Reducing Sexual Violence on Campus: Student Leaders as Empowered Bystanders Victoria L. Banyard,...
1
Reducing Sexual Violence on Campus: Student Leaders as Empowered Bystanders Victoria L. Banyard, Ph.D., Mary M. Moynihan, Ph.D., & Maria T. Crossman Prevention Innovations University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH Abstract This study evaluates the efficacy of a model of relationship violence prevention centered on empowering bystanders to actively intervene before, during, or after incidents of relationship violence. Participants’ scores on a range of outcomes (rape myth acceptance, bystander efficacy, etc.) changed significantly from pre- to post-test. Implications for prevention are discussed. Aims of the Study • Sexual violence is a problem for college communities (1, 2). • College communities are at-risk environments for sexual violence but great variability exists nationally in the extent to which campuses are working to prevent this problem; only 60% of surveyed schools offered relevant educational prevention programs (3). • The 2005 American College Health Association’s “Campus Violence White Paper” calls for innovative and comprehensive community prevention and intervention efforts (4). • College professionals are increasingly playing roles in these efforts; to date, little research exists about effectiveness of prevention programs. To present an evaluation a bystander prevention program that: • Teaches student leaders to be empowered bystanders. • Is grounded in in previous research about the importance of community norms and attitudes as explanatory factors for the prevalence of sexual violence on campuses and key targets for prevention efforts (5). • Is empirically supported by research on the role that informal helpers may play in preventing victimization and helping survivors and • Gives community members a role to play in helping to prevent the community problem of sexual violence (6). Participants: 196 student leaders on the campus of a mid-sized state university. Composed of two separate groups: •123 resident advisors who play key leadership roles in student dormitories. 79 staff at the student center whose work at this central locality make them highly visible service workers who also play key roles in witnessing potential and actual instances of sexual and intimate partner abuse. •Mean age of sample – 20.03 years. •117 women and 79 men. •45% – sophomores and 52% – juniors and seniors. Completed pre- and post-test questionnaires immediately before and after the 90-minute program. Outcome Measures: • Assessment of bystander efficacy: Confidence in performing 14 bystander behaviors • Rape myth acceptance • Willingness to help: Likelihood of performing a list of bystander behaviors (e.g., indicating displeasure when hearing a sexist joke). • Agreement with statements about the pros and cons of being an active bystander. Data analysis •Repeated-measures analysis of variance to compare scores across 6 outcome measures from pre- to post-test time for all participants; then for men and women separately. Implications for research, practice and policy •Program effects were found even among an already highly trained group of student leaders. •Student leaders play key and visible roles in the campus community and can model the attitude change and skill acquisition that they gained through participation in the program. •Campus professionals and educators who are increasingly being called upon to implement community change and prevention efforts to end relationship violence should consider the utility of using a bystander framework in these efforts. Findings and Conclusions Main Effects for Time Changes from pretest to posttest (F(6, 179) = 28.29, p < .0001, Wilks’ Lambda = .559, partial eta squared = .44): • endorsed fewer rape myths • expressed greater confidence in engaging bystander behaviors • expressed greater willingness to help as a bystander • more strongly agreed with “pro” statements related to being a bystander and • more strongly agreed with “con” statements about being a bystander. Introduction References Bringing in the Bystander Program •Approaches all participants as bystanders or witnesses to behaviors related to sexual violence. •Does not address men as potential perpetrators, women as potential victims. •Increases knowledge of sexual violence and its causes. •Increases awareness of importance of personal safety as bystanders. •Increases understanding of the decision-making process behind successful bystander intervention. •Includes an active learning exercise for building victim empathy, and practice with bystander scenarios and skill- 1) Fisher, B.S., Cullen, F.T., & Turner, M.G. (2000). The Sexual Victimization of College Women: Findings from Two National-Level Studies. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice and Bureau of Justice Statistics. 2) Banyard, V.L., Ward, S., Cohn, E.S., Moorhead, C., & Walsh, W. (2007) Unwanted sexual contact on campus: a comparison of women’s and men's experiences. Violence and Victims, 22, 52-70. 3) Karjane, H. M., Fisher, B. S., and Cullen, F. T (2005). Sexual assault on campus: What colleges and universities are doing about it . Research for Practice, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 205521. 4) Carr, J. L. (2005, February). American College Health Association Campus Violence White Paper. Baltimore, MD: American College Health Association. 5) Schwartz, M. D., DeKeseredy, W. S., Tait, D., & Alvi, S. (2001). Male peer support and a feminist routine activities theory: Understanding sexual assault on the college campus. Justice Quarterly, 18, 623-649. 6) 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. Examples of Participants’ reactions to the program We asked participants several open-ended questions about their reactions to the program. Here are some representative answers: “The information about just doing something is so simple that it really hit home this time.” “It is empowering to have options and to know you could make a difference and help someone.” Representative Pre-test versus Post-test Means 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 S cores Rape m yth Help Bystander behaviors O utcome variables Pretest Posttest Contact Info: [email protected] or [email protected] Methods
-
Upload
mae-simpson -
Category
Documents
-
view
213 -
download
1
Transcript of Reducing Sexual Violence on Campus: Student Leaders as Empowered Bystanders Victoria L. Banyard,...
Reducing Sexual Violence on Campus: Student Leaders as Empowered Bystanders
Victoria L. Banyard, Ph.D., Mary M. Moynihan, Ph.D., & Maria T. Crossman Prevention Innovations University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH
Abstract
This study evaluates the efficacy of a model of relationship violence prevention centered on empowering bystanders to actively intervene before, during, or after incidents of relationship violence. Participants’ scores on a range of outcomes (rape myth acceptance, bystander efficacy, etc.) changed significantly from pre- to post-test. Implications for prevention are discussed.
Aims of the Study
• Sexual violence is a problem for college communities (1, 2).
• College communities are at-risk environments for sexual violence but great variability exists nationally in the extent to which campuses are working to prevent this problem; only 60% of surveyed schools offered relevant educational prevention programs (3).
• The 2005 American College Health Association’s “Campus Violence White Paper” calls for innovative and comprehensive community prevention and intervention efforts (4).
• College professionals are increasingly playing roles in these efforts; to date, little research exists about effectiveness of prevention programs.
To present an evaluation a bystander prevention program that:
• Teaches student leaders to be empowered bystanders.
• Is grounded in in previous research about the importance of community norms and attitudes as explanatory factors for the prevalence of sexual violence on campuses and key targets for prevention efforts (5).
• Is empirically supported by research on the role that informal helpers may play in preventing victimization and helping survivors and
• Gives community members a role to play in helping to prevent the community problem of sexual violence (6).
Participants:
196 student leaders on the campus of a mid-sized state university.
Composed of two separate groups: •123 resident advisors who play key leadership roles in student dormitories.79 staff at the student center whose work at this central locality make them highly visible service workers who also play key roles in witnessing potential and actual instances of sexual and intimate partner abuse.
•Mean age of sample – 20.03 years. •117 women and 79 men. •45% – sophomores and 52% – juniors and seniors.Completed pre- and post-test questionnaires immediately before and after the 90-minute program.
Outcome Measures:
• Assessment of bystander efficacy: Confidence in performing 14 bystander behaviors
• Rape myth acceptance
• Willingness to help: Likelihood of performing a list of bystander behaviors (e.g., indicating displeasure when hearing a sexist joke).
• Agreement with statements about the pros and cons of being an active bystander.
Data analysis
•Repeated-measures analysis of variance to compare scores across 6 outcome measures from pre- to post-test time for all participants; then for men and women separately.
Implications for research, practice and policy
•Program effects were found even among an already highly trained group of student leaders.
•Student leaders play key and visible roles in the campus community and can model the attitude change and skill acquisition that they gained through participation in the program.
•Campus professionals and educators who are increasingly being called upon to implement community change and prevention efforts to end relationship violence should consider the utility of using a bystander framework in these efforts.
Findings and Conclusions
Main Effects for Time
Changes from pretest to posttest (F(6, 179) = 28.29, p < .0001, Wilks’ Lambda = .559, partial eta squared = .44):
• endorsed fewer rape myths• expressed greater confidence in engaging bystander behaviors• expressed greater willingness to help as a bystander• more strongly agreed with “pro” statements related to being a
bystander and• more strongly agreed with “con” statements about being a bystander.
Introduction
References
Bringing in the Bystander Program
•Approaches all participants as bystanders or witnesses to behaviors related to sexual violence.
•Does not address men as potential perpetrators, women as potential victims.
•Increases knowledge of sexual violence and its causes.
•Increases awareness of importance of personal safety as bystanders.
•Increases understanding of the decision-making process behind successful bystander intervention.
•Includes an active learning exercise for building victim empathy, and practice with bystander scenarios and skill-building role-playing.
1) Fisher, B.S., Cullen, F.T., & Turner, M.G. (2000). The Sexual Victimization of College Women: Findings from Two National-Level Studies. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice and Bureau of Justice Statistics.2) Banyard, V.L., Ward, S., Cohn, E.S., Moorhead, C., & Walsh, W. (2007) Unwanted sexual contact on campus: a comparison of women’s and men's experiences. Violence and Victims, 22, 52-70.3) Karjane, H. M., Fisher, B. S., and Cullen, F. T (2005). Sexual assault on campus: What colleges and universities are doing about it. Research for Practice, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 205521. 4) Carr, J. L. (2005, February). American College Health Association Campus Violence White Paper. Baltimore, MD: American College Health Association. 5) Schwartz, M. D., DeKeseredy, W. S., Tait, D., & Alvi, S. (2001). Male peer support and a feminist routine activities theory: Understanding sexual assault on the college campus. Justice Quarterly, 18, 623-649.6) 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.
Examples of Participants’ reactions to the programWe asked participants several open-ended questions about their reactions to the program. Here are some representative answers:
“The information about just doing something is so simple that it really hit home this time.”
“It is empowering to have options and to know you could make a difference and help someone.”
Representative Pre-test versus Post-test Means
00.51
1.52
2.53
3.54
4.5
Scores
Rape myth Help Bystander
behaviors
Outcome variables
Pretest
Posttest
Contact Info: [email protected] or [email protected]
Methods
