, 2011). Bystanders can

act in numerous ways such as preventing the act of violence if warning signs are present,

stopping the act of violence, calling an authority such as the police, helping the victim or

restraining the perpetrator, or speaking up when negative attitudes are expressed (Bennet,

Banyard & Garnhart, 2013). The aim of bystander intervention programs is to train bystanders to

feel responsible, and equip them to act, in relevant and effective ways, to intervene in potentially

violent situations (Banyard, 2011). The main method of bystander programming on college

campuses involves student workshops, and at times media campaigns, to increase bystander

3

intervention behaviors (Banyard, 2011; Burn, 2008; Potter, Moynihan, Stapleton & Banyard,

2009).

However, there are disadvantages of these methods. They are time consuming, and

oftentimes, it is difficult to keep students aware and engaged post-workshop or campaign. The

use of mainstream media, however, can aid in this regard due to their mass appeal, reach and

constancy. Previous research has investigated the associations and effects of different media on

intentions to intervene in situations of intimate partner violence (Hust, Marett, Ren, Adams,

Willoughby, Lei & Norman, 2014). For example, correlational research found that exposure to

print magazines that contained stereotypical portrayals of women was associated with less

intention to intervene (Hust, Marett, et al., 2014). In contrast, exposure to television crime

dramas has been associated with increased intentions to intervene (Hust, et al., 2013).

Despite these observations, research has not yet explored all the mechanism involved in

using media to promote prosocial attitudes. The average daily television viewing among

Americans aged 18 to 24 years was 12 ½ hours per week (Market Charts, 2017). Additionally,

60% of young adults in this age range watch or subscribe to streaming services such as Netflix,

and approximately 31% are frequent users of cable television providers (Rainie, 2017). Such

high media use provides the opportunity to integrate media strategies into prosocial promotions

among this population. Entertainment programs that incorporate prosocial messages are

especially suitable to reach viewers because audience members tend to exhibit less negative

reactance due to the perception that they are not being deliberately targeted for health

interventions (Moyer-Guse`, 2008). In addition, approaches such as the entertainment-education

4

strategy, that uses narratives and masked messages, are especially effective in reaching difficult

audiences (Moyer-Guse`, 2008). Such programming has been effective in promoting positive

health outcomes related to interpersonal violence, such as sexual assault prevention on college

campuses (Hust, Adams, Willoughby, Ren, Lei, Ran & Marett., 2017). However, there is a

dearth of studies that investigate how exposure to such media affects audience members’

attitudes and intentions related to intimate partner violence. Specifically, research is needed to

understand how exposure to consequences of bystander intervention may affect audience

members’ motivational processes.

The purpose of the current study is to examine the effects of exposure to differential

consequences of bystander intervention on study participants’ intentions to intervene. Media can

provide viewers with vicarious experiences that can help to influence and/or change attitudes and

behaviors toward any issue (Bandura, 2001). Social cognitive theory (Bandura; 1986; 2001) and

the integrated model of behavioral prediction (Fishbein & Yzer, 2003; Fishbein & Capella, 2006)

are useful theoretical lens with which to study how such exposure may influence viewers’

intentions to intervene in situations involving intimate partner violence. Social cognitive media

argues that individuals learn vicariously by observing others in their environment (Bandura,

2001). Symbolic environments, such as the media, provide these opportunities and individuals

learn from the behavioral models and the consequences observed. Furthermore, people are more

likely to help in low-cost rather than high-cost situations (Banyard, Plante, & Moynihan, 2004;

Fritzsche, Finklestein, & Penner, 2000), however, there has not been much research into this area

of bystander intervention, especially with a communication focus. The question remains as to

5

how treatment of bystanders in movies and television shows affects viewers’ intentions to

intervene. Additionally, this study investigates how persuasive mechanisms, such as

identification, affect individuals. Experimental research that focuses on portrayals of the

consequences associated with bystander intervention, along with an investigation of the potential

effects of models in the media on bystander intentions, will give a more comprehensive

understanding of the role of media and media portrayals in helping to mitigate intimate partner

violence.

This study contributes to the literature by identifying the effects of exposure to media, as

well as the influence of other factors. Additionally, how exposure to such media influences more

proximal outcomes such as individuals’ attitudes, normative perceptions, and efficacy

evaluations related to intimate partner violence and bystander intervention will also be explored.

The results will have implications for media programming, intimate partner violence intervention

research and intervention, and media literacy. Some of the complexities involved in media

images, and the promotion of prosocial intentions and behaviors will also be highlighted.

6

CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Background

Intimate Partner Violence among Young Adults

Approximately 33% of women in the United States report experiencing physical abuse in

their lifetime (Smith, Chen, Basile, Gilbert, Merrick, Patel, Walling & Jain, 2017). Although

intimate partner violence or domestic violence involving adult cohabiting partners attracts much

public attention, violence among adolescents and young adults is equally disturbing. Violence in

romantic relationships often begins to surface during the adolescent years and progresses into

young adulthood and later adulthood (Dardis, Dixon, Edwards, & Turchik, 2015). Some young

adults are at the highest risk for violence in their relationships, due to multiple factors including a

history of abuse, individual characteristics and environmental influences, with over 80% of

college students reporting experiencing some form of aggression in their relationship while in

college (Dardis et al., 2015). Additionally, 20% to 35% of college dating couples report

experiencing at least one act of physical aggression during their college years, with 70% to 90%

experience psychological aggression, and 3% to 20% experience sexual aggression each year

(Eg. Fass, Benson, & Leggett, 2008; Gover, Kaukinen, & Fox, 2008; Sabina & Straus, 2008;

Shorey, Cornelius, & Bell, 2008). One longitudinal study, which tracked a group of adolescents

from high school to their senior year in college, found that overall 88% of women experienced at

least one incident of physical violence or sexual victimization, and 63.5% experienced both from

a romantic partner at some point over the time period (Smith, White & Holland, 2003).

7

Furthermore, college rapists are more likely to be current or former romantic partners (Fisher,

Daigle & Cullen, 2010).

The risk factors for violence in young adult romantic relationships are varied. For

example, college students with disabilities are twice more likely to experience intimate partner

violence than students without disabilities (Scherer, Snyder, & Fisher, 2016). Another risk factor

is race, with African Americans more likely to be both victims and perpetrators of violence, and

Asian Americans less likely to be either victims or perpetrators. Additional risk factors include

exposure to parental and community violence, having a history of exposure to violence in

romantic relationships, negative emotional states and mental health, and substance use and abuse

(Kaukinen & Jordan, 2014; Kinsfogel & Grych, 2004). On college campuses, sorority women

who date fraternity men are also at greater risk of experiencing sexual assault within their

romantic relationships (Norris, Nurius & Dimeff, 1996; Minow and Einolf, 2009).

The effects of intimate partner violence are extremely costly to the individuals involved,

to families, communities and nations. In the general population, as well as among young adults,

effects include PTSD in tandem with disrupted maternal bond between female victims and their

children, depression, self-esteem problems, confusion, sleep difficulty, social isolation, stress,

anxiety disorders, eating disorders, alcohol misuse, unwanted pregnancies, STIs, injuries, suicide

attempts, and fatalities (Boeckel, Wagner, & Grassi-Oliveira, 2017; Fletcher, 2010; Karakurt,

Smith, & Whiting, 2014; Bonomi, Anderson, Reid, Rivara, Carrell & Thompson, 2009; WHO,

2017). Moreover, there are high financial costs associated with health care, police investigations,

family, and legal involvement in situations of intimate violence (Andresen & Linning, 2014;

8

Logan, Walker, & Hoyt, 2012; Wong, 2015). The need for interventions and strategies to reduce

intimate partner violence becomes even more urgent when these costs are considered.

An important element to consider in discussions of intimate partner violence is gender.

There is much debate over whether intimate partner violence is a gendered issue. Feminists

originally framed intimate partner violence through a neo-Marxists lens, establishing it as a

gendered phenomenon that is produced by the gender hierarchy, in which men are deemed

superior to women, and the attendant structures and arrangements of society that support this

idea (Dobash & Dobash, 1979; Walker, 1979). These lens have informed methods and

interventions associated with intimate partner violence with a focus on how social constructions

of gender, especially social constructions of masculine norms and privileges, perpetuate violence

of this nature. However, some researchers question this way of framing intimate partner violence

and accuse feminists of ignoring female perpetration of intimate partner violence (Dutton &

Nicholls, 2005). They argue that there is gender symmetry in intimate partner violence in the

United States and therefore, to foreground the phenomenon as gendered is dishonest (Carney,

Buttell, & Dutton, 2007; Dutton & Nicholls, 2005). This argument is based on available studies

such as Archer’s (2000) meta-analysis of the sex differences in intimate partner violence. These

studies show that men and women are equally likely to perpetrate intimate partner violence.

Critics argue that to focus on women as victims of intimate partner violence, limits a more

complex and nuanced understanding of intimate partner violence, and therefore hinders solutions

that are cross-cutting and diverse enough to address all the causes of intimate partner violence

(Carney, Buttell, & Dutton, 2007; Dutton & Nicholls, 2005; Pretorius, 2009).

9

However, responses to these critics have accurately pointed out that research needs to go

beyond just analyzing the sex differences in victimization and perpetration in intimate partner

violence to correctly understand its gendered nature. For example, interactional feminists have

pointed out that intimate partner violence must be understood in terms of how power is

constructed and negotiated in relationships (Anderson, 2005). Masculinity is inherently

constructed and perpetuated through discourses of violence (Anderson, 2005; Cannon, Lauve-

Moon, & Buttell, 2015). Thus, using violence to demonstrate masculinity is often culturally

acceptable (Rodgers, Hust, & Bayley, 2017), even when the damage is considerable. On the

other hand, acts of violence perpetrated by women are typically viewed as less important, less

harmful, and are subject to fewer negative consequences (Anderson, 2005; Cannon, Lauve-

Moon, & Buttell, 2015). Therefore, gender scripts affect how men and women interpret, report,

and articulate victimization.

Other studies have pointed out that even if gender symmetry in the perpetration of

violence is valid, women are disproportionately harmed and injured in these violent relationships

and tend to suffer more from coercive control (Hamberger & Larsen, 2015; Johnson, 2011; Kelly

& Johnson, 2008; Reed, Raj, Miller, and Silverman, 2010; Straus & Gozjolko, 2014; Turchik,

Hebenstreit, & Judson, 2016). Research data shows that women who experience family violence

may be more likely to become victims of partner violence (e.g., Cappell & Heiner, 1990). For

men, observational exposure to intimate partner violence was also correlated with severity of

dating aggression (Milletich, Kelly, Doane & Pearson, 2010). Additionally, cross-sectional and

longitudinal studies have reported that boys are more likely to justify violence in relationships

10

(Kinsfogel & Grych, 2004; Malik, Sorenson, & Aneshensel, 1997; O’Keefe, 1997; Wolfe et al.,

2004; Brendgen, Vitaro, Tremblay, & Wanner, 2002; Foshee et al., 2001).

Bystander Intervention

Interest in the role bystanders play in preventing violence began in the 1960s after the

rape and murder of Kitty Genovese in New York. Allegedly, several of her neighbors witnessed

the crime without helping (Fischer et al., 2011). Pioneers in this area of research wanted to

understand what factors made people intervene in violent or potentially violent situations and

what factors inhibited them from doing so. In their initial study, Darley & Latané (1968)

experimentally tested individuals’ response time to an emergency. They found that individuals

are less likely to intervene when others are present, as the presence of others creates a diffusion

of responsibility. This ‘bystander effect’ - the phenomenon in which individual bystander action

tends to decrease when passive bystanders are present in a critical situation - has been

investigated multiple times (Darley & Latane ́, 1968; Latane ́& Darley, 1968, 1970; Latane ́ &

Nida, 1981). Much of the early research also tried to understand how bystander actions unfold.

Latané and Darley (1970) proposed the situational model that details five important steps

involved in intervening: an individual must 1) notice the event, 2) identify the situation as

intervention-appropriate, 3) take intervention responsibility, 4) decide how to help, and 5) act to

intervene (Latané & Darley, 1970). Since then, bystander research and intervention have been

applied in numerous contexts including bullying both offline and online (Brody & Vangelisti,

2016; Jenkins, Lyndsay, Nickerson, 2017; O’Connell, Pepler, & Craig, 1999), violent theft

(Schwartz and Gottlieb & Lanzetta, 1976), racist situations (Mulvey, Palmer, Abrams, 2016) and

11

medical settings (Wissenberg, Lippert, Folke, Fredrik, Weeke, Peter, Hansen, Malta,

Christensen, Frischknecht, Torp-Pedersen, 2013).

In the mid-1990s, investigation into the efficacy of promoting bystander behaviors to

tackle violence against women on college campuses became a fixture of both research and

intervention (see Banyard, 2008; Banyard, Moynihan, & Crossman, 2009; Banyard, Moynihan,

& Plante, 2007; Banyard, Plante, & Moynihan, 2004; Burn, 2009; Banyard, 2008; Berkowitz,

2001; Berkowitz, 2002; DeKeseredy, Schwartz, & Alvi, 2000; Foubert, 2013; Katz, Pazienza,

Olin & Rich, 2015; Potter, Moynihan, Stapleton, & Banyard, 2009). Numerous studies

investigated predictors of sexual assault (Bennett, Banyard, & Garnhart, 2013; Berkowitz, 2002;

Burn, 2009; DeKeseredy, Schwartz, & Alvi, 2000; Foubert, 2013), the efficacy of intervention

programs in different environmental and social contexts (Gidycz, Orchowski, & Berkowitz,

2011; Katz, Pazienza, Olin, & Rich, 2015; Mabry & Turner, 2016; McMahon & Dick, 2011;

Moynihan, Banyard, Arnold, Eckstein, & Stapleton, 2011), the role of peer norms (Leone,

Parrott, & Swartout, 2016; Mabry & Turner, 2016; McMahon & Dick, 2011) and the role of

particular attitudinal beliefs, such as rape myth acceptance (Hust, Rodgers, Ebreo, & Stefani,

2016; McMahon, 2010). More broad-based approaches to violence on university campuses, such

as the Green Dot program - which trains students to intervene in violent situations in a safe and

effective way - have also seen much success (Coker et al., 2011; Coker et al., 2015). But as

Banyard (2014) discussed in her review, most of the work to prevent violence against women on

college campuses has focused on sexual assault. Although this work is necessary, and has been

useful in preventing sexual assault, as well as in providing safer solutions for survivors and

12

potential victims, other phenomena such as intimate partner violence needs attention.

Specifically, since bystander intervention behavior is established as an effective means of

preventing interpersonal violence, it is important to identify how to increase bystander

interventions in intimate partner violence situations.

This is one area in which media can be useful. Intervention experts have incorporated

different media, such as posters and the internet, in programs aimed at boosting bystander

intentions (e.g. Potter, Moynihan, Stapleton, & Banyard, 2009; Salazar, Vivolo-Kantor, Hardin,

& Bekowitz, 2014). Researchers have also tested the efficacy of incorporating media strategies,

such as text-messaging, into bystander intervention programming and have seen successes over

time in instances where those messages help build student autonomy (Brickman, 2017).

Although studies investigating the effects of media are limited, these are promising channels that

could have tremendous impacts on increasing bystander intervention behaviors. For example,

Hust et al., (2016) found that media usage and exposure predict bystander actions and intentions.

One experimental investigation found that when college students were exposed to sexual assault

information incorporated in a magazine, they reported greater levels of self-efficacy related to

sexual assault prevention (Hust et al., 2017). Therefore, media has the potential to increase

bystander efficacy and intentions when appropriate messages are embedded in the content.

Gender and Bystander Intervention

Research into bystander intentions, especially in situations of interpersonal violence,

noted gender differences in frequency and manner of intervention. Due to the limited studies of

bystander intervention in instances of intimate partner violence, the literature on bystander

13

intervention in instances of sexual violence can provide useful insight. For example, men are less

likely to intervene in sexual assault situations while women are more likely to intervene (Burn,

2009; Banyard, 2008). Similarly, other studies found that women are also more likely to self-

report greater intentions to intervene in sexual assault than men (Brown, Banyard & Moynihan,

2014), and they are also more likely to mobilize against assault than men (Armstrong & Mahone,

2017; Kania & Cale, 2018). Qualitative research also contributes to our understanding of the

role of gender in bystander intervention. DeMaria et al. (2018) conducted interviews with college

students and found that students perceive that sexual assault is not a problem at one college and

that females tends to lie about rape. This may result in decreased perceptions of issue salience

which may affect intervention.

Gender also predicts how individuals are likely to intervene. Women more likely to

intervene by helping the victim and men are more likely to try and stop the perpetrators (Burn,

2009; Chabot et al, 2009; Fischer et al., 2011). In less severe instances, for example, men were

more likely to physically restrain and talk with the abuser; women, on the other hand, were more

likely to contact law enforcement and speak to the victim (Chabot et al., 2009).

Research has provided evidence for the apparent gender disparity in bystander

intervention. There is evidence that peer norms (Carlson, 2008; Leone, 2016), perceived norms

(Hust et al., 2013), men attributing more blame and exhibiting less empathy to victims may be

contributing factors (Katz, Pazienza, Olin, & Rich, 2015). Adherence to rape myth beliefs is also

a contributing factor, since men are consistently found to adhere more to rape myth attitudes and

beliefs (Burn, 2009; McMahon, 2010; McMahon, 2015). On the other hand, research suggests

14

that women exhibit greater bystander willingness due to women having more prosocial attitudes

(Banyard, 2008), they tend to identify more with the victims (Gerber et al. 2004; Lambdin 2005)

and hold less rape myth beliefs (eg. McMahon, 2010).

The Entertainment-Education Strategy

The Pew Research Center (2017) reports that among adults 18 - 29 years old, over 60%

report watching or subscribing to streaming services such as Netflix, Hulu and HBO Go, and

31% report frequent use of cable television, while 98% of college undergraduates report using

the internet daily, and 86% are frequent users of social networking sites (Pew Research, 2011).

Such high media usage provides the opportunity to integrate media strategies into prosocial

promotions among this population. Entertainment Education (EE) is one such media strategy that

has the potential to influence viewing audiences’ attitudes and behaviors toward intimate partner

violence and bystander behaviors. EE is a strategy whereby messages are purposefully designed

and implemented to entertain, and simultaneously teaching about specific social problems or

concerns (Singhal & Rogers, 1999). It aims to “increase audience members’ knowledge about an

educational issue, create favorable attitudes, shift social norms, and change the overt behavior of

individuals and communities” (Singhal & Rogers, 1999. p. 9). EE is thought to be effective due

to viewers’ enjoyment of its narrative structure, its use of masked messages instead of overt

ones, and the social identification of viewers with characters they like (Moyer-Guse`, 2008).

These elements help to reduce reactance, thereby contributing to the persuasive effects of the

narratives, since audiences perceive that the narratives are not meant to be persuasive. EE

messages usually vary depending on their country location. In the developing world,

15

entertainment-education programs tend to be more direct and are usually delivered through radio

and television programming and tend to be driven by government and NGOs (Singhal, Cody,

Rogers, & Sabido, 2004). However, in countries such as the United States, which have a diverse

and saturated media landscape, private interests and researchers usually spearhead EE

campaigns, and the messages are usually channeled through popular entertainment programs,

especially television shows (Singhal, Cody, Rogers, & Sabido, 2004).

The EE strategy has significantly and positively improved health outcomes in the United

States and in other countries on issues such as women’s family planning and emergency

contraception, teen sexual activity, HIV testing (KFF, 2004; Wilkin, Valente, Murphy, Cody,

Huang, and Beck, 2007; Vaughan, Rogers, Singhal,& Swalehe, 2000), breast feeding, infant

nutrition, empowerment of women (Usdin, Singhal, Shongwe, Goldstein, & Shabalala, 2004),

breast cancer surgery decisions (Jibaja-Weiss, Volk, Granchi, Neff, Robinson, Spann, Aoki,

Friedman, & Beck, 2011), designated drivers (KFF, 2004), teen alcohol use (van Leeuwen,

Reint, & Leeuwis, 2012), organ donation (Jeong & Park, 2015), and improving colorectal cancer

screening among African-American men (Hoffman, Lowenstein, Kamath, Housten, Leal, Linder,

Jibaja-Weiss, Raju, & Volk, 2017).

Reducing violence against women has also been a recurring theme in EE programming.

Television soap operas in India and in South Africa have incorporated messages designed to

decrease specific kinds of violent acts against women (Singhal & Rogers 1999; Usdin, Singhal,

Shongwe et al. 2004). These programs have addressed issues such as masculinity norms and

were also used to increase understanding and awareness of intimate partner violence (Dill-

16

Shackleford, Green, Scharrer, Wetterer, & Shackleford, 2015). Studies from the United States

have shown that EE can increase self-efficacy related to sexual assault prevention on college

campuses (Hust, et al., 2017).

The narrative structure of EE messages is one of the elements that contribute to their

persuasive effects. Experimental studies and recent meta-analyses have shown that narrative-

based EE messages result in greater increases in self-efficacy, and positive behavioral norms

than do non-narrative interventions (Borrayo, Rosales, & Gonzales, 2017; Braddock & Dillard,

2016; Shen, Sheer, & Li, 2015). In addition, Braddock & Dillard’s (2016) meta-analysis showed

that the persuasive effect of narratives is not affected by the communication channel. However, it

is unclear whether the medium used to deliver narratives matter. Braddock & Dillard (2016)

found that video, text and audio messages exhibited no significant differences in their effects on

attitudes, norms and behavioral intentions, whereas Shen, Sheer, and Li (2015) found that audio

and video-based narratives produced the most significant effects, especially when used to

promote detection and prevention behaviors.

Another element that contributes to the success of EE programming is the incorporation

of epilogues. An epilogue is a “short final note added to the dramatic (or literary) message”

(Singhal & Rogers, 1999, p. 229). Epilogues often take the form of short explicit appeals that are

usually delivered as public service announcements near the end of EE programs. These appeals

usually have an actor from the program come forward to address the viewing audience directly

and ask them to act in some relevant way. Sometimes, during shorter appeals, an actor delivers

an explicit message at the end of the program that relates directly to the storyline (Moyer-Gusé,

17

Jain, & Chung, 2012). These persuasive appeals have been generally effective (Moyer-Gusé et

al., 2012), although there is conflicting research that shows that participants at times react

negatively, finding such appeals ‘preachy’ (Pechmann & Wang, 2008). Epilogues can also be

other short narratives on the screen, an approach which has been shown to decrease social

distance while increasing positive beliefs toward treatment outcomes (Cohen, Alward, Zajicek,

Edwards & Hutson, 2017).

In addition to the structural make up of EE messages, research identified psychological

mechanisms that contribute to the persuasive effects of EE. One such effect is identification with

characters. There is generally no cohesive definition of identification in the literature on EE. In

the current study, identification follows the definition given by Moyer-Guse` (2008). In this vain,

identification is the process by which a viewer perceives a character as like him- or herself

(Slater & Rouner, 2002; Moyer-Gus, 2008). This occurs through a four-dimensional process of

developing empathy, shared perspectives, goal simulation and absorption into the narrative

(Moyer-Gus, 2008).

Although it is acknowledged that identification may overlap with other constructs, such

as transportation, there is sufficient evidence to support its effects. One meta-analysis found that

identification with characters was one of the most important elements of narrative persuasion

(Tukachinsky & Tukunaga, 2013). Others suggest that identification allows viewers to reflect on

both the narrative and the message, which in turn allows for increased message effectiveness

(Cohen, 2006). Empirical studies found that identification has been positively associated with

cognitive elaboration and increased positive attitudes toward promoted health behaviors (Hoeken

18

& Sinkeldam, 2014; Igartua, Vega Casanova & Igarttua, 2016). Identification also reduces

reactance and counterarguing, contributing to its persuasive effects (Moyer-Guse` et al. 2011).

Theoretical Framework

Social Cognitive Theory

The use of social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1986; 2001) in tandem with the integrated

model of behavioral prediction (Fishbein, 2006; Fishbein & Capella, 2000) can help explain how

media can influence bystander intentions and behaviors. Early researchers studying the effects of

EE programming based their investigations on the use of social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1986;

2001). These studies focused on the vicarious experiences of viewers and the effects of

modelling on their self-efficacy and motivation to adopt the desired behaviors (Eg. Sabido,

1999). Although social cognitive theory continues to be the dominant theory used in EE studies,

other theories - along with an integration of multiple theories - are also used to elucidate the

effects and persuasive mechanisms of EE programs. Theoretical constructs such as the

elaboration likelihood model (ELM) (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986), the extended elaboration

likelihood model (E-ELM) (Slater & Rouner, 2002) and the social norms approach (Berkowitz,

2004) are now consistently used in EE research. For example, Bae (2008) integrated the Theory

of Planned Behavior and the ELM to test the impact of an EE program on increasing positive

attitudes and intentions towards cornea donation. Moyer-Gusé and Nabi (2010) used a

combination of the E-ELM and the entertainment-overcoming-resistance model to investigate

how persuasive mechanisms such as narrative transportation and character involvement may

reduce reactance, counterarguing and perceived invulnerability. Moyer-Gusé, Jain, and Chung

19

(2012) used the E-ELM to test the effects of an explicit persuasive appeal in an EE program.

Therefore, in keeping with this trend, the integration of theories provides opportunities for more

diverse and comprehensive studies.

According to social cognitive theory, one’s environment, through observational learning,

plays a significant role in shaping attitudes and behaviors (Bandura, 2001). By viewing how

others in our environment act, we can learn new behaviors. Before the invention of mass, media,

individuals were limited to models from their society and culture. However various forms of

media provide symbolic environments which broaden the scope of models and behaviors

available to us for observation. For example, when an individual watches television or plays a

video game, he or she is exposed to a wider spectrum of modelling opportunities than the

immediate environment would have provided. Observational learning allows people to

internalize values that help determine their perceptions of reality, perceptions that in turn

influence their behaviors and attitudes (Weaver, Graber, McCombs, & Eyal, 1981). Behavior is

modified through observational learning when the observer pays attention to actions modelled, in

this case, by characters and individuals in the media. Retention occurs when the individual

remembers the details of the behavior that allows progress to behavioral production.

Both experimental and cross-sectional studies provide ample evidence to suggest that the

media influences the attitudes, intentions and behaviors of individual bystanders. Men who

watch slasher films that portray violence in a sexualized fashion become desensitized to acts of

domestic violence as measured by decreases in hostile moods, estimates of sexual violence and

self-reported negative physiological arousal (Mullin & Linz, 1995). Also, frequent pornography

20

viewing has also been linked to negative bystander intentions (Foubert, 2013). Another study

found that crime drama viewership positively predicted participants’ intentions to intervene in a

potential sexual assault situation (Hust et al., 2013).

Motivational Processes in Social Cognitive Theory

Bandura (2001) argued that when a television model is punished or rewarded for a

behavior, viewers vicariously share the experience. This in turn boosts or decreases motivation in

viewers to perform the same behavior. Associating behavioral outcomes with rewards is

motivation for learning new behaviors (Bandura, 2001). Conversely, punishment or negative

sanctions are disincentives for performing the behavior. Rewards or punishments for Bandura

(2001) create outcome expectancies that function as motivational effects for “observers’

judgments of their ability to accomplish the modeled behavior, their perception of the modeled

actions as producing favorable or adverse consequences, and their inferences that similar or

unlike consequences would result if they themselves were to engage in similar activities” (p.

276). Consequently, individuals are more likely to engage in a behavior that has a positive

outcome or reward and less likely if they think the action will result in a negative outcome.

Similarly, Fishbein (2000) posits that one’s outcome expectancies for behaviors determine one’s

attitudes toward engaging in the behavior.

Furthermore, it is well established in the literature that cost-benefit evaluation of

bystander behaviors influences bystander intentions and behaviors with people more likely to

help if perceived costs are low (Banyard, Plante, & Moynihan, 2004; Fritzsche, Finklestein, &

Penner, 2000). Based on social cognitive theory, Sabido’s (1999) strategy for narrative

21

development in entertainment-education programs includes specific character types to influence

viewers’ cost-benefit evaluations. There are three types of characters in these programs and the

consequences of their actions are also included as aspects of message development (Sabido,

1999). Bandura (1977) originally theorized three different ways in which modelling could be

used to change behaviors. The first is prestige modeling, which involves media characters

exhibiting culturally admired or desired behaviors. Next is similarity modeling that portrays the

benefits of adopting prosocial behaviors and finally, transitional modeling that involves specific

characters having unresolved attitudes toward a prosocial behavior, but then adopting that

behavior. Sabido (1999) developed three characters for portrayal in EE programs that were

informed by these theories. First there is the positive role model who is rewarded for adopting

the pro-social behavior being promoted. Next, there is the negative role model(s) who is

punished for not enacting the desired behavior. Finally, there are transitional characters that

experience a visible change by resisting the desired behavior at first, but then fully adopting it.

These characters are consistently present in EE program around the world. Even though these

character types are components of EE programs, there is not much empirical evidence on how

exposure to consequences of behavioral action influences viewers. The question remains as to

the exact role that consequences play in EE messages.

The Integrated Model of Behavioral Prediction

In addition to behavioral intention, it is useful to investigate the effects of media exposure

on proximal outcomes to bystander intention. The integrated model of behavioral prediction

(Fishbein & Yzer, 2003; Fishbein, 2006; Fishbein & Capella, 2006) provides useful factors to

22

help theorize media effects in this regard. The integrated model proposes that the main predictor

of behavior is the intention to perform the desired behavior (Fishbein & Yzerto, 2003; Fishbein

& Capella, 2006). But, behavioral intention is influenced by additional factors including attitudes

towards the desired behavior, perceived norms associated with the behavior and perceived self-

efficacy (Fishbein & Yzer, 2003). Attitudes as well as normative and self-efficacy perceptions

are determined by individual and environmental elements - referred to collectively as

background variables - such as culture, gender, media, demographics, and personality traits.

Media exposure, therefore, has the potential to influence attitudes and perceptions in addition to

bystander intentions.

Attitudes

Rape myth acceptance is an attitudinal factor that is especially relevant to intimate

partner violence and intentions to intervene. Rape myths are stereotypical and false beliefs about

sexual aggression that are victim-blaming, and that tend to justify male aggression against

women (Lonsway & Fitzgerald, 1994). These include beliefs that if a woman is raped while she

is drunk, she is at least somewhat responsible for letting things get out of control, and that if a

woman goes to the home or apartment of a man on the first date, she is implying that she wants

to have sex (Lonsway & Fitzgerald, 1994). Decreased levels of belief in rape myths correlate

with increased willingness to help in situations involving interpersonal violence (Hust et al,

2013; McMahon, 2010; Moynihan, Banyard, Arnold, Eckstein & Stapleton, 2011). On the other

hand, higher levels of rape myth belief are associated with decreased willingness to help (Leone,

Parrott & Swartout, 2016).

23

Research has shown that college students report moderate levels of belief in rape myths,

particularly those myths pertaining to victim-blaming, which in turn were negatively associated

with intentions to intervene (McMahon, 2010). Media also influences viewers’ rape myth

acceptance. Increased television viewing, for example, correlates with acceptance of rape myths

and overestimation of false rape accusations (Hust et al, 2014; Kahlor & Morrison, 2007; Kistler

& Lee, 2010) and an overestimation of false rape accusations ( Kahlor & Eastin, 2011;).

Mainstream sports media have also been found to reinforce belief in rape myths (Hust, Lei, Ren,

Chang, McNab, Marett & Willoughby, 2013). Researchers suggest that this could be due to the

types of masculine norms perpetuated by mainstream sports media. Given the potential of rape

myth acceptance to influence willingness to intervene, it is worth investigating how

consequences to bystander behaviors in the media will affect rape myth acceptance.

Perceived Norms

Normative beliefs are also associated with intentions to intervene. Perceived norms are

beliefs about what others are doing or would do in a particular situation (Fishbein, 2000).

Perceived norms are important outcomes of media effects, since normative beliefs can determine

if individuals adopt a behavior. This is based on the theory that individuals are more likely to

engage in or adopt a behavior that they think others, especially peers, are also doing, and less

likely to adopt the behavior if they believe that others are not doing it as well (Berkowitz, 2004).

Perceived norms can act as a barrier to bystander intervention. Indeed, men’s perceptions of

peers’ attitudes toward sexual aggression and intervention are stronger predictors of intentions to

intervene than are their personal attitudes (Brown & Messman-Moore, 2010). Men also report

24

that they perceive their peers as more likely to condone sexual aggression than they themselves

would be (Brown & Messman-Moore, 2010). Similarly, peer attitudes, and size of peer group

and scope predict individual attitudes regarding hostile masculinity and sexual coercion

(Swartout, 2013). On average, exposure to a misogynistic peer norm decreased men’s odds of

intervening (Leone, 2016). This is due to peer norm perpetuating a culture of traditional gender

role stereotyping and normalized sexual assault.

Other studies found that perceived social norms positively predicted intentions to

intervene. Participants who perceived their peers would intervene in a potential sexual assault

situation were more likely to intervene themselves (eg. Hust et al., 2013). Mabry and Turner

(2016) found that men with stronger norms were more likely to report intentions to engage in

bystander behaviors in the future. Taken together, the literature on normative perceptions provide

evidence that positive normative evaluations of prosocial behavior can result in higher reports of

intentions to intervene. However, the possibility of media to increase these norm perceptions is

one area that is understudied. The current study will explore how exposure to social

consequences to bystander intervention will affect norm perceptions.

Perceived Efficacy

Both social cognitive theory and the integrated model of behavioral prediction identify

self-efficacy beliefs as an essential predictor of behavior. Self-efficacy refers to the belief that

one can perform a desired behavior even if obstacles are present (Bandura, 2001). An important

factor that influences self-efficacy is perception by the individual that they possess the necessary

knowledge and skills to intervene (Banyard, Plante & Moynihan, 2004). Therefore, an

25

intervening bystander is one who feels both personally capable of and responsible for stopping

an abusive situation that she witnesses (Christy & Voigt, 1994; Banyard, Plante & Moynihan,

2004). Experimental studies have found that greater perceptions of self-efficacy are a significant

predictor of positive intervening behavioral intent and actual behaviors (Banyard, 2008;

McMahon, et al., 2015; Moynihan, et al., 2011). Individuals who do not take intervention

seriously, who fear they do not have the skills to successfully intervene, or who worry how their

peers will respond to their actions may fail to intervene (Bennett, Banyard, & Garnhart, 2014).

Therefore, low self-efficacy will most likely lead to lower behavioral adoption while high self-

efficacy will more likely lead to higher levels of positive behavioral outcomes.

Both social cognitive theory (Bandura, 2001) and the integrated model of behavioral

prediction (Fishbein & Yzer, 2003) suggest that exposure to positive consequences to bystander

behavior in the media should positively influence viewers’ perceptions of their own ability to

perform these behaviors as well (Bandura, 2001). Together, they provide useful frames through

which to examine the role of exposure to consequences of bystander intention. By examining the

role exposure to these consequences play in providing motivation for behavior, intervention

specialists and researchers can be better prepared to develop more effective messages for health

intervention.

26

Hypotheses and Research Questions

Although EE programs in the media usually include characters that are punished for not

adopting the promoted behavior, and characters that are rewarded for adopting the desired

behavior, research is yet to isolate the differential effects of the consequences of the behaviors.

The current study investigates the direct effects of rewards to bystanders in a situation of

intimate partner violence, and direct effects of punishment to a bystander in a situation of

intimate partner violence as well. Based on social cognitive theory (Bandura, 2001), the study

will test the effects of rewards and punishments on intentions to intervene. In addition, the

integrated model proposes normative perceptions, attitudes and self- efficacy as proximal

variables to intentions to intervene. The study will test effects of being exposed to media

showing rewards and punishments to a bystander on these variables as well.

Previous studies show that men are less likely to intervene in sexual assault situations

while women are more likely to intervene (Burn, 2009; Banyard, 2008). The sex of the bystander

also influences what type of intervention is offered. For example, women are more likely to

intervene by helping the victim of dating aggression and sexual violence (Burn, 2009; Chabot et

al, 2009; Fisher et al., 2011). This literature shows that women are more likely to exhibit positive

intentions to intervene. Therefore, the current study will investigate the effects of media

exposure and gender on the outcome variables of interest. The following hypotheses and research

question will be tested.

Based on the literature reviewed above, the following research questions and hypotheses

will guide this study:

27

RQ1: What effects will exposure to differential consequences to bystanders have on participants’

rape myth acceptance?

H1: Gender will have a significant effect on rape myth acceptance with women reporting lower

scores than men.

H2: Exposure to positive consequences to bystanders will lead to the strongest effects and

exposure to negative consequences to bystanders will lead to the weakest effects on

normative beliefs.

H3: Gender will have a significant effect on perceived norms, with women reporting higher

scores than men.

H4. Exposure to positive consequences to bystanders will lead to the highest scores and

exposure to negative consequences to bystanders will lead to the lowest scores on

perceived self- efficacy.

H5: Gender will have a significant effect on self-efficacy, with women reporting higher scores

than men.

H6: Exposure to positive consequences to bystanders will lead to the strongest effects and

exposure to negative consequences to bystanders will lead to the weakest effects on

intentions to intervene.

H7: Gender will have a significant effect on intentions to intervene, with women reporting higher

scores than men.

RQ2: What effects will the interaction between exposure to differential consequences to

bystanders and gender have on participants’ attitudes, rape myth acceptance, self-efficacy

28

and intentions to intervene?

Given the importance of identification as a persuasive mechanism of EE, the current

study will investigate the role of identification on the main outcome variables. Additionally, the

study investigates the effects of exposure to the experimental conditions on participants’ reported

level of identification.

RQ 3. Will exposure to consequences of bystander intervention and gender affect how much

participants identify with the bystander?

RQ4: Controlling for gender, will identification with bystanders in each condition be associated

with rape myth acceptance, perceived norms, perceived efficacy and intentions to

intervene?

29

CHAPTER THREE: STIMULI SELECTION AND MESSAGE PRETESTING

Main Study

To test the hypotheses and the research questions, an online 4(consequence to bystander:

positive, negative, no consequence, control) x 2 (gender: male, female) factorial experimental

design with a series of message stimuli in a pre-posttest design was conducted. The messages

used in the main study were first piloted during fall 2017.

Message Selection

The researcher and experts held discussions to generate a list of criteria that would guide

the search process and message selection. The agreed upon list was the result:

1. Because narratives are needed, movies and/or TV shows would be used.

2. All selected messages had to be from mainstream television movies and shows that are

accessible by the general public.

3. They had to appeal to college students, so they should be about a romantic relationship

between two young adults.

4. Due to the scope of the study, only heterosexual couples were included.

5. The general narrative should be that the relationship starts out well, and then at some

point becomes physically violent.

6. The act of violence should be followed by an act of bystander intervention. There was no

limitation set on how the bystander could intervene. However, it should be clear that

someone did intervene.

7. It was also decided that three/four videos would be selected for use.

30

8. The videos chosen should not depict identical ways of intervening.

To locate possible videos, the researcher searched Youtube - a popular video sharing

internet site - conducted a general internet search, and reviewed movies and films from the

internet film and TV show streaming service, Netflix. Search terms used were, “intimate partner

violence,” “domestic violence movies and TV shows,” “Popular violence against women TV

shows and movies,” and “young adult violent relationship TV shows and movies.”

After reviewing multiple possibilities, two television movies– No-One Would Tell (1996)

and Raising Ophelia (2010) – and one television show episode, Law & Order: SVU – Funny

Valentine (2013) were selected. The videos were then edited using Adobe Acrobat Premiere Pro

CC and Adobe Acrobat After Effects. They were edited to ensure the flow of the narratives were

similar as per the criteria set. See Table 3.1 for a description of the plots. Additionally, the videos

were edited for length with final versions approximately four to five minutes each. On-screen

written introductions with audio narrations were also added to all videos. The introductions were

included to name the characters and to tell a story of a happy romantic happy romantic

relationship. See Table 3.1 for all of the introductions.

On-screen epilogues with audio narrations were also edited into the videos. These

epilogues presented the consequences of bystander intervention and were the manipulated aspect

of the messages. Each movie or TV show had three videos produced from it: one that included

positive consequences, one that included negative consequences and one that had no epilogue

added. See Table 3.1 for all epilogues. Each set of video clips produced from each show were

31

identical in all aspects, except for these epilogues. In total, nine videos were produced to be

included as stimuli.

Table 3.1. Scripts and Descriptions for Message Stimuli

No-One Would Tell

Introduction

Stacey and Bobby had been dating for one month now. They had their difficulties, but Stacey felt like they were really drawing closer to each other. Tonight, she was looking forward to going to the dance with Bobby. Bobby was excited too. Plot A school dance is in progress. We see a DJ dancing around a turntable, and there are many dancers on the dance floor. Everyone seems to be having fun. Stacey arrives at the dance and a teacher begins to talk with her, but Bobby comes up and takes her away. He leads her to the dance floor where some other students, apparently friends, are joking around. Bobby talks with some friends and then Stacey comes up and asks him to dance. He seems slightly reluctant, but their friends encourage him to do so. The couple goes onto the dance floor and dance, surrounded by everyone cheering them on. They then become the focus of the dance. Everyone surrounds them laughing and watching them dance to an upbeat song. The scene then shifts. There is now a slower, romantic song playing and couples are dancing slower and closer together. Bobby talks with a group of male friends, but then he looks up and sees Stacey, who is across the room, laughing and talking with another male student. Bobby looks angry. He goes over to her and aggressively grabs her hand and drags her out of the dance. Two of their friends, a male and a female, see what is happening and follows them out. Although the scene then focuses on the bystanders, we hear an argument between Stacey and Bobby, in which Bobby accuses Stacey of throwing herself at the other young man. He is apparently very angry. Stacey tries to explain but he continues to speak over her. We then hear what appears to be a slap and Stacey is heard reacting to it. We also hear Bobby asking Stacey is she prefers the other guy to him. Their friends (the bystanders) run over to where Bobby and Stacey are standing. The female friend/bystander pushes Bobby away from Stacey, while the male bystander takes Bobby aside and asks what was happening. Stacey responds by saying everything was an accident. The female bystander

32

then tells her that Bobby had hit her. She also tells Stacey that her nose was bleeding and invites her to go inside. Positive Epilogue When Pam and Tommy went back into the party, people were pleased about what they had done. Their friends told Pam that she was brave to stand up to Bobby and look out for her friend. They told her she was a good friend and that Stacey was lucky to have a friend who would stand up for her. They also told her that Stacey would thank her one day for what she did. Negative Epilogue When Pam and Tommy went back into the party, people were angry with them. Their friends told Pam that she was messing with her friend’s relationship. They told her she was a horrible friend, and they suggested she misunderstood the situation between Stacey and Bobby. They also told her that Stacey would never forgive her for what she had done.

Reviving Ophelia

Introduction Elizabeth and Mark had their relationship difficulties, but things were going well now. They were truly in love. After school today, they were going on what promised to be the most romantic date yet. They were both looking forward to the day! Plot The plot begins Elizabeth and Mark in a car hugging and joking about possible names for dogs that they will have in the future. They kiss and Elizabeth tells Mark that she is ready to do it[allusion to sex] on the weekend. They hug. The scene changes to Elizabeth sitting in a classroom. A male student is in the room with her. The teacher gives her a paper and tells her that she is disappointed about a drop in her grades. Elizabeth promises to never let it happen again. She asks to leave, because someone is waiting for her. The teacher agrees, and Elizabeth then rushes out. As she runs in the corridor, her books fall, scattering the papers that were inside all over the floor. The student who was in the classroom with her appears to see her books fall, and stoops to help her pick them up. He makes a joke about the teacher and she laughs. She then looks up and sees Mark staring at her. He looks angry. She shouts his name and runs after him. He stalks off angrily and tells her that she had him waiting for her while she was ‘messing’ around with the other student. She tries to explain that the teacher had them stay late after class. He tells her that she is lying and that she was

33

into the other student because he knows how she gets. He hops into a car and she goes inside as well. She continues to explain that she was not flirting with the student. Mark still looks angry, and suddenly hits Elizabeth forcibly across her face. He then jumps out of the car. She remains inside visibly shaking, with blood running from her nose and mouth. She then gets out of the car and walks with a stunned look on her face. The scene changes to a male and female bystander who sees Elizabeth. They run up to her and ask her if she is ok. She responds that she is fine. The female bystander tells her that her face is covered in blood. She then invites her to go inside. Positive Epilogue Kelli and Cody helped Elizabeth go to the school nurse. They explained that Mark had hit Elizabeth, and the nurse called the school principal. When the principal came, she was pleased with what Kelli and Cody had done. The principal thanked Kelli for being there to help her cousin. She explained to Kelli that helping Elizabeth meant that she was brave and caring. In addition, she was making the entire school a safer place. Negative Epilogue Kelli and Cody helped Elizabeth go to the school nurse. They explained that Mark had hit Elizabeth, and the nurse called the school principal. When the principal came, she was angry with what Kelli and Cody had done. The principal told Kelli she was obviously trying to break Mark and Elizabeth up. In addition, she told Kelli she did not believe her and said she was trying to ruin Mark’s reputation. She also said they were destroying the reputation of the entire school.

Law & Order: SVU: Funny Valentine

Introduction Mesha felt like her life was finally coming together. Her music career was taking off and her relationship with Caleb, the star rapper she had been dating for three weeks now, was going well. She was so happy. Plot A little girl who is on camera singing a song. The scene then blends into a young woman – Mesha - in a music studio singing the same song. In the studio, there is also a male rapper who is singing and rapping alongside her. The song ends, and they kiss intimately. There are other people in the studio who congratulate them on the song. Mesha makes a comment that she is grateful she has Bass to look out for her. He points to a man who responds that he would always do so. Caleb and Mesha continue to kiss and then someone tells them to save

34

some of what they are doing for the video. Someone else makes suggestions on what they can do to improve the video as well. There is friendly banter all around. The scene changes and Caleb is hugging another young woman in an intimate manner. Mesha walks into the room and asks Caleb if it is not possible for her to leave the room without him getting ‘trashy’ with someone else. She is smiling as she asks him. He turns around and asks to whom she is referring. He sounds angry. She responds that she is referring to him. The other woman walks away. Caleb asks Mesha to repeat what she said. She chuckles and responds by saying that she was only joking. He however, pushes her to the ground, and asks how funny she thinks that is. He goes over to her and drags her by her hair while she cowers. She raises her head which hits him under his chin. He then calls her names and raises his fists at her. The scene changes to Mesha sitting in a chair with multiple bruises over her face. The police are there taking photos of her. The scene changes to what looks like a nightclub. Caleb is seen entering the club and then Bass dials a number on his phone. He apparently calls the police and tells them that he was currently at Mesha’s party and that Caleb was also there. Positive Epilogue The police came and took Caleb away. People at the party applauded Bass for his actions. His friends told him he was brave to call the police, and to stand up to Caleb. They said that Mesha was lucky to have a friend like him. The police invited Bass to the station and gave him a certificate of appreciation for what he had done. Negative Epilogue The police came and took Caleb away. People at the party threw Bass angry looks. His friends told him he was wrong to have called the police and turn Caleb in. They said what happened between Caleb and Mesha was none of his business. The police invited Bass to the station and questioned him to see if was jealous of Caleb.

Pilot Test

The pilot test was conducted during fall 2017. The main purpose of the pilot was to

ensure that the participants could differentiate between content that identified the consequences

each bystander faced. The pilot also tested whether participants could identify the main roles in

the video clips. That is, to test participants’ abilities to identify the victim, the perpetrator and the

35

bystander in each video. Finally, the pilot tested participants’ abilities to identify a situation of

dating violence.

Participants

In the fall of 2017, 251 students from a large northwest university signed up for

participation in the online survey. However, 200 participants information was retained for

analysis after accounting for missing data. Students were recruited from lower level

communication classes where they had the opportunity to participate in research studies for extra

credit. Females accounted for 71% of the sample. Seventy-four percent identified as white, 5%

black or African-American, 1.5% as American Indian or Alaska Native, 8% as Asian, 3% as

Hispanic or Latino and 1% as other. The mean age of participants was 21 (SD=.88) years old.

Design

The pilot was an online survey using an online survey service, Qualtrics. Participants

signed up via a research pool and upon accessing the study, each individual was randomly

assigned to watch three videos. Each participant watched one video with positive consequences

to the bystander(s), one with negative consequences, and a third video had no consequence to the

bystander. Additionally, each video that participants watched was from a different TV show or

film. That is each participant watched a No-One Would Tell clip, one Law & Order: SVU- Funny

Valentine clip and a Raising Ophelia clip. After viewing each video, participants completed a

questionnaire. Since the videos included violence, there was a debrief script that provided

participants with contact information for local and national intimate partner/dating violence

advocacy and support services (See Appendix 1).

36

Measures

Knowledge variables. Participants were asked to give their opinions on a Likert-type

scale from 1- “strongly disagree” to 7- “strongly agree” on whether they could clearly identify

the victim, the perpetrator, and the bystander in the videos they watched. The items were “I can

identify the victim in the video,” I can identify the perpetrator in the video,” “I can identify the

bystander(s) in the video” and “The video showed an instance of dating violence.”

Consequences. Participants were asked to indicate on a scale of 1- “strongly disagree” to

7- “strongly agree” how much they agreed or disagreed with three statements. The items were

“The person who intervened in the situation of violence received a positive consequence,” “The

person who intervened in the situation of violence received a negative consequence,” and “There

was no consequence for the person who intervened in the situation of violence in the video.”

Similarity of bystanders in all videos. To test that participants perceived the bystanders

in a similar way, they were asked to rate the level of similarity of all bystander on a 5-point scale

ranging from 1- “not very similar” to 5- “very similar.” The item was “How do you rate the

similarity of the person who intervened in the situation of violence with the other people who

intervened that you saw in the other videos.”

Data Analysis

It was expected that participants should be able to sufficiently identify the perpetrator, the

victim and the bystander in all videos. In addition, it is also expected that there would be no

significant differences across groups on in ability to differentiate among consequences to

bystanders. To analyze the data, a series of one-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) were

37

conducted to compare the means of each variable of interest. Analyses were done using IBM

SPSS Version 25. The assumption of homogeneity of variance was met, indicating that variances

were equal across groups.

Results

A series of one-way ANOVAs were performed to test if there were any

significant differences in participants’ knowledge of dating violence and perceived the main

roles portrayed in the videos. For the No-one videos, there were no significant differences

between participants’ knowledge of dating violence in the videos, F(2, 191)=.757, p=.47).

Similar results were obtained for identifying the perpetrator, F(2, 190)=1.12, p=.329), the victim

F(2, 190)=.54, p=.58 and the bystander F(2, 191)=.761, p=.49. As shown in Table 3.2, relatively

high means indicate acceptable levels of participants’ abilities to correctly identify the roles and

the situation of dating violence.

For the Ophelia videos, there were also no significant differences between participants’

knowledge of dating violence F(2, 190)=.957, p=.39, the perpetrator F(2, 189)=.66, p=518, and

the victim F(2, 191)=.364, p=.70. As shown in Table 3.2, relatively high means for these videos

also indicate acceptable levels of participants’ abilities to correctly identify the key characters

and the situation as one of dating violence. However, identifying the bystander resulted in a

significant difference F(2,188)=9.504, p<.001. Post hoc comparisons using the Games-Howell

test indicated that the mean score for the video with no consequences to the bystander (M=4.97,

SD=2) was significantly different from the videos portraying a positive consequence (M=6.14,

SD=1.50) and also the video portraying a negative consequence (M=6.05, SD=1.50). In other

38

words, participants were not as confident in their ability to identify the bystander when there was

no narrative epilogue.

For the Law & Order: SVU videos, there were no significant differences between

participants’ knowledge of dating violence F(2, 192)=.37, p=.69, to identify the perpetrator F(2,

190)=.04, p=.97 or the victim F(2, 191)=.389, p=68. For these videos as well, relatively high

means also indicate acceptable levels of participants’ abilities to correctly identify the characters

and the situation of dating violence (see Table 3.2). However, there was a significant difference

in participants’ reported knowledge of the bystander F(2, 193)=10.04, p<.001. Post hoc

comparisons using the Games-Howell test revealed that the mean score for the video portraying

no consequences to the bystander (M=4.52, SD=4.52) was significantly different from the video

portraying a positive consequence to the bystander (M=5.81, SD=1.49) and also significantly

different from the video portraying a negative consequence to the bystander (M=5.64, SD=1.70).

Therefore, participants’ who watched these videos were not as readily able to identify the

bystander when there was no narrative epilogue.

39

Table 3.2. Post-Hoc Multiple Comparisons for Identifying Character Roles

Dating Violence Perpetrator Victim Bystander

N M(SD) N M(SD) N M(SD) N M(SD)

No-One Would Tell

Positive 67 6.19(1.10) 66 5.88(1.76) 66 6.09 (1.50) 67 6.0 (1.53)

Negative 62 5.89(1.61) 62 5.73(1.87) 63 5.87 (1.73) 62 5.92(1.57)

None 65 5.95(1.73) 65 6.17(1.45) 64 6.14 (1.48) 65 6.23(1.34)

Reviving Ophelia

Positive 66 6.33(1.32) 65 6.27(1.51) 66 6.31(1.37) 65 6.15(1.49)

Negative 66 6.17(1.55) 65 6.03(1.75) 66 6.14 (1.60) 65 6.05(1.49)

None 61 6.49(1.03) 61 6.33(1.31) 62 6.34(1.33) 61 4.97(1.98)*

Law & Order: SVU – Funny Valentine

Positive 63 6.14(1.38) 63 6(1.79) 62 6.21(1.45) 64 5.81(1.50)

Negative 66 6.03(1.62) 66 6.08(1.56) 66 6.21 (1.28) 66 5.64(1.69)

None 66 5.91(1.61) 64 6.09(1.53) 66 6.02(1.64) 66 4.52(2.13)*

Note. *p<.001

Additionally, a series of between-subjects one-way ANOVAs were performed to test for

significant differences between the different shows/films. As indicated in Table 3.3, there were

no significant mean differences between participants’ knowledge of dating violence across the

40

videos F(2, 580)=2.830, p=.06, ability to identify the perpetrators F(2, 576)=1.551, p=.21 or the

ability to identify the victims F(2, 579)=1.89, p=.15. However, there were significant differences

between the groups on identification of the bystander F(2, 579)=9.11, p<.001. Post hoc

comparisons using the Games- Howell test revealed that the mean for the No-one videos (M=

6.05, SD=1.48) was significantly different from the Law & Order mean (M=5.32, SD=1.88).

Finally, results of the one-way ANOVA testing participants’ perception of similarity

among the bystanders in the videos indicated no significant differences between all videos F(2,

575)=2.23, p=.11.

To test the differences between the means of participants’ reported ability to identify

correctly the type of consequence portrayed in each video, a series of one-way ANOVAs were

also performed. As shown in Table 3.4, for the No-one Would Tell videos, the relevant means for

the consequences were significantly different in all three consequence groups. For the Reviving

Ophelia videos, the means were significantly different for the positive consequence video, F(2,

41

195, p<.001) and the negative consequence video F(2, 194)=31.20, p<.001 but not for the no

consequence video F(2, 178)=2.64, p=.07. For the Law & Order videos, the means were

significantly different for both the positive consequence video F(2, 183)=21.74, p<.001 and the

negative consequence video F(2, 194)=36.93, p<.001. However, for the no consequence video,

the means were not significantly different F(2, 194)=1.33, p=.27. See Table 3.4 for all means, F

statistics, and the Post-hoc comparisons.

42

Table 3. 4. Results of the One-way ANOVAs and Post-Hoc Multiple Comparisons for Identifying Consequences Bystander Intervention

N

Consequences

Positive Negative None

M (SD) N M(SD) N M(SD) F df

No-One Would Tell

Positive 67 5.33(1.73)*** 67 2.60(1.72)*** 66 4.42(1.69)** 4.12*** 197

Negative 63 2.73(1.79) 62 5.34(1.92)*** 62 2.87(1.80) 39.90*** 184

None 64 3.63(1.66) 65 3.32(1.80) 65 4.62(1.67)** 10.26*** 191

Reviving Ophelia

Positive 66 5.69(1.64)*** 66 2.55(1.97) 66 4.54(2.03) 45.23*** 195

Negative 66 2.74(1.86) 66 5.29(2.01)*** 65 3.37(1.89) 31.20*** 194

None 61 3.67(1.45) 61 3.93(1.63) 59 4.29(1.62) 2.64 178

Law & Order: SVU – Funny Valentine

Positive 63 5.19(1.88)*** 63 2.80(1.90) 60 3.92(2.05) 21. 74*** 183

Negative 65 3.31(1.79) 66 5.29(1.52)*** 66 2.10(1.69) 36.93*** 194

None 66 3.58(1.25) 65 3.92(1.23) 66 3.74(1.15) 1.33 194

Note. **p<.05, ***p<.001

Conclusion

43

Given the results above, the message stimuli were acceptable for use in the main study.

Participants clearly were able to identify the main characters in the videos as well as understand

and differentiate between the negative and positive consequences. Although results show that

there were significant differences among participants’ knowledge of bystander intervention in

two of the videos without consequences, these messages were not modified since they depicted a

more naturalistic setting and represent more of what participants would see in mainstream media

and also in reality. Additionally, there were significant differences between the groups on

knowledge of bystander intervention, with the Post hoc comparisons revealing that the means for

the No-one videos were significantly different from the Law & Order SVU means. This means

that the videos were comparable. The videos were included in the main study since the design

included multiple messages. This one difference should not compromise the internal validity of

the study with a multiple message design.

44

CHAPTER FOUR: METHODS – MAIN EXPERIMENT

To test the hypotheses and the research questions, an online 4 (consequence to bystander:

positive, negative, no consequence, control) x 2 (gender: male, female) between-subjects

factorial experimental design was conducted with a series of message stimuli in a pre-posttest

design during spring 2018.

Recruitment and Sample

Given that research shows that the rate for relationship violence is high among the

college student population (Dardis et al., 2015), participants were recruited from a large

northwestern university. A convenience sample of four hundred and forty-two students signed up

for participation in March 2018. Students were recruited via an online research pool in the

College of Communication, and through class contacts in other departments beginning in

February 2018. Class instructors were emailed the recruitment message (Appendix II) which

included a link and URL to access the study. Instructors were asked to permit their students to

complete the study. Instructors were also asked to facilitate recruitment by assigning extra credit.

Students recruited through the research pool are automatically assigned extra credit for research

participation. Participants also had their names entered a drawing to win one of four $50 gift

cards.

Four hundred and forty-two participants signed onto the study. After data cleaning, and

accounting for missing data, 424 were retained. Of that number, 74% identified as female and

26% as male. In addition, of the sample, 69% identified as white, 10% as Hispanic or Latino, 7%

as Black or African American, 7% as Asian, 2% as Native Hawaiian and 1% as American or

45

Alaska Natives and 4% did not specify a race. The mean age of participants was 21 (SD=2.98)

years old.

Design and Procedure

Jackson, O’Keefe, Jacobs and Brashers (1989) recommend using multiple messages in

communication experiments as they provide greater reliability in the estimation of treatment

effects and make it easier to identify moderator variables. Thus, nine video clips were chosen

and edited for this study. The videos were first piloted to ensure appropriateness and

effectiveness. The results of the pilot test of the videos confirmed that participants should be able

to identify differences in the manipulation. The videos participants watched were clips taken

from a television show - Law & Order: SVU – Funny Valentine (2013) and two television

movies - No-one Would Tell (1996) and Reviving Ophelia (2010). To ensure consistency across

conditions, the videos were of similar length, approximately four to five minutes each. This

study used a multiple-message 4 (consequence to bystander: positive, negative, no consequence,

control) x 2 (gender: male, female) between-subjects pre-posttest experimental design. This was

an online experiment in which participants first completed the online pretest, were then exposed

to the experimental stimuli, and completed the posttest questions in one sitting. For the posttest,

participants were randomly assigned to one of the four message conditions. In three of the four

groups, participants watched three videos each and then answered the posttest measures. Those

assigned to group four were not exposed to any stimuli. The post-test questionnaire ended with a

debrief script that provided participants with contact information for local and intimate

partner/dating violence advocacy and support services (See Appendix I).

46

Manipulation Check.

To check the success of the manipulation of the videos, participants were asked to

indicate their agreement or disagreement to three items on 7-point Likert-type items ranging

from 1- “strongly disagree” to 7- “strongly agree” for all video clips. The item was “The person

who intervened in the situation of violence received a positive consequence,”, “The person who

intervened in the situation of violence received a negative consequence,” and “There was no

consequence for the person who intervened in the situation of violence in the video.” The means

for these items were compared for differences using One-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA).

Measures

Identification with Bystander was measured by with adapted items from Ran (2014).

The researcher modified the scale to capture identification by asking participants how much they

agreed or disagreed with the six statements on a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1-

“strongly disagree” to 7- “strongly agree.” Items include “While viewing the video, I felt as if I

was a part of the action,” “I understand the reasons the person who intervened did what they

did,” “I think I have a good understanding of the person who intervened.” The items were

averaged to form an overall measure of (M=4.97, SD=.92, α=.92).

Rape myth acceptance, another attitudinal measure for this study, was measured with the

22-item version of the Revised Rape Myth Acceptance Scale (Payne, Longsway, & Fitzgerald,

1999). This required participants to respond on a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1-

“strongly disagree” to 7- “strongly agree” how much they agreed or disagreed with the

statements. The statements cover the seven major areas of rape myth acceptance: (a) ‘‘She asked

47

for it’’ (α=.72); (b) ‘‘It wasn’t really rape’’ (α=.74); (c) ‘‘He didn’t mean to’’ (α=.69); (d) ‘‘She

wanted it’’ (α=.72”; and (e) ‘‘She lied’’ (α=.83). Sample items included ‘‘If a woman is raped

while she is drunk, she is at least somewhat responsible for letting things get out of control’’ and

‘‘A woman who goes to the home or apartment of a man on the first date is implying that she

wants to have sex.’’ Responses to these items were averaged to form an overall measure of rape

myth acceptance (M=2.13, SD=1.15, α=.97). Higher scores on this scale indicate higher levels of

rape myth acceptance.

Perceived norms were assessed using adapted measures from Hust, Rodgers, Ebreo, and

Stefani (2016). Participants indicated how strongly they agreed or disagreed with six statements

on a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1- “strongly disagree” to 7- “strongly agree.” These

included the following items, “Most WSU students would make sure their friend is ok if they see

him/her in an uncomfortable situation with a dating partner,” Most WSU students would warn

someone or call the police if they saw that the person’s dating partner was getting violent” and

“Most WSU students would discourage someone if he/she was planning to get abusive with their

dating partner.” The items were averaged to form an overall measure of perceived norms

(M=5.58, SD=1.12, α=.89). Higher scores indicated more positive normative perceptions.

Perceived Efficacy was measured with an adapted version of the Bystander Efficacy

Scale (α=.87) (Banyard, et al., 2007; Banyard, 2008). Participants responded to eight items on a 7-

point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 – “very unconfident” to 7 – “very confident.” Items

include “Express my discomfort if someone says that dating violence victims are to blame for

being hit,” “Talk to a friend who I suspect is in an abusive relationship,” “Criticize a friend who

48

tells me that they had to hit a dating partner or forced them to do something they did not want to

do.” The items were averaged to form a single measure (M=5.76, SD=.97, α=.82). Higher scores

indicated higher levels of self-efficacy.

Intentions to intervene. A modified version of the Bystander Behavior Scale (α=.92)

(Borsky, McDonnel, Turner, & Rimal, 2016) was used. The scale was previously used to capture

past behaviors in the last three months. The researcher modified the scale to capture intentions by

asking participants how likely they are to perform the 9 given behaviors (Borsky et al., 2016).

Participants indicated on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1- “definitely not” to 5-

“definitely”) their agreement or disagreement with the nine statements. Items include “Confront

friends privately when concerned about their well-being”; “Say something if friends tell them

their partner is using harsh words or acting controlling,” “Tell friends that they do not have to

tolerate violent behavior from their partners,” “Encourage friends who may be in abusive

relationships (physical, emotional, or sexual abuse) to talk with someone about it and get help.”

Higher scores on this scale indicate higher levels of intention to intervene (M=4.51, SD=.63,

α=.95).

49

Data Analysis

Before the main analyses were done, tests were made to ensure the manipulation worked.

Results indicate that there were significant differences between groups for all conditions which

verified that the manipulations were perceived correctly.

All hypotheses were tested using the General Linear Model (GLM) in IBM SPSS Version

24. After data collection, the decision was taken to examine only the posttest data. This was done

as participants completed both the pretest and the posttest in the same sitting. Therefore, there

was no expectation of much variance between the pretest and the posttest. The experimental

conditions and gender were entered as factors. The models were run as full factorial which

includes the interaction effects of the two factors (media exposure and gender) on all outcome

variables. To answer research question four, regression analysis using the PROCESS macro

Model 1 (Haynes, 2010) was used.

Regarding assumptions, data for perceived norms, perceived efficacy, and intentions

were positively skewed, and negatively skewed for rape myth acceptance. In addition, the tests

of normality indicated that the data was non-normal. Transforming the data is usually done when

assumptions are violated. However, the author decided not to transform the data as Games

(1984) suggests that transforming the data will change the hypotheses tested. In addition, the

Central Limit Theorem proposes that the sampling distribution of the sample mean approaches

normal distribution as the sample size increases. Therefore, any sample over 30 is acceptable.

Homogeneity of variances tests indicated that variances were not equal across groups. To correct

50

the problems with homogeneity of variance, robust measures were applied, including using the

Games-Howell test to analyze cell differences.

51

CHAPTER FIVE: RESULTS

Table 5.1 provides the descriptive information for all key measures used in the study.

Table 5.1. Descriptive Statistics of Key Measures

Variables N % M(SD) Range

Women 313 74

Conditions

Positive 103 24

Negative 110 26

None 97 23

Control 111 26

Rape Myth Acceptance 2.13 (1.15) 1 – 7*

Perceived Norms 5.58 (1.12) 1 – 7*

Perceived Efficacy 5.76 ( .96) 1 – 7**

Intentions to Intervene 4.51 (.63) 1 - 5***

Identification 4.97(.92) 1 – 7*

__________________________________________________________________________ Note: * 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from “1-Strongly disagree” to “7-Strongly agree.” **7-point Likert-type scale ranging from “1 – Very unconfident” to “7-Very confident.” ***5-point Likert-type scale ranging from “1 – Definitely not” to “5-definitely.”

Hypothesis Testing

Predicting Rape Myth Acceptance

Research question 1 investigated the effects exposure to differential consequences to

bystanders has on participants’ rape myth acceptance. Results of the factorial ANOVA indicate

that there were no significant differences between conditions F(3,404)=.103, p=.959.

52

Hypothesis 1 proposed that gender would be a significant factor on acceptance of rape

myths across all conditions with women reporting lower scores than men. As shown in Figure

5.1, results indicate that gender was statistically significant across conditions F(1, 404)=26.38,

p<.001. Post hoc analyses indicate that women (M=1.71, SD=.90) had significant lower means

on rape myth acceptance than men (M=2.93, SD=1.13). Therefore, the hypothesis is supported.

Figure 5.1. Estimated Marginal Means of Rape Myth Acceptance

Predicting Effects on Perceived Norms

The second hypothesis predicted that exposure to positive consequences would be

associated with the strongest effects and exposure to negative consequences would have the

weakest effects on normative beliefs. Results of the factorial ANOVA indicated that there were

53

no statistically significant differences between conditions on normative beliefs F(3, 407)=.746,

p=.525. Thus, the second hypothesis is not supported.

The third hypothesis proposed that gender would be a significant factor in predicting

perceived norms across all conditions. As shown in Figure 5.2, results of the factorial ANOVA

indicated that gender was a statistically significant factor, F(1,407)=7.983, p<.01, η2=.01. Post

hoc analyses indicated that women (M=5.68, SD=1.06) showed higher normative perceptions of

positive norms than men (M=5.31, SD=1.14). The hypothesis was therefore supported.

Figure 5.2. Estimated Marginal Means of Normative Perceptions

Predicting Effects on Perceived Efficacy

Hypothesis four predicted that participants exposed to the positive consequences would

have the highest scores and participants exposed to negative consequences would have the

lowest scores on perceived efficacy. Results of the factorial ANOVA indicated that there was no

54

significant differences between condition F(3, 405)=1.33, p=.265. The hypothesis was not

supported.

Hypothesis five proposed that gender would be a significant factor in predicting

perceived efficacy across all conditions. As indicated in Figure 5.3, gender was a statistically

significant predictor of self-efficacy across conditions, F(1, 405)=.9.10, p<.01, η2=.02. Post hoc

tests indicated that women had (M=5.85, SD=.92) had significantly higher scores on perceived

self-efficacy than men (M=5.51, SD=1.02).

Figure 5.3. Estimated Marginal Means of Perceived Efficacy

Predicting Effects on Intentions to Intervene

Hypothesis six proposed that exposure to positive consequences would have the strongest

effects and exposure to negative consequences would have weakest effects on intentions to

55

intervene. However, results of the factorial ANOVA indicated no statistically significant

differences between conditions on intentions to intervene, F(3, 407)=1.05, p=.369. Therefore, the

hypothesis was not supported.

Hypothesis seven predicted that gender would also be a significant factor in predicting

intentions to intervene. As shown in Figure 5.2, results showed that gender was a significant

factor in predicting intentions to intervene across all conditions F(1, 407)=25.49, p<.001, η2=.06

Post hoc comparisons indicated that women (M=4.60, SD=.59) showed significantly higher

intentions to intervene than men (M=4.24, SD=.68).

Figure 5.4. Estimated Marginal Means of Intention to Intervene

56

Table 5.2. Results of Factorial ANOVA Predicting the Effects of Exposure to Differential Consequences on Outcomes

Rape Myth Norms

N M(SD) N M(SD) N M(SD) N M(SD)

Male Female Male Female

Positive 30 2.93(1.13) 70 1.71( .90) 31 5.16(1.44) 70 5.93(1.04)

Negative 24 2.57(1.23) 84 2.03(1.16) 24 5.49(1.2) 84 5.54(1.16)

None 23 2.38(1.03) 71 2.07(1.20) 23 5.17(1.70) 72 5.49(1.13)

Control 29 2.51(1.13) 81 1.10(1.09) 29 5.43( .92) 82 5.76( .96)

Efficacy Intentions

N M(SD) N M(SD) N M(SD)) N M(SD))

Male Female Male Female

Positive 30 5.49(1.11) 70 5.89( .93) 31 4.17( .73) 65 4.58(.59)

Negative 24 5.46(1.05) 84 5.87( .85) 24 4.22( .70) 74 4.57(.62)

None 23 5.81( .95) 71 5.90(1.06) 23 4.46( .50) 64 4.60 (.62)

Control 29 5.31(1.14) 82 5.61(1.04) 29 4.14( .72) 76 4.63 (.52)

Interactions between Condition and Gender

Research Question 2 asked what effects will the interaction between exposure to

differential consequences and genders have on participants’ rape myth acceptance, self-efficacy

and intentions to intervene? Results indicated no significant interaction effects between gender

and conditions on participants’ rape myth acceptance F(3, 404)=2.55, p=.06, self-efficacy F(3,

57

405)=.61, p=.61, perceived norms F(3, 407)=1.38, p=.25 or intentions to intervene F(3,

407)=1.15, p=.33.

Predicting Effects on Identification

Research question three asked whether gender and exposure to differential consequences

would influence identification with the bystander. Results of the factorial ANOVA revealed that

there were no significant differences between conditions on identification with the bystander

F(2, 299)=.238, p=.789. However, results also revealed that gender was a significant predictor of

identification with the bystander, F(1, 299)=11.66, p<.01, η2=,04. Post hoc comparisons

indicated that overall women (M=5.01, SD=.06) reported significantly higher scores on

identification than men (M=4.67, SD=.10)

Predicting Effects of Identification with the Bystander after Exposure to Differential

Consequences of Bystander Intervention on Outcome Measures

Research question 4 asked whether identification with the bystander in each condition

would predict rape myth acceptance, perceived norms, perceived efficacy and intentions to

intervene. Separate regressions were run for each condition using the PROCESS Model 1 macro

(Hayes, 2010).

Effects of Identification with the Bystander after Exposure to Positive Consequences of

Bystander Intervention on Outcome Measures

Rape Myth Acceptance

As shown in Table 5.3, gender was not significant in this model. Identification with

bystanders did not significantly predict rape myth acceptance.

58

Perceived Norms

The results indicated that the full model accounted for 29% of the variance in perceived

norms. After exposure to positive consequences of bystander intervention, gender predicted

perceived norms, such that women were more likely to report positive norms than men, β= 4.13,

t(98))=3.09, p<.01. Identification with bystanders was also positively associated with norms,

such that individuals who identified with bystanders were more likely to report positive

normative evaluations, β=1.84, t(98)=3.71, p<.001. As Figure 5.5 indicates, the interaction

between gender and identification was significant, such that greater identification predicted more

positive norms perceptions for both men and women; however, men were more likely to report

increased positive norm perceptions as identification with bystanders increased, β= -.75, t(98)=-

2.74, p<.05

59

Figure 5.5. Interaction Effects of Gender and Identification on Perceived Norms.

Perceived Efficacy

Results indicated that the full model accounted for 42% of the variance in perceived

efficacy. Gender was not significantly associated with perceived efficacy. However,

identification with bystanders was positively associated with self-efficacy, indicating that

individuals who reported greater identification with bystanders were more likely to report higher

perceived efficacy, β=1.36, t(96)=.3.66, p<.01. There were no significant interaction effects.

60

Intentions to Intervene

The full model accounted for 40% of the variance in intentions to intervene. After

exposure to positive consequences to bystanders, gender was positively associated with

intentions to intervene, such that women were more likely to report greater intentions to

intervene, β=1.47, t(97)=2.23, p<.05. Identification with bystanders was also positively

associated with intentions to intervene indicating that the more individuals identified with

bystanders, they reported greater intentions to intervene, β= .87, t(97)=3.53, p<.01. There were

no significant interaction effects.

Effects of Identification with the Bystander after Exposure to Negative Consequences of

Bystander Intervention on Outcome Measures

61

Rape Myth Acceptance

As indicated in Table 5.4, after exposure to negative consequences, there were no

significant effects of gender and identification with bystanders on rape myth acceptance. There

were no significant interaction effects.

Perceived Norms

As indicated in Table 5.4, after exposure to negative consequences, there were no

significant effects of gender and identification with bystanders on perceived norms. There were

also no significant interaction effects.

Perceived Efficacy

As indicated in Table 5.4, after exposure to negative consequences, there were no

significant effects of gender and identification with bystanders on perceived efficacy. There were

also no significant interaction effects.

Intentions to Intervene

As indicated in Table 5.4, after exposure to negative consequences, there were no

significant effects of gender and identification with bystanders on intentions to intervene. There

were also no significant interaction effects.

62

Effects of Identification with the Bystander after Exposure to No Consequences of

Bystander Intervention on Outcome Measures

Rape Myth Acceptance

Results indicated that the model accounted for 12% of the variance in rape myth

acceptance. As indicated in Table 5.5, gender was significantly associated with rape myth

acceptance, such that women who watched videos with no consequences to bystanders were

more likely to report greater rape myth acceptance, β=4.42, t(90)=2.73, p<.05. Identification with

bystanders was also positively associated with rape myth acceptance, such that greater

identification with bystanders predicted greater rape myth acceptance, β=1.5, t(90)=2.47, p<.05.

As Figure 5.6 shows, there was also a significant interaction effect between gender and

63

identification, such that greater identification with bystanders for men resulted in increased rape

myth acceptance, while women were more likely to report decreased rape myth acceptance, β=-

.98, t(90)=-2.93, p<.01.

Figure 5.6. Interaction Effects of Gender and Identification on Rape Myth Acceptance.

Perceived Norms

As indicated in Table 5.4, after exposure to video with no consequences to bystanders,

there were no significant effects of gender and identification with bystanders on perceived

norms. There were no significant interaction effects.

Perceived Efficacy

64

As indicated in Table 5.4, after exposure to video with no consequences to bystanders, there

were no significant effects of gender and identification with bystanders on perceived efficacy.

There were no significant interaction effects.

Intentions to Intervene

As indicated in Table 5.4, after exposure to video with no consequences to bystanders,

there were no significant effects of gender and identification with bystanders on perceived

efficacy. There were no significant interaction effects.

65

CHAPTER SIX: DISCUSSION

Bystander intervention is perhaps the most successful way to reduce violence against

women - including intimate partner violence - on college campuses (Bekowitz, 2009). However,

before bystanders can act, motivation is necessary. Social cognitive theory (Bandura, 2001)

proposes that associating desired behavioral outcomes with rewards can be motivation for

learning new behaviors (Bandura, 2001). On the other hand, punishing or associating the

behavior with negative rewards is disincentive for performing the behaviors. Entertainment-

education programs use these portrayals as persuasive elements to promote prosocial behaviors.

However, there is a need for empirical research that investigates the main effects of exposure to

these consequences on viewers.

This dissertation’s main goal was to examine the effects of exposure to differential

consequences of bystander intervention on participants’ intentions to intervene. Intentions are

important to consider as they are usually the precursors to behaviors (Fishbein & Yzer, 2003).

Individuals who exhibit positive intentions toward a behavior are much more likely to eventually

adopt the behavior than those who do not (Fishbein & Capella, 2006). The integrated model of

behavioral prediction (Fishbein & Yzer, 2003) predicts that media influence will not directly

influence intentions, as media influence is mediated by individuals’ attitudes, norms, and

efficacy. Therefore, this study also investigated the influence of media on rape myth acceptance,

self-efficacy, and normative perceptions. The influence of gender on these outcomes were

investigated as well. Finally, this study investigated whether exposure to differential

66

consequences to bystander intervention would influence identification with the bystanders in

media.

Based on social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1977), Sabido (1999) proposed that narrative

development in EE programs should include rewards as incentives to promote prosocial attitudes

and behaviors, and should also include negative consequences as disincentives to undesirable

behaviors. Accordingly, participants who were exposed to positive consequences should report

more positive norms, efficacy and intentions to intervene. They should also report decreased rape

myth acceptance. On the other hand, participants exposed to negative consequences should

report greater rape myth acceptance, negative norms, self-efficacy and intentions to intervene.

This model is used in EE programs worldwide (Sabido, 1999). Surprisingly, exposure to media

showing differential consequences of bystander intervention did not predict the main outcome

variables in this study. There were no differences between conditions on reports of rape myth

acceptance, norms, efficacy and intentions to intervene. The results of this study suggest that

motivation to act as a bystander is not significantly heightened by mere exposure. This study

demonstrates that other message elements may be more salient for viewers than exposure to

consequences of bystander intervention. Other factors such as viewers’ perceptions of how

violent the acts of violence were, for instance, could play a more significant role in motivating

viewers to act. Likewise, how viewers interpret bystander intervention may be more relevant.

Although unexpected, these results also provide an important opportunity to further

examine media portrayals, effects and viewers’ interpretation of media images. The results also

underscore that even theory-based messages do not always have the effects intended. An

67

important implication of this finding is that it may not be necessary for EE programs to portray

consequences to bystander intervention, since those who viewed consequences did not differ

significantly from those who did not view these consequences. However, more investigation is

needed to understand fully how this works. Practitioners should consider how these portrayals

affect their overall message. Moreover, future research should identify the most salient aspects of

exposure to intimate partner violence and subsequent bystander intervention and consequences

for viewers.

Gender had significant main effects on rape myth acceptance, norms, efficacy and

intentions to intervene. Women were more likely to report stronger perceived norms, efficacy

and intentions to intervene than men. These findings expand previous bystander studies that

found that women are more likely to intervene in sexual assault situations (Burn, 2009; Banyard,

2008). These results also suggest that women are more likely to perceive a more empathetic

environment than their male counterparts. One possible explanation for this is that women

identify more with victims in interpersonal violence situations which makes them more likely to

have more prosocial attitudes, and also more likely to intervene (Gerber et al. 2004; Jimenez &

Abreu 2003; Lambdin, 2005). One of the major gaps in the bystander literature concerning

interpersonal violence on college campuses, is the concentration of research on sexual assault

and not enough studies on other forms of campus violence (Banyard, 2008; Borsky et al. 2016).

This study contributes to the literature by providing evidence that women show more positive

norms, self-efficacy and intention to intervene in intimate partner violence situations as well.

Considering that approximately a third of college students report experiencing intimate partner

68

violence while in college (Renison and Rand, 2003), this study provides further evidence for

practitioners to consider gender as an important factor in campus intimate partner violence

reduction programs. Interventions should possibly target men and women differently to increase

effectiveness.

On the other hand, women had lower rape myth acceptance than men in all conditions.

This study supports previous research that shows that men were more likely to have higher rape

myth acceptance than women (Lonsway and Fitzgerald 1994; McMahon, 2010; Shechory and

Idisis 2006). However, possible boomerang effects of viewing positive consequences seem to

influence men’s belief in rape myths. Men reported higher beliefs in rape myths in the positive

condition when compared to the other conditions. While unexpected, there is evidence that some

types of mainstream media promote aggressive masculine norms and reinforces belief in rape

myths (Hust et al., 2013). Therefore, it is possible that viewing positive consequences to

prosocial behaviors could result in strong reactance that increases rape myth acceptance among

men. Future research should investigate other factors in the media that may influence rape myth

acceptance in men. The significance of gender in this study shows that the media affects men and

women differently. How men and women interpret media images should be further explored.

The results also have implications for how we apply the integrated model of behavioral

prediction (Fishbein & Yzer, 2003). The results partially support the model by providing

evidence of the influence of gender on attitudes, norms and efficacy. But, the model also predicts

that the influence of gender - as a background variable -should be mediated by attitudes, norms,

and efficacy. The integrated model does not explain direct effects of gender on intention nor on

69

behaviors. However, this study found that gender not only influences rape myth acceptance,

norms, and efficacy, but also directly predicts intentions. This is a significant contribution to the

literature providing evidence that background variables are not always mediated but instead,

exert direct effects on intentions. This study then provides a platform from which to further

investigate the direct influence of other background variables, including the media, on both

intentions and behaviors.

Social cognitive theory (Bussey & Bandura, 1999) suggests that individuals will learn

from the media the more they identify with characters. However, it is uncertain how differing

media portrayals influence identification. There were no significant differences among

experimental conditions on how much participants identified with bystanders. This finding is a

significant contribution as it provides evidence that consequences to bystander intervention do

not affect the likelihood of viewers identifying with bystanders or how much they think the

bystanders are like them. It is possible that other factors supersede the effects of exposure to

media of this nature. This also suggests that practitioners should focus on the elements that may

support identification with characters.

Gender was also significantly associated with identification with bystanders in the media.

Women identified with the bystanders more than men across all conditions. The stimuli used in

this study depicted both male and female bystanders. However, female bystanders had more

speaking roles than the male bystanders. Previous research found that when exposed to media,

both men and women were more likely to identify with characters of the same gender (Hoffner &

Buchanan, 2005). It is possible that this influenced how male and female participants related to

70

the bystanders to which they were exposed. Notwithstanding this possibility, this finding in

tandem with previously discussed results, indicate that women are more likely to report prosocial

attitudes than men. Investigations into the role of gender in predicting identification with

prosocial roles may be useful to both researchers and intervention experts to increase message

effectiveness in EE programs.

Regression analyses show that after exposure to positive consequences, identification

with the bystanders was positively associated with perceived norms, efficacy and intentions to

intervene. These results are interesting because this study also found that there were no

significant differences between groups in predicting identification, norms, efficacy and intentions

to intervene. However, results of the regression analyses indicate that identification predicts

more positive prosocial attitudes among those who viewed only positive consequences. Since

identification with bystanders in the negative and no consequence conditions did not predict

increased scores on the outcome variables, we can theorize that exposure to positive

consequences could make bystanders more likeable to audiences. This then translates to

increased prosocial attitudes and intentions. The results also support previous studies that found

identification to be one of the most important persuasive elements of narrative persuasion

(Tukachinsky & Tukunaga, 2013). To a large extent, EE programs depend upon the parasocial

relationships that audiences develop with characters to promote positive behaviors and attitudes.

Therefore, identification leading to greater reports of positive norms, efficacy and intentions in

this condition supports EE programs using positive consequences to increase identification with

71

key characters. However, future research will need to investigate how people make sense of

bystanders and how they identify with bystander portrayals.

Limitations and Future Directions

This study provides insight into motivational factors for effective health-based

interventions related to romantic and sexual relationships. However, several limitations affect the

interpretation of the results. Women overwhelmingly outnumbered men in this study impeding

effective comparisons across experimental conditions. In addition, this study utilized a

convenience sample of undergraduate students who participated for extra credit and a drawing

for a cash incentive. Thus, the findings may not be generalizable to the general public.

Additionally, although college students are expected to also be active bystanders, perception of

issue salience may have affected the results. To investigate these possibilities, future studies

should use a sample that is more diverse.

The study also did not measure numerous potential covariates that may influence the

outcomes. This prevented a broader assessment of the effects of the independent variables on the

dependent variables. Replications of this study should consider the effects of possible covariates.

The study utilized a pre-posttest experiment where participants completed the pretest and the

posttest in a single sitting, and only the posttest was used in the analysis. A delay posttest could

reduce possible testing effects, fatigue, and provide insight into effects overtime. Also, it is

possible that the manipulation of the consequences in the videos that participants watched were

not strong enough given that only the epilogue was altered between conditions. Finally, EE

effectiveness may be stronger when longer programs are used. The stimuli used in this study

72

were only approximately four to five minutes each which could have limited narrative

effectiveness.

Another limitation of this study is that there was no behavioral measure. While the study

investigated intentions, and other cognitive factors, this study does not provide the opportunity to

draw conclusions about how exposure to media may affect behavior. An individual who

expresses high intentions may not do so for various reasons. Also, reported intentions and self-

efficacy may not translate to behavior as many individuals may never experience situations of

intimate partner violence. To fully understand the effects of the kind of exposure tested in this

study, future research could also investigate the impact of exposure to media on behavioral

outcomes.

Conclusion

Despite its limitations, the current study contributes to our theoretical understanding of

the effects of media exposure to consequences of bystander behaviors. Results show that the

effects of exposure to media are not always predictable. There may be individual differences at

play that needs further investigation. The results also highlight the gender imbalance in media

effects, as well as the gender imbalance regarding prosocial intentions and behaviors. Results

support the call for tailored message designs that can appeal to both men and women to increase

bystander intentions and actions. The results also underscore the importance of intentional

theory-based message design, and also support opportunities to integrate multiple theories in

message design, implementation and evaluation. This integration can better promote desired

behaviors as well as proximal attitudes.

73

The study also provides opportunities to reflect on the persuasive mechanisms of

entertainment-education programs. Since its genesis, EE programs use rewards and punishment

as motivational factors. However, as the strategy develops, it may be salient to integrate multiple

motivational elements to maximize effects. This study also suggests that identification with

characters who are rewarded for their prosocial behaviors is an important element in persuasion.

Finally, the study underscores the need for careful theoretical and methodological reflections

every stage of message development and intervention implementation as it is never possible to

control audience reception.

74

REFERENCES

Anderson, K. L. (2005). Theorizing gender in intimate partner violence research. Sex Roles,

52(11-12), 853–865.

Andresen, M., & Linning, S. (2014). Beginning to understand the economic costs of children’s

exposure to intimate partner violence. International Journal of Child, Youth & Family

Studies, 5(4), 588-608.

Archer, J. (2000). Sex differences in aggression between heterosexual partners: A meta-analytic

review. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 651–680.

Armstrong, C. L., & Mahone, J. (2017). “It’s On Us.” The Role of Social Media and Rape

Culture in Individual Willingness to Mobilize Against Sexual Assault. Mass

Communication and Society, 20(1), 92–115.

https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2016.1185127.

Bae, H. (2008). Entertainment-education and recruitment of cornea donors: The role of emotion

and issue involvement. Journal of Health Communication, 13(1), 20-36.

Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory (Prentice-Hall series in social learning theory).

Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.

Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory of mass communication. Media Psychology, 3, 265

– 299. doi:10.1207/S1532785XMEP0303_0.

Banyard, V. L. (2014). Improving college campus–based prevention of violence against women:

A strategic plan for research built on multipronged practices and policies. Trauma,

Violence, & Abuse, 15(4), 339-351.

75

Banyard, V. (2008). Measurement and correlates of prosocial bystander behavior: The case of

interpersonal violence. Violence and Victims, 23(1), 83-97.

Banyard, V. L. (2011). Who will help prevent sexual violence: Creating an ecological model of

bystander intervention. Psychological of Violence,1(3), 216-229

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. https://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.

Bennett, S., Banyard, V. L. & Garnhart, L. (2014). To act or not to act. Journal of interpersonal

Violence, 29 (3), 476-496.

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.

Banyard, V. L., Plante, E. G., & Moynihan, M. M. (2005). Rape prevention through bystander

education: Final report to NIJ for grant 2002-WG-BX-0009. Available from

www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/nij/grants/208701.pdf

Berkowitz, A. D. (2002). Fostering men’s responsibility for preventing sexual assault. In P. A.

Schewe (Ed.), Preventing Violence in Relationships: Interventions across the Lifespan

(pp. 163-196). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

76

Berkowitz, A. D. (2001). Critical elements of sexual-assault prevention and risk-reduction

programs for men and women. In C. Kilmartin & A. Berkowitz (Eds.), Sexual assault

in context: Teaching college men about gender (pp. 75–96). Holmes Beach, FL:

Learning.

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.

Boeckel, M., Wagner, A., & Grassi-Oliveira, R. (2017). The effects of intimate partner violence

exposure on the maternal bond and PTSD symptoms of children. Journal of

Interpersonal Violence, 32(7), 1127-1142.

Bonomi, A., Anderson, M., Reid, R., Rivara, F., Carrell, D., & Thompson, R. (2009). Medical

and psychosocial diagnoses in women with a history of intimate partner violence.

Archives of Internal Medicine, 169(18), 1692-1697.

Borsky, A. E., Mcdonnell, K., Turner, M. M., & Rimal, R. (2016). Raising a red flag on

dating violence: Evaluation of a low-resource, college-based bystander behavior

intervention program. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 1-22.

doi:10.1177/0886260516635322.

Borrayo, E. A., Rosales, M. & Gonzales, P. Entertainment-education narrative versus

nonnarrative interventions to educate and motivate Latinas to engage in mammography

screening. Health Education & Behavior, 44(3), 394-402.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1090198116665624

77

Braddock, K., & Dillard, J. (2016). Meta-analytic evidence for the persuasive effect of narratives

on beliefs, attitudes, intentions, and behaviors. Communication Monographs, 83(4), 446-

467.

Brendgen, M., Vitaro, F., Tremblay, R., & Wanner, B. (2002). Parent and peer effects on

delinquency‐related violence and dating violence: A test of two mediational models.

Social Development, 11(2), 225-244.

Brody, N., & Vangelisti, A. (2016). Bystander intervention in cyberbullying. Communication

Monographs, 83(1), 94-119.

Brickman, J. (2017). Evaluating a self-determination approach to a text-message intervention for

sexual violence prevention (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations

Publishing. (10259878).

Burn, S. M. (2009). A situational model of sexual assault prevention through bystander

intervention. Sex Roles, 60, 779–772.

Bussey, K., & Bandura, A. (1999). Social cognitive theory of gender development and

differentiation. Psychological Review, 106(4), 676–713.

https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.106.4.676

Black, D. S., Sussman, S., & Unger, J. B. (2010). A further look at the intergenerational

transmission of violence: Witnessing interparental violence in emerging adulthood.

Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25 (6), 1022–1042.

Bleakley, A., Hennessy, M., Fishbein, M., & Jordan, A. (2011). Using the Integrative Model to

78

Explain How Exposure to Sexual Media Content Influences Adolescent Sexual Behavior.

Health Education & Behavior, 38(5), 530-540. doi:10.1177/1090198110385775.

Brendgen, M., Vitaro, F., Tremblay, R. E., & Wanner, B. (n.d.). Parent and peer effects on

delinquency-related violence and dating violence: A test of two mediational models.

Social Development, 11(2), 225–244.

Cannon, E. A., Bonomi, A. E., Anderson, M. L., & Rivara, F. P. (2009). The intergenerational

transmission of witnessing intimate partner violence. Archives of Paediatrics &

Adolescent Medicine, 163(8), 706–708.

Cannon, C. Katie Lauve-Moon, K. & Buttell, F. (2015). Re-theorizing intimate partner violence

through post-structural feminism, queer theory, and the sociology of gender. Social

Sciences, 4(3), 668-687.

Cappell, C., & Heiner, R. (1990). The intergenerational transmission of family aggression.

Journal of Family Violence, 5(2), 135-152.

Cappell, C., & Heiner, R. (1990). The intergenerational transmission of family aggression.

Journal of Family Violence, 5(2), 135-152.

Catalano, S. (2013). Intimate partner violence. Attributes of victimization. Bureau of Justice

Statistics.

Carlo, G., Hausmann, A., Christiansen, S., & Randall, B. A. (2003). Sociocognitive and

behavioral correlates of a measure of prosocial tendencies for adolescents. The Journal of

Early Adolescence, 23(1), 107-134.

Carlson, M. (2008). I’d rather go along and be considered a man: Masculinity and bystander

79

intervention. The Journal of Men’s Studies, 16(1), 3–17. doi: 10.3149/jms.1601.3.

Carney, M., Buttell, F., & Dutton, D. (2007). Women who perpetrate intimate partner violence:

A review of the literature with recommendations for treatment. Aggression and Violent

Behavior, 12(1), 108–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2006.05.002

Chandler, D. & Munday, R. (2011). A Dictionary of Media and Communication(1st ed). Oxford ;

New York: Oxford University Press.

Chabot, H. F., racy, T. L., Manning, C. A. & Poisson, C. A. (2009). Sex, attribution, and severity

influence intervention decisions of informal helpers in domestic violence.

Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 24, 1696-1713.

Chen, T. (2015). The persuasive effectiveness of mini-films: Narrative transportation and fantasy

proneness. Journal Of Consumer Behaviour, 14(1), 21-27.

Christy, C.A., & Voigt, H. (1994). Bystander responses to public episodes of child abuse.

Journalof Applied Social Psychology, 24, 824–847.

Cohen, E., Alward, D., Zajicek, D., Edwards, S., & Hutson, R. (2017). Ending as intended: The

educational effects of an epilogue to a TV show episode about bipolar disorder. Health

Communication, 1-8.

Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155–159.

https://doi.org/http://ntserver1.wsulibs.wsu.edu:2090/10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155

Cohen, J. (2006). Audience identification with media characters. In J. Bryant & P. Vorderer

(Eds.), Psychology of entertainment (pp. 183–197). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Coker, A. L., Cook-Craig, P. G., Williams, C. M., Fisher, B. S., Clear, E. R., Garcia, L. S., &

80

Hegge, L. M. (2011). Evaluation of ‘Green Dot’: An active bystander intervention to

reduce sexual violence on college campuses. Violence Against Women, 17(6), 777–796.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801211410264

Coker, A. L., Fisher, B. S., Bush, H. M., Swan, S. C., Williams, C. M., Clear, E. R., & DeGue, S.

(2015). Evaluation of the Green Dot Bystander Intervention to Reduce Interpersonal

Violence Among College Students Across Three Campuses. Violence Against Women,

21(12), 1507–1527. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801214545284

Darley, J.M., & Latane`, B. (1968). Bystander intervention in emergencies: Diffusion of

responsibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8, 377–383.

Dardis, C. M., Dixon, K. J., Edwards, K. M. & Turchik, J. A. (2015). An examinations of the

factors related to dating violence perpetration among young men and women and

associated theoretical explanations: A review of the literature. Trauma, Violence &

Abuse, 16 (2), 136-152

DeKeseredy, W. S., & Schwartz, M. D. (1998). Woman abuse on campus: Results from the

Canadian national survey. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Fass, Daniel F., Benson, Ronald I., & Leggett, Debra G. (2008). Assessing prevalence and

awareness of violent behaviors in the intimate partner relationships of college

students using internet sampling. Journal of College Student Psychotherapy, 22(4), 66-

75.

DeMaria, A. L., Sundstrom, B., Grzejdziak, M., Booth, K., Adams, H., Gabel, C., & Cabot, J.

81

(2018). It’s Not My Place: Formative Evaluation Research to Design a Bystander

Intervention Campaign. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 33(3), 468–490.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260515608804

Dill-Shackleford, K., Green, M., Scharrer, E., Wetterer, C., & Shackleford, L. (2015). Setting the

stage for social change: Using live theater to dispel myths about intimate partner

violence. Journal of Health Communication, 20(8), 1-8.

Dobash, R. E., & Dobash, R. P. (1979). Violence against wives. New York: Free Press

Dutton, D., & Nicholls, T. (2005). The gender paradigm in domestic violence research and

theory: Part 1- The conflict of theory and data. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 10,

680–714. https://doi.org/doi:10.1016/j.avb.2005.02.001

Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G. & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical

power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior

Research Methods, 39, 175-191.

Fischer, P., Krueger, J. I., Greitemeyer, T., Vogrincic, C., Kastenmuller, A., Frey, D., Heene, M.,

Wicher, M., & Kainbacher, M. (2011). The bystander-effect: A meta-analytic review on

bystander intervention in dangerous and non-dangerous emergencies. Psychological

Bulletin, 137(4), 517–537. https://doi.org/0.1037/a0023304

Fishbein, M., & Cappella, J. N. (2006). The role of theory in developing effective health

communications. Journal of Communication, 56, S1–S17.

Fishbein, M. & Yzer, M. C. (2003). Using theory to design effective health behavior

interventions. Communication Theory, 13(2), 164-183.

82

Fisher, B., Daigle, L., & Cullen, F. (2010). What distinguishes single from recurrent sexual

victims? The role of lifestyle‐routine activities and first‐incident characteristics. Justice

Quarterly, 27(1), 102-129.

Fletcher, J. (2010). The effects of intimate partner violence on health in young adulthood in the

United States. Social Science & Medicine, 70(1), 130-135.

Foshee, Linder, Macdougall, & Bangdiwala. (2001). Gender differences in the longitudinal

predictors of adolescent dating violence. Preventive Medicine, 32(2), 128-141.

Foubert, J. D. (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. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.20397

Foubert, J. D. (2013). Integrating pornography use into the prediction of bystander efficacy and

willingness to prevent sexual assault. Journal of Psychology & Theology, 41(3), 242–

251.

Foshee, V. A., Benefield, T. S., Ennett, S. T., Bauman, K. E., & Suchindran, C. (2004).

Longitudinal predictors of serious physical and sexual dating violence victimization

during adolescence. Preventative Medicine, 39, 1007–1016.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2004.04.014

Fritzsche, B., Finklestein, M. A., & Penner, L. A. (2000). To help or not to help: capturing

individual’s decision making policies. Social Behavior and Personality, 28(6), 561–578.

https://doi.org/DOI 10.2224/sbp.2000.28.6.561.

Gerber, G. L., Cronin, J. M., & Steigman, H. (2004). Attributions of blame in sexual assault to

83

perpetrators and victims of both genders. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34, 2149

2165.

Gidycz, C., Orchowski, L., & Berkowitz, A. (2011). Preventing sexual aggression among college

men: An evaluation of a social norms and bystander intervention program. Violence

against Women, 17(6), 720-42.

Gover, A., Kaukinen, C., & Fox, K. (2008). The relationship between violence in the family of

origin and dating violence among college students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence,

23(12), 1667-1693.

Hamberger, L., & Larsen, K. (2015). Men’s and women’s experience of intimate partner

violence: A review of ten years of comparative studies in clinical samples; Part I. Journal

of Family Violence, 30(6), 699-717.

Hoeken, H., & Sinkeldam, J. (2014). The role of identification and perception of just outcome in

evoking emotions in narrative persuasion. Journal of Communication, 64(5), 935– 955.

doi:10.1111/jcom.12114

Hoffner, C., & Buchanan, M. (2005). Young adults’ wishful identification with television

characters: The role of perceived similarity and character attributes. Media Psychology,

7(4), 325–351. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532785XMEP0704_2.

Hust, S., Adams, P., Willoughby, J., Ren, C., Lei, M., Ran, W., & Marett, E. (2017). The

entertainment-education strategy in sexual assault prevention: A comparison of

theoretical foundations and a test of effectiveness in a college campus setting. Journal of

Health Communication, 22(9), 721-731.

84

Hust, S. J. T., Marett, E. G., Lei, M., Chang, H., Ren, C., & McNab, A. L. (2013). Health

promotion messages in entertainment media: Crime drama viewership and intentions to

intervene in a sexual assault situation. Journal of Health Communication, 18, 105–123.

https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2012.688241

Hust, S. J. T., Marett, E. G., Ren, C., Adams, P. M., Willoughby, J. F., Lei, M., Norman, C.

(2014). Establishing and adhering to sexual consent: The association between reading

magazines and college students’ sexual consent negotiation. Journal of Sex Research,

51(3), 280–290. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2012.727914

Hust, S. J. T., Rodgers, K. B., Ebreo, S., & Stefani, W. (2016). Rape myth acceptance, efficacy,

and heterosexual scripts in men’s magazines: Factors associated with intentions to

sexually coerce. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 1–31.

https://doi.org/0.1177/0886260516653752

Hust, S. J. T., Marett, E. G., Lei, M., Ren, C., & Ran, W. (2015). Law & Order, CSI, and NCIS:

The association between exposure to crime drama franchises, rape myth acceptance, and

sexual consent negotiation among college students. Journal of Health Communication,

20, 1369–1381. https://doi.org/10810730.2015.1018615

Hoffman, A., Lowenstein, L., Kamath, G., Housten, A., Leal, V., Linder, S., Jibaja-Weiss, M. L.,

Raju, G. S. & Volk, R. (2017). An entertainment‐education colorectal cancer screening

decision aid for African American patients: A randomized controlled trial. Cancer,

123(8), 1401-1408.

Igartua, J.J. & Casanova, J. Identification with characters, elaboration, and counter-arguing in

85

entertainment-education interventions through audio-visuals fiction. Journal of Health

Communication, 21(3), 293-300.

Jackson, Sally, O'Keefe, Daniel J., Jacobs, Scott, & Brashers, Dale E. (1989). Messages as

replications: Toward a message-centered design strategy. Communication Monographs,

56(4), 364-384.

Jain, S., Buka, S., Subramanian, S., & Molnar, B. (2010). Neighborhood predictors of dating

violence victimization and perpetration in young adulthood: A multilevel study.

American Journal of Public Health, 100(9), 1737-1744.

Jenkins, L. N. & Nickerson, A. B. (2017). Bullying participant roles and gender as predictors of

bystander intervention. Aggressive Behavior, 43 (3), 281-290.

Jeong, H., & Park, H. (2015). The effect of parasocial interaction on intention to register as organ

donors through entertainment-education programs in Korea. Asia-Pacific Journal of

Public Health, 27(2), NP2040-NP2048.

Jimenez, J. A., & Abreu, J. M. (2003). Race and sex effects on attitudinal perceptions of

acquaintance rape. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 50, 252 256.

Johnson, M. (2011). Gender and types of intimate partner violence: A response to an anti-

feminist literature review. Aggression and Violent Behaviors, (16), 289–296.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2011.04.006.

Kaiser Family Foundation. (2004). The role of media in childhood obesity. Menlo Park, CA:

Kaiser Family Foundation.

Kahlor, L., & Morrison, D. (2007). Television viewing and rape myth acceptance among college

86

women. Sex Roles, 56(11), 729-739.

Kahlor, L., & Eastin, M. (2011). Television's role in the culture of violence toward women: A

study of television viewing and the cultivation of rape myth acceptance in the United

States. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 55(2), 215-231.

Kania, R., & Cale, J. (2018). Preventing Sexual Violence Through Bystander Intervention:

Attitudes, Behaviors, Missed Opportunities, and Barriers to Intervention Among

Australian University Students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 088626051876439.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260518764395

Katz, J., Pazienza, R., Olin, R., & Rich, H. (2015). That’s What Friends Are For: Bystander

Responses to Friends or Strangers at Risk for Party Rape Victimization. Journal of

Interpersonal Violence, 30(16), 2775–2792. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260514554290

Kelly, J. B., & Johnson, M. (2008). Differentiation among types of intimate partner violence:

Research update and implications for interventions. Family Court Review, 46(3), 476–

499.

Jeong, H., & Park, H. S. (2015). The Effect of Parasocial Interaction on Intention to Register as

Organ Donors Through Entertainment-Education Programs in Korea. Asia Pacific

Journal of Public Health, 27(2), NP2040-NP2048.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1010539512472359.

Jibaja-Weiss, M. L., Volk, R. J., Granchi, T. S., Neff, N. E., Robinson, E. K., Spann, S. J., et al.

(2011). Entertainment education for breast cancer surgery decisions: A randomized trial

among patients with low health literacy. Patient Education and Counseling, 84(1), 41-

87

48. doi:10.1016/j.pec.2010.06.009.

Johnson, M. (2011). Gender and types of intimate partner violence: A response to an anti-

feminist literature review - 1-s2.0-S1359178911000589-main.pdf. Aggression and

Violent Behaviour, (16), 289–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2011.04.006.

Katz, J., Pazienza, R., Olin, R., & Rich, H. (2015). That's what friends are for: Bystander

responses to friends or strangers at risk for party rape victimization. Journal of

Interpersonal Violence, 30(16), 2775-92.

Karakurt, G., Smith, D., & Whiting, J. (2014). Impact of intimate partner violence on women’s

mental health. Journal of Family Violence, 29(7), 693-702.

Kaukinen, C. & Jordan, C. E. (2014). Dating violence among college students. Trauma,

Violence, & Abuse, 15(4), 283-296.

Kelly, J. B., & Johnson, M. (2008). Differentiation among types of intimate partner violence:

Research update and implications for interventions. Family Court Review, 46(3), 476–

499.

Kinsfogel, K. M., & Grych, J. H. (2004). Interparental conflict and adolescent dating

relationships: integrating cognitive, emotional, and peer influences. Journal of Family

Psychology, 18(3), 505–515. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.18.3.505.

Lambdin, C. L. (2005). Acquaintance rape empathy: Effects of subject gender, victim gender,

and the use of physical resistance. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The

Sciences and Engineering, 66(3 B), 1784.

Latané, B., & Nida, S. (1981). Ten years of research on group size and helping. Psychological

88

Bulletin, 89, 308–324. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.89.2.308

Latané, B., & Darley, J. M. (1968). Group inhibition of bystander intervention in emergencies.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 10, 215–221. doi:10.1037/h0026570

Latané, B., & Darley, J. M. (1970). The unresponsive bystander: Why doesn’t he help? New

York, NY: Appleton-Century-Croft.

Lee, M. J., Hust, S. J. T., Zhang, L., & Zhang, Y. (2011). Effects of violence against women in

popular crime dramas on viewers’ attitudes related to sexual violence. Mass

Communication and Society, 14, 25–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205430903531440.

Leone, R. M., Parrott, D. J., & Swartout, K. M. (2016). When is it “manly” to intervene?:

Examining the effects of a misogynistic peer norm on bystander intervention for sexual

aggression. Psychology of Violence. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/vio0000055.

Logan, T. K., Walker, Robert, & Hoyt, William. (2012). The economic costs of partner violence

and the cost-benefit of civil protective orders. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27(6),

1137-1154.

Lonsway, K and Fitzgerald, L. (1994). Rape myths. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 18,133–

164.

Love, G. D., & Tanjasiri, S. P. (2012). Using entertainment-education to promote cervical cancer

screening in Thai women. Journal of Cancer Education, 27(3), 585–590.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-012-0369-5

Luthra, R., & Gidycz, C. A. (2006). Dating violence among college men and women: Evaluation

of a theoretical model. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 21, 717–731.

89

Mabry, A., & Turner, M. (2016). Do sexual assault bystander interventions change men's

intentions? Applying the theory of Normative Social Behavior to predicting bystander

outcomes. Journal of Health Communication, 21(3), 276-292.

Mahoney, L. M., & Bates, B. R. (2013). The impacts of an entertainment-education radio serial

drama in Botswana on outcomes related to HIV prevention goals in the President’s

emergency plan for AIDS relief. Journal of African Media Studies, 5(3), 353–367.

https://doi.org/10.1386/jams.5.3.353_1

Malik, S., Sorenson, S. B., & Aneshensel, C. S. (1997). Community and dating violence among

adolescents: Perpetration and victimization. Journal of Adolescent Health, 21.

Market Charts. (December 13, 2017). The state of traditional TV: Updated with Q2 2017 Data.

Retrieved from https://www.marketingcharts.com/featured-24817.

Mason, B., & Smithey, M. (2012). The effects of academic and interpersonal stress on dating

violence among college students: A test of classical strain theory. Journal of

Interpersonal Violence, 27, 974–986.

McMahon, S. (2010). Rape myth beliefs and bystander attitudes among incoming college

students. Journal of American College Health, 59(1), 3–11.

McMahon, S., & Dick, A. (2011). “Being in a room with like-minded men”: An exploratory

study of men's participation in a bystander intervention program to prevent intimate

partner violence. The Journal of Men's Studies, 19(1), 3-18.

McMahon, S. (2015). Participation in high school sports and bystander intentions, efficacy to

intervene & rape myth beliefs. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 30(17), 2980–2998.

90

Milletich, R. J., Kelley, M. L., Doane, A. N., & Pearson, M. R. (2010). Exposure to

interparental violence and childhood physical and emotional abuse as related to physical

aggression in undergraduate dating relationships. Journal of Family Violence, 25, 627-

637. doi: 10.1007/s10896-010-9319-3.

Minow, J., & Einolf, C. (2009). Sorority participation and sexual assault risk. Violence Against

Women, 15(7), 835-851.

Moyer-Gus, E. (2008). Toward a theory of entertainment persuasion: Explaining the persuasive

effects of entertainment-education messages. Communication Theory (10503293), 18(3),

407–425. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2008.00328.x

Moyer-Gusé, Emily, Jain, Parul, & Chung, Adrienne H. (2012). Reinforcement or reactance?

Examining the effect of an explicit persuasive appeal following an entertainment-

education narrative. Journal of Communication, 62(6), 1010-1027.

Moyer-Guse, Emily, & Nabi, Robin L. (2010). Explaining the effects of narrative in an

entertainment television program: Overcoming resistance to persuasion. Human

Communication Research, 36(1), 26-52.

Moynihan, M. M., Banyard, V. L., Arnold, J. S., Eckstein, R. P., & Stapleton, J. G. (2011).

Sisterhood may be powerful for reducing sexual and intimate partner violence: An

evaluation of the ‘Bringing in the Bystander In-Person Program’ with sorority members.

Violence Against Women, 17(6), 703–719.

Mullin, C. R., & Linz, D. (1995). Desensitization and resensitization to violence against women:

91

Effects of exposure to sexually violent films on judgments of domestic violence victims.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(3), 449–459.

Mulvey, K. L., Palmer, S. B., Abrams, D. (2016). Race-based humor and peer group dynamics in

adolescence. Child Development, 87(5), 1379-1391.

Murphy, S. T., Frank, L. B., Moran, M. B., & Patnoe-Woodley, P. (2011). Involved, transported,

or emotional? Exploring the determinants of change in knowledge, attitudes, and

behavior in entertainment-education. Journal of Communication, 61(3), 407–431.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01554.x

Nickell, G.(1998). The Helping Attitudes Scale. Paper presented at 106th Annual Convention of

the American Psychological Association at San Francisco, August, 1998.

Norris, J., Nurius, P., & Dimeff, L. (1996). Through her eyes: Factors affecting women's

perception of and resistance to acquaintance sexual aggression threat. Psychology of

Women Quarterly, 20(1), 123-145.

O’Connell, P., Pepler, D., & Craig, W. (1999). Peer involvement in bullying: Insights and

challenges for intervention. Journal of Adolescence, 22, 437–452.

doi:10.1006/jado.1999.0238

O’Keefe, M. (1997). Predictors of dating violence among high school students. Journal of

Interpersonal Violence, 12, 546-568

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.

92

Pechmann, C., & Wang, L. (2008). The use of entertainment education to deter youth smoking:

Does balance, transformation, and a public service announcement epilogue help Or hurt?

Advances in Consumer Research, 35, 1.

Petty R.E., Cacioppo J.T. (1986) The Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion. In:

Communication and Persuasion. Springer Series in Social Psychology. Springer, New

York, NY

Potter, S. J., Moynihan, M. M., Stapleton, J. G., & Banyard, V. L. (2009). Empowering

bystanders to prevent campus violence against women: A preliminary evaluation of a

poster campaign. Violence Against Women, 15(1), 106–121.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801208327482.

Pretorius, G. (2009). The male rape survivor: Possible meanings in the context of feminism and

patriarchy. Journal of Psychology in Africa, 19 (4), 575-580

Rainie, L. (2017, September 13). About 6 in 10 young adults in the U.S. primarily use online

streaming to watch TV. Retrieved from http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-

tank/2017/09/13/about-6-in-10-young-adults-in-u-s-primarily-use-online-streaming-to-

watch-tv/.

Reed, Raj, Miller, & Silverman. (2010). Losing the “gender” in gender-based violence: The

missteps of research on dating and intimate partner violence. Violence Against Women,

16(3), 348-354.

Rennison C, Rand, M. R. (2003). Nonlethal intimate partner violence against women—a

comparison of three age cohorts. Violence Against Women, 9(12):1417–1428.

93

Reyes, H.L.M., Foshee, V.A., Niolon, P.H., Reidy, D. E., Hall, J. E. (2016). Gender role

attitudes and male adolescent dating violence perpetration: Normative beliefs as

moderators. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 45: 350. doi:10.1007/s10964-015-0278-

0.

Hust, S. J., Rodgers, K. B., & Bayley, B. (2017). Scripting sexual consent: Internalized

traditional sexual scripts and sexual consent expectancies among college students. Family

Relations, 66(1), 197-210.

Sabina, C., & Straus, M. (2008). Polyvictimization by dating partners and mental health among

U.S. college students. Violence and Victims, 23(6), 667-82.

Salazar, L., Vivolo-Kantor, A., Hardin, J., & Bekowitz, A. (2014). A web-based sexual violence

bystander intervention for male college students: Randomized controlled trial. Journal of

Medical Internet Research, 16(9), 1–16.

Scherer, H., Snyder, J., & Fisher, B. (2016). Intimate partner victimization among college

students with and without disabilities. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 31(1), 49-80.

Schwartz, S., Gottlieb, A., & Lanzetta, J. T. (1976). Bystander reactions to a violent theft: Crime

in Jerusalem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34(6), 1188-1199.

Senneker, P., & Hendrick, C. (1983). Androgyny and helping behavior. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 45, 916–925.

Shorey, Ryan C., Cornelius, Tara L., & Bell, Kathryn M. (2011). Reactions to participating in

dating violence research: Are our questions distressing participants? Journal of

Interpersonal Violence, 26(14), 2890-2907.

94

Siem, F. M., & Spence, J. T. (1986). Gender-related traits and helping behaviors. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 615–621.

Singhal, A., & Rogers, E.M. (1999). Entertainment-education: A communication strategy for

social change. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Singhal, A., Cody, M. J., Rogers, E. M., & Sabido, M. (2004). Entertainment-education and

social change: History, Research, and Practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Shechory, M., & Idisis, Y. (2006). Rape myths and social distance

toward sex offenders and victims among therapists and students. sex Roles, 54, 651 658.

Shorey, R. C., Cornelius, T. L., & Bell, K. M. (2008). A critical review of theoretical

frameworks for dating violence: Comparing the dating and marital fields. Aggression and

Violent Behavior, 13, 185-194. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2008.03.003.

Slater, M., & Rouner, D. (2002). Entertainment-education and elaboration likelihood:

Understanding the processing of narrative persuasion. Communication Theory, 12(2),

173-191.

Smith, S.G., Chen, J., Basile, K.C., Gilbert, L.K., Merrick, M.T., Patel, N., Walling, M., & Jain,

A. (2017). The National intimate partner and sexual violence survey (NISVS): 2010-2012

State Report. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for

Disease Control and Prevention.

Smith, P., White, J., & Holland, L. (2003). A longitudinal perspective on dating violence among

adolescent and college-age women. American Journal of Public Health, 93(7), 1104-9.

Straus, M. A., & Douglas, E. M. (2004). A Short form of the Revised Conflict Tactics Scales,

95

and typologies for severity and mutuality. Violence and Victims, 19(5), 507–520.

Straus, M. A., & Gozjolko, K. L. (2014). “Intimate Terrorism” and injury of dating partners by

male and female university students. Journal of Family Violence, 29, 51–65.

Spence, J.T., & Helmreich, R.L. (1978). Masculinity and femininity: Their psychological

dimensions, correlates, and antecedents. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.

Tice, D. M., & Baumeister, R. F. (1985). Masculinity inhibits helping in emergencies:

Personality does predict the bystander effect. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 49, 420–428.

Tukachinsky, R., & Tokunaga, R. S. (2013). The effects of engagement with entertainment.

Communication Yearbook, 37, 287–322.

Turchik, J., Hebenstreit, C., & Judson, S. (2016). An examination of the gender inclusiveness of

current theories of sexual violence in adulthood. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 17(2), 133-

148.

Usdin, Shereen & Singhal, Arvind & Shongwe, Thuli & Goldstein, Sue & Shabalala, Agnes.

(2004). No short Cuts in Entertainment-Education: Designing Soul City Step-by-Step.

153-176.

Van Leeuwen, L., Reint, R. J., & Leeuwis, C. (2012). Televised entertainment-education to

prevent adolescent alcohol use: Perceived realism, enjoyment and impact. Health

Education and Behavior, 40(2), 193–205. https://doi.org/0.1177/1090198112445906

Vaughan, P. W., Rogers, E. M., Singhal, A., & Swalehe, R. M. (2000). Entertainment-education

96

and HIV/AIDS prevention: A field experiment in Tanzania. Journal of Health

Communication, 5, 81-100.

Ward, L.M., Hansbrough, E., and Walker, E. (2005). Contributions of music video exposure to

black adolescents’ gender and sexual schemas. Journal of Adolescent Research, 20, 143,

-166.

World Health Organization. (November 2017). Violence against women: Intimate partner and

sexual violence against women. Retrieved from

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs239/en/.

Walker, L. (1979). The Battered Woman. New York: Harper & Row.

West, C. & Zimmerman, D. H. (1987). Doing gender. Gender & Society, 1(2), 125-151.

Wilkin, H., Valente, T., Murphy, S., Cody, M., Huang, G., & Beck, V. (2007). Does

entertainment-education work with Latinos in the United States? Identification and the

effects of a telenovela breast cancer storyline. Journal of Health Communication, 12(5),

455-469.

Wissenberg, M., Lippert, F., Folke, F., Weeke, P., Hansen, M., Christensen, F. & Torp-Pedersen,

C. (2013). Association of national initiatives to improve cardiac arrest management with

rates of bystander intervention and patient survival after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

JAMA, 310(13), 1377-1384.

Wong, J. (2015). Tabulating the bill: considerations for estimating the economic costs of child

exposure to intimate partner violence. Journal of Child & Adolescent Trauma, 8(3), 173-

185.

97

Wolfe, D., Wekerle, C., Scott, K., Straatman, A., & Grasley, C. (2004). Predicting abuse in

adolescent dating relationships over 1 year: The role of child maltreatment and trauma.

Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 113(3), 406-415.

APPENDIX I

Pilot Materials

99

Institutional Review Board Certification of Exemption for Pilot Study

TO: Stacey Hust and Nicole Cameron, FROM: Patrick Conner, Office of Research Assurances (3143) Based on the evaluation of the information and materials submitted for the study titled "Stimuli Testing for Bystander Intervention Messages," (IRB # 16494), the WSU Office of Research Assurances has determined that the study satisfies the criteria for Exempt Research at 45 CFR 46.101(b)(2). There was one change made to the consent. The sentence, “This study has been presented for approval to the Washington State University Institutional Review Board,” has been deleted. Exempt research is not approved by the IRB; it is exempt from the need for approval. A copy of the final protocol, including your consent, revised to reflect the above, is attached. Please use this copy for study administration and for your records. This study may be conducted according to the protocol described in the Application without further review or approval by the IRB. Studies certified as Exempt are not subject to continuing review. This certification will remain valid until 10/29/2020. It is important to note that certification of exemption is NOT approval by the IRB. Do not include the statement that the WSU IRB has reviewed and approved the study for human subject participation. Remove all statements of IRB Approval from study materials that will be disseminated to participants. You may say that the WSU Office of Research Assurances has found that the project is exempt from the need for IRB review. This certification is valid only for the study protocol as it was submitted to the ORA. If any changes are made to the study protocol, you must submit the changes to the ORA for determination that the study remains Exempt before implementing the changes (The Request for Amendment form is available online at http://www.irb.wsu.edu/documents/forms/rtf/Amendment_Request.rtf). Exempt certification does NOT relieve the investigator from the responsibility of providing continuing attention to protection of human subjects participating in the study and adherence to ethical standards for research involving human participants. Exempt certification is ONLY a statement that the research methods meet the requirements at 45 CFR 46.101(b) to be exempt from the Federal Regulations governing human subjects research. Any requirements regarding human subjects research that are the policy of your department, college or area are not abrogated by this certification and you remain responsible to comply with them.

100

Exempt certification by the WSU ORA does not supersede the review process or any research requirements of any institution or entity wherein you will be conducting your research. Additionally, exempt certification does not obligate those institutions or entities to allow you to conduct your research. You are responsible for obtaining all additional approvals and permissions from non-WSU institutions and entities before initiating your research. In accordance with WSU Business Policies and Procedures Manual (BPPM), this Certification of Exemption, a copy of the Exemption Determination Application identified by this certification and all materials related to data collection, analysis or reporting must be retained by the Principal Investigator for THREE (3) years following completion of the project (BPPM 90.01). This retention schedule does not apply to audio or visual recordings of participants, which are to be erased, deleted or otherwise destroyed once all transcripts of the recordings are completed and verified. You may view the current status or download finalized copies of the Certified Application by going to https://myresearch.wsu.edu/IRB.aspx?HumanActivityID=54230 Washington State University is covered under Human Subjects Assurance Number FWA00002946 which is on file with the Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP). Certification Number: 16494-001 Review Type: New Review Category: Exempt - 45 CFR 46.101 (b)(2) Date Certified: 10/30/2017 Valid Until: 10/29/2020 OGRD No.: N/A Funding Agency: N/A

101

Pilot Test Measures

Index Measures

Knowledge Variables Likert-type scale from 1- “strongly disagree” to 7-“strongly agree”

I can identify the victim in the video. I can identify the perpetrator in the video. I can identify the bystander(s) in the video. The video showed an instance of dating violence.”

Consequences Likert-type scale from 1- “strongly disagree” to 7-“strongly agree”

The person who intervened in the situation of violence received a positive consequence. The person who intervened in the situation of violence received a negative consequence. There was no consequence for the person who intervened in the situation of violence in the video.

Similarity of bystanders Likert-type 1- “not very similar” to 5- “very similar.”

How do you rate the similarity of the person who intervened in the situation of violence with the other people who intervened that you saw in the other videos?

102

Debrief Script

Thank you for your participation. We recognize that some content in this survey could be upsetting. If you need follow-up care or just feel the need to talk with someone, please feel free to use any of the resources below: General Counseling Services

Counseling and Psychological Services Washington State University Washington Building counsel@wsu.edu 509-335-3575 Domestic or Dating Partner Violence Advocacy

Alternatives to Violence of the Palouse G40 Violence Prevention Office Washington State University Washington Building 24-hour crisis hotline: 1-877-334-2887 1-509-332-HELP (4357) or 1-208-883-HELP (4357) National Domestic Violence Hotline

24-hour crisis hotline 1-800-799-7233 En Español: 1-800-787-3224

Appendix II

Main Study Materials

104

Institutional Review Board Approval for Main Study

IRB Amendment Approval, IRB Number #16603-002

Cameron, Nicole Ola

MEMORANDUM TO: Stacey Hust and Nicole Cameron FROM: Elizabeth Willits (for) Jeannie Padowski, Ph.D, Chair, WSU Institutional Review Board (3005) DATE: 2/20/2018 SUBJECT: Approval of amendment to IRB Number #16603 Your proposal to amend the protocol titled "Media portrayal of differential bystander outcomes on viewers’ intentions to intervene" (IRB #16603) was reviewed for the protection of the subjects participating in the study. Based on the information received from you, the IRB has approved your amendment request on 2/20/2018. This amendment includes: - Request to gather Participants' contact Information - Email / Phone Nos. IRB approval indicates that the amendments described to the previously approved study protocol are designed to adequately protect the subjects participating in the study. This approval does not relieve the investigator from the responsibility of providing continuing attention to ethical considerations involved in the utilization of subjects participating in the study. It is important to note that this approval is for the amended research protocol, and does not alter the existing continuing review schedule. The approval for this Human Subjects Research Study expires 1/31/2019. If any more changes are made to the study protocol you must notify the IRB with an additional Request for Amendment and receive approval before implementation. If you have questions, please contact the Institutional Review Board at (509) 335-3668. Any revised materials can be mailed to Office of Research Assurances (Campus Zip 3005), faxed to (509) 335-6410, or in some cases by electronic mail, to irb@wsu.edu. Review Type: Expedited Review Category: Expedited Date Received: 2/6/2018 ORSO No.: N/A

105

Agency: N/A Sincerely, Elizabeth Willits Human Subjects Review Coordinator On behalf of the Institutional Review Board

106

Email Recruitment ___________________________________________________________________________ Good-day: We are looking for college students to participate in a research project that is being done to investigate college students’ attitudes to and experiences with dating violence on campus. This study has been approved for human subjects by the WSU Institutional Review Board. This study asks that you watch some videos and complete a questionnaire online. It should atke you about 30 minutes. You cannot take part in this study if they are under 18 years old or older than 65. Students who agree to participate will receive extra credit for their participation. In addition to extra credit, your names will be entered into a draw to receive one of four $50 gift cards with odds of 1:100 chances of you winning. If you choose not to participate in this study, you may contact your instructor for alternative extra credit assignments. Students can follow the attached link if interested or contact nicole.cameron@wsu.edu.

107

Key Measures

Index Measures

Bystander intentions

Check on friends at parties, especially before friends leave parties when they may have been drinking. Confront friends privately when concerned about their well-being. Say something if friends tell them their partner is using harsh words or acting controlling. Tell friends that they do not have to tolerate violent behavior from their partners. Encourage friends who may be in abusive relationships (physical, emotional, or sexual abuse) to talk with someone about it and get help. Ask friends who seem upset if everything is okay or if they need any help. Tell friends that they deserve to be treated well by their partner. Ask friends periodically about how things are going in their relationship. Try to remove friends from an uncomfortable situation (e.g., ask would you come to the bathroom with me?).

Norms Most WSU students would make sure their friend is ok if they see him/her in an uncomfortable situation with a dating partner. Most WSU students would warn someone or call the police if they saw that the person’s dating partner was getting violent. Most WSU students would discourage someone if he/she was planning to get abusive with their dating partner. I think most WSU students should ensure their friend is ok if they see him/her in an uncomfortable situation with a dating partner. I think most WSU students should warn someone or call the police if they see someone getting violent with their partner. I think most WSU students should discourage someone if he/she was planning to get abusive with their partner

Efficacy

(Banyard, et al., 2007; Banyard, 2008).

α=.82

Express my discomfort if someone says that dating violence victims are to blame for being hit. Call for help (i.e. call 911) if I hear someone in my dorm yelling “help.” Talk to a friend who I suspect is in an abusive relationship. Get help and resources for a friend who tells me they have been hit or are experiencing controlling behaviors in her/his relationship. Speak up in class if a professor is providing misinformation about dating violence. Criticize a friend who tells me that they had to hit a dating partner or forced them to do something they did not want to do. Get help if I hear of an abusive relationship in my dorm or apartment Tell an RA, other campus authority or the police about information I have that might help in a dating violence case even if pressured by my peers to

108

not do so. Rape Myth Acceptance (Payne, Longsway, & Fitzgerald, 1999) α=.97

If a girl is raped while she is drunk, she is at least somewhat responsible for letting things get out of hand. When girls go to parties wearing slutty clothes, they are asking for trouble. If a girl goes to a room alone with a guy at a party, it is her own fault if she is raped. If a girl acts like a slut, eventually she is going to get into trouble. When girls get raped, it’s often because the way they said “no” was unclear. If a girl initiates kissing or hooking up, she should not be surprised if a guy assumes she wants to have sex. When guys rape, it is usually because of their strong desire for sex. Guys don’t usually intend to force sex on a girl, but sometimes they get too sexually carried away. Rape happens when a guy’s sex drive goes out of control. If a guy is drunk, he might rape someone unintentionally. It shouldn’t be considered rape if a guy is drunk and didn’t realize what he was doing. If both people are drunk, it can’t be rape. If a girl doesn’t physically resist sex—even if protesting verbally—it can’t be considered rape. If a girl doesn’t physically fight back, you can’t really say it was rape. A rape probably doesn’t happen if a girl doesn’t have any bruises or marks. If the accused “rapist” doesn’t have a weapon, you really can’t call it rape. If a girl doesn’t say “no” she can’t claim rape. A lot of times, girls who say they were raped agreed to have sex and then regret it. Rape accusations are often used as a way of getting back at guys. A lot of times, girls who say they were raped often led the guy on and then had regrets. A lot of times, girls who claim they were raped have emotional problems. Girls who are caught cheating on their boyfriends sometimes claim it was rape.

Identification Ran (2014) α=.92

While the viewing the video, I forgot myself and was fully absorbed.

While the viewing the video, I felt as if I was a part of the action.

I was able to understand the events in the program in a manner similar to

that of the person who intervened.

I think I have a good understanding of the person who intervened.

I understand the reasons the person who intervened did what they did.

While viewing the video, I wanted the person who intervened to help.

Gender 1 – Male 2 - Female

Please indicate your birth sex.

109

Debrief Script

Thank you for your participation. We recognize that some content in this survey could be upsetting. If you need follow-up care or just feel the need to talk with someone, please feel free to use any of the resources below: General Counseling Services

Counseling and Psychological Services Washington State University Washington Building counsel@wsu.edu 509-335-3575 Domestic or Dating Partner Violence Advocacy

Alternatives to Violence of the Palouse G40 Violence Prevention Office Washington State University Washington Building 24-hour crisis hotline: 1-877-334-2887 1-509-332-HELP (4357) or 1-208-883-HELP (4357) National Domestic Violence Hotline

24-hour crisis hotline 1-800-799-7233 En Español: 1-800-787-3224

110

Main Study Questionnaire

WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY

Edward Murrow College of Communication

Research Study Consent Form Study Title: Media portrayal of differential bystander outcomes on viewers’ intentions to intervene Researchers: Stacey Hust, Ph.D, Associate Professor, Murrow College of Communication, 509-335-3696, sjhust@wsu.edu Nicole Cameron, Graduate Student, Murrow College of Communication, 509-592-844, nicole.cameron@wsu.edu You are being asked to take part in a research study carried out by Stacey Hust and Nicole Cameron. This form explains the research study and your part in it if you decide to join the study. Please read the form carefully, taking as much time as you need. Ask the researcher to explain anything you don’t understand. You can decide not to join the study. If you join the study, you can change your mind later or quit at any time. There will be no penalty or loss of services or benefits if you decide to not take part in the study or quit later. This study has been approved for human subject participation by the Washington State University Institutional Review Board. What is this study about? This research study is being done to understand how young adults respond to media. We are interested in getting your opinions on and experiences dating violence. You are being asked to take part because college students are at an increased risk of both perpetration and victimization of dating violence. This study should take approximately 50 minutes. You cannot take part in this study if you are under the age of 18 years old or over the age of 65. What will I be asked to do if I am in this study? If you take part in the study, you will be asked to : Sign this informed consent.

Fill out the online questionnaire.

Watch 3 video clips as well as complete more questions. The media clips show violent episodes between two people who are in a romantic relationship. Each video clip is approximately 4 – 5 minutes long and you will watch 3 of them. On the questionnaires you will be asked personal

questions such as, “Have you hit someone you are dating?, “Have you ever hit someone you are

dating?” Other questions of a similar nature are included as well. You are free to leave

unanswered any question that makes you uncomfortable. You may also quit the study at any time,

if you so choose.

111

Are there any benefits to me if I am in this study? There is no direct benefit to participants. Are there any risks to me if I am in this study? You may be uncomfortable with some questions, so there might be some emotional distress. If you feel uncomfortable at any point in the study, feel free to quit at any time. Additionally, in spite of our efforts, the risk exists for a breach of confidentially and possible legal risks. In the event that the above risks should occur, the appropriate authorities will be contacted. If there is a breach of confidentiality, counselling services will be provided as well as relevant investigations into how the breach occurred followed by appropriate action, if necessary. Legal situations will be referred to the appropriate authorities for follow-up. Will my information be kept private? The data for this study will be collected confidentially. While you will be asked to provide your ID number, phone number and email address, the master list will be kept separate from the data. No published results will identify you, and your name will not be associated with the findings. Under certain circumstances, information that identifies you may be released for internal and external reviews of this project. All research material will be kept private in password protected spaces online. Only the researchers and possible the institutional Review Board of Washington State University will have access to the data. The results of this study may be published or presented at professional meetings, but the identities of all research participants will remain anonymous. The data for this study will be kept for 5 years Are there any costs or payments for being in this study? There will be no costs to you for taking part in this study. You will receive extra credit at both stages of the study which will go to the course of your choice. The amount of extra credit will be determined by the instructor of that course. If you decide to quit the study you will still receive the credit. After the second phase of the study, your name will also be entered into a draw to win one of 4 gift cards of $50 each. The odds of winning a gift card is 1:100. If you receive payment for taking part in this study, you may be asked to provide your home address or social security number. If you choose not to participate in this study for extra credit, you please contact your instructor for alternative assignments to earn extra credit. Who can I talk to if I have questions? If you have questions about this study or the information in this form, please contact the researchers.

112

If you have questions about your rights as a research participant, or would like to report a concern or complaint about this study, please contact the Washington State University Institutional Review Board at (509) 335-3668, or e-mail irb@wsu.edu, or regular mail at: Neil 427, PO Box 643143, Pullman, WA 99164-3143. What are my rights as a research study volunteer? Your participation in this research study is voluntary. You may choose not to be a part of this study. There will be no penalty to you if you choose not to take part. You may choose not to answer specific questions or to stop participating at any time. What does my signature on this consent form mean? Clicking on this form means that: You understand the information given to you in this form. You have been able to ask the researcher questions and state any concerns. The researcher has responded to your questions and concerns. You believe you understand the research study and the potential benefits and risks that are involved.You may contact the researchers for hard copy of this consent form.

o I agree to participate in this study.

o I do not agree to participate in this study

113

Please read the list of behaviors below and indicate the likelihood of you performing this behavior if needed.

Definitely

not Probably not Not sure

Very probably

Definitely

Check on friends at parties,

especially before friends leave parties when they may have

been drinking.

o o o o o

Confront friends

privately when

concerned about their well-being.

o o o o o

Say something if friends tell you their partner is

using harsh words or

acting controlling.

o o o o o

Tell friends that they do not have to

tolerate violent

behavior from their partners.

o o o o o

Encourage friends who may be in abusive

o o o o o

114

relationships (physical,

emotional, or sexual abuse) to talk with

someone about it and

get help.

Ask friends who seem

upset if everything is

okay or if they need any

help.

o o o o o

Tell friends that they

deserve to be treated well

by their partner.

o o o o o

Ask friends periodically about how things are

going in their relationship.

o o o o o

Try to remove friends from

an uncomfortable situation (e.g., ask would you

come to the bathroom with me?).

o o o o o

115

Please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with each of the following statements about WSU STUDENTS.

Strongly disagree

Disagree Somewhat disagree

Neither agree nor

disagree

Somewhat agree

Agree Strongly

agree

Most WSU students

would make sure their

friend is ok if they see

him/her in an uncomfortable situation with

a dating partner.

o o o o o o o

Most WSU students

would warn someone or

call the police if they saw

that the person’s

dating partner was getting

violent.

o o o o o o o

Most WSU students would

discourage someone if he/she was planning to

get abusive in any way with their dating

partner.

o o o o o o o

116

Please indicate how confident you are that you could do the actions in the list below.

Very

unconfident

Unconfident

Somewhat

unconfident

Neither confident

nor unconfide

nt

Somewhat

confident

Confident

Very confide

nt

Call for help (i.e. call

911) if I hear someone in my dorm yelling “help.”

o o o o o o o

Talk to a friend who I suspect is in an abusive

relationship.

o o o o o o o

Get help and resources for a friend who tells me they

have been hit or are

experiencing controlling

behaviors in her/his

relationship.

o o o o o o o

Speak up in class if a

professor is providing

misinformation about dating

violence.

o o o o o o o

Criticize a friend who

tells me that o o o o o o o

117

they had to hit a dating partner or

forced them to do

something they did not want to do.

Get help if I hear of an abusive

relationship in my dorm or apartment

o o o o o o o

Tell an RA, other

campus authority or the police

about information I

have that might help in a dating violence

case even if pressured by my peers to not do so.

o o o o o o o

118

Please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with each of the following statements.

Strongly disagree

Disagree Somewhat disagree

Neither agree nor

disagree

Somewhat Agree

Agree Strongly

agree

If a girl is raped while she is drunk, she is

at least somewhat

responsible for letting things

get out of control

o o o o o o o

When girls go to parties

wearing slutty clothes, they are asking for

trouble.

o o o o o o o

If a girl goes to a room alone

with a guy at a party, it is her

own fault if she is raped.

o o o o o o o

If a girl acts like a slut,

eventually she is going to get into trouble.

o o o o o o o

When girls get raped, it’s often

because the way they said

“no” was unclear.

o o o o o o o

119

If a girl initiates kissing or hooking up, she should not be surprised if a guy assumes she wants to

have sex.

o o o o o o o

When guys rape, it is

usually because of their strong desire for sex.

o o o o o o o

Guys don’t usually intend to force sex on

a girl, but sometimes they

get too sexually

carried away.

o o o o o o o

Rape happens when a guy’s sex drive goes out of control.

o o o o o o o

If a guy is drunk, he

might rape someone

unintentionally.

o o o o o o o

It shouldn’t be considered rape

if a guy is drunk and

didn’t realize what he was

doing.

o o o o o o o

120

If both people are drunk, it

can’t be rape. o o o o o o o

If a girl doesn’t physically

resist sex—even if

protesting verbally—it

can’t be considered

rape.

o o o o o o o

If a girl doesn’t physically fight back, you can’t

really say it was rape.

o o o o o o o

A rape probably

doesn’t happen if a girl doesn’t

have any bruises or

marks.

o o o o o o o

If the accused “rapist” doesn’t have a weapon, you really can’t

call it rape.

o o o o o o o

If a girl doesn’t say “no” she can’t claim

rape. o o o o o o o

A lot of times, girls who say

they were raped agreed to

have sex and then regret it.

o o o o o o o

121

Rape accusations are often used as a way of getting back at guys.

o o o o o o o

A lot of times, girls who say

they were raped often led the guy on and

then had regrets.

o o o o o o o

A lot of times, girls who claim

they were raped have emotional problems.

o o o o o o o

Girls who are caught cheating

on their boyfriends sometimes

claim it was rape.

o o o o o o o

What is your birth sex?

o Male

o Female

What is your age?

________________________________________________________________

122

Please specify your ethnicity/race

o White

o Black or African American

o American Indian or Alaska Native

o Asian

o Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander

o Hispanic or Latino

o Other ________________________________________________

Post-Test

Watch the following video and answer the questions about it that follows. Please enlarge

the video before watching.

123

Have you ever watched the full movie or television show this clip was taken from?

o No

o Yes

124

Please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with the following statements.

Strongly disagree

Disagree Somewhat disagree

Neither agree nor

disagree

Somewhat agree

Agree Strongly

agree

The person(s)

who intervened in the situation of violence received a negative

consequence for their action.

o o o o o o o

The person (s) who

intervened in the situation of violence received a positive

consequence for their action.

o o o o o o o

There was no consequence

for the person (s)

who intervened in the situation of violence the video.

o o o o o o o

125

o o o o o o o

126

Please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with the following statements.

Strongly disagree

Disagree Somewhat disagree

Neither agree nor

disagree

Somewhat agree

Agree Strongly

agree

While the viewing the video, I felt as if I was a part of the

action.

o o o o o o o

While the viewing the

video, I forgot myself and was fully

absorbed.

o o o o o o o

I was able to understand

the events in the program in a manner

similar to that of the person

who intervened.

o o o o o o o

I think I have a good

understanding of the person

who intervened.

o o o o o o o

I understand the reasons the person

who intervened

did what they did.

o o o o o o o

127

While viewing the

video, I wanted the person who

intervened to help.

o o o o o o o

Watch the following video and answer the questions about it that follows. Please enlarge

the video before watching.

128

Please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with the following statements.

Strongly disagree

Disagree Somewhat disagree

Neither agree nor

disagree

Somewhat agree

Agree Strongly

agree

The person(s)

who intervened in the situation of violence received a negative

consequence for their action.

o o o o o o o

The person (s) who

intervened in the situation of violence received a positive

consequence for their action.

o o o o o o o

There was no consequence

for the person (s)

who intervened in the situation of violence the video.

o o o o o o o

129

Please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with the following statements.

Strongly disagree

Disagree Somewhat disagree

Neither agree nor

disagree

Somewhat agree

Agree Strongly

agree

While the viewing the video, I felt as if I was a part of the

action.

o o o o o o o

While the viewing the

video, I forgot myself and was fully

absorbed.

o o o o o o o

I was able to understand

the events in the program in a manner

similar to that of the person

who intervened.

o o o o o o o

I think I have a good

understanding of the person

who intervened.

o o o o o o o

I understand the reasons the person

who intervened

did what they did.

o o o o o o o

130

While viewing the

video, I wanted the person who

intervened to help.

o o o o o o o

Watch the following video and answer the questions about it that follows. Please enlarge

the video before watching.

131

Please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with the following statements.

Strongly disagree

Disagree Somewhat disagree

Neither agree nor

disagree

Somewhat agree

Agree Strongly

agree

The person(s)

who intervened in the situation of violence received a negative

consequence for their action.

o o o o o o o

The person (s) who

intervened in the situation of violence received a positive

consequence for their action.

o o o o o o o

There was no consequence

for the person (s)

who intervened in the situation of violence the video.

o o o o o o o

132

Please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with the following statements.

Strongly disagree

Disagree Somewhat disagree

Neither agree nor

disagree

Somewhat agree

Agree Strongly

agree

While the viewing the video, I felt as if I was a part of the

action.

o o o o o o o

While the viewing the

video, I forgot myself and was fully

absorbed.

o o o o o o o

I was able to understand

the events in the program in a manner

similar to that of the person

who intervened.

o o o o o o o

I think I have a good

understanding of the person

who intervened.

o o o o o o o

I understand the reasons the person

who intervened

did what they did.

o o o o o o o

133

While viewing the

video, I wanted the person who

intervened to help.

o o o o o o o

134

Please read the list of behaviors below and indicate the likelihood of you performing this behavior if needed.

Definitely not Probably not Not sure Very

probably Definitely

Check on friends at parties,

especially before friends leave parties when they may have

been drinking.

o o o o o

Confront friends

privately when

concerned about their well-being.

o o o o o

Say something if friends tell you their partner is

using harsh words or

acting controlling.

o o o o o

Tell friends that they do not have to

tolerate violent

behavior from their partners.

o o o o o

Encourage friends who may be in o o o o o

135

abusive relationships

(physical, emotional, or sexual abuse) to talk with

someone about it and

get help.

Ask friends who seem

upset if everything is

okay or if they need any

help.

o o o o o

Tell friends that they

deserve to be treated well

by their partner.

o o o o o

Ask friends periodically about how things are

going in their relationship.

o o o o o

Try to remove friends from

an uncomfortable situation (e.g., ask would you

come to the bathroom with me?).

o o o o o

136

Please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with each of the following statements about WSU STUDENTS.

Strongly disagree

Disagree Somewhat disagree

Neither agree nor

disagree

Somewhat agree

Agree Strongly

agree

Most WSU students

would make sure their

friend is ok if they see

him/her in an uncomfortable situation with

a dating partner.

o o o o o o o

Most WSU students

would warn someone or

call the police if they saw

that the person’s

dating partner was getting

violent.

o o o o o o o

Most WSU students would

discourage someone if he/she was planning to

get abusive in any way with their dating

partner.

o o o o o o o

137

Please indicate how confident you are that you could do the actions in the list below.

Very

unconfident

Unconfident

Somewhat

unconfident

Neither confident

nor unconfide

nt

Somewhat

confident

Confident

Very confide

nt

Call for help (i.e. call

911) if I hear someone in my dorm yelling “help.”

o o o o o o o

Talk to a friend who I suspect is in an abusive

relationship.

o o o o o o o

Get help and resources for a friend who tells me they

have been hit or are

experiencing controlling

behaviors in her/his

relationship.

o o o o o o o

Speak up in class if a

professor is providing

misinformation about dating

violence.

o o o o o o o

Criticize a friend who

tells me that o o o o o o o

138

they had to hit a dating partner or

forced them to do

something they did not want to do.

Get help if I hear of an abusive

relationship in my dorm or apartment

o o o o o o o

Tell an RA, other

campus authority or the police

about information I

have that might help in a dating violence

case even if pressured by my peers to not do so.

o o o o o o o

139

Please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with each of the following statements.

Strongly disagree

Disgree Somewhat disagree

Neither agree nor

disagree

Somewhat Agree

Agree Strongly

agree

If a girl is raped while she is drunk, she is

at least somewhat

responsible for letting things

get out of control

o o o o o o o

When girls go to parties

wearing slutty clothes, they are asking for

trouble.

o o o o o o o

If a girl goes to a room alone

with a guy at a party, it is her

own fault if she is raped.

o o o o o o o

If a girl acts like a slut,

eventually she is going to get into trouble.

o o o o o o o

When girls get raped, it’s often

because the way they said

“no” was unclear.

o o o o o o o

140

If a girl initiates kissing or hooking up, she should not be surprised if a guy assumes she wants to

have sex.

o o o o o o o

When guys rape, it is

usually because of their strong desire for sex.

o o o o o o o

Guys don’t usually intend to force sex on

a girl, but sometimes they

get too sexually

carried away.

o o o o o o o

Rape happens when a guy’s sex drive goes out of control.

o o o o o o o

If a guy is drunk, he

might rape someone

unintentionally.

o o o o o o o

It shouldn’t be considered rape

if a guy is drunk and

didn’t realize what he was

doing.

o o o o o o o

If both people are drunk, it

can’t be rape. o o o o o o o

141

If a girl doesn’t physically

resist sex—even if

protesting verbally—it

can’t be considered

rape.

o o o o o o o

If a girl doesn’t physically fight back, you can’t

really say it was rape.

o o o o o o o

A rape probably

doesn’t happen if a girl doesn’t

have any bruises or

marks.

o o o o o o o

If the accused “rapist” doesn’t have a weapon, you really can’t

call it rape.

o o o o o o o

If a girl doesn’t say “no” she can’t claim

rape. o o o o o o o

A lot of times, girls who say

they were raped agreed to

have sex and then regret it.

o o o o o o o

Rape accusations are often used as a way of getting back at guys.

o o o o o o o

142

A lot of times, girls who say

they were raped often led the guy on and

then had regrets.

o o o o o o o

A lot of times, girls who claim

they were raped have emotional problems.

o o o o o o o

Girls who are caught cheating

on their boyfriends sometimes

claim it was rape.

o o o o o o o

143

Thank you for your participation. We recognize that some content in this survey could be upsetting. If you need follow-up care or just feel the need to talk with someone, please feel free to use any of the resources below:

General Counseling Services Counseling and Psychological Services Washington State University Washington Building counsel@wsu.edu 509-335-3575

Domestic or Dating Partner Violence Advocacy Alternatives to Violence of the Palouse G40 Violence Prevention Office Washington State University Washington Building 24-hour crisis hotline: 1-877-334-2887 1-509-332-HELP (4357) or 1-208-883-HELP (4357)

National Domestic Violence Hotline 24-hour crisis hotline 1-800-799-7233 En Español: 1-800-787-3224