Assaultive Behavior, Helping Behavior, Sexual Assault and Rape, Violence
Conditions
Keywords
campus sexual assault, bystander intervention
Brief summary
The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of a bystander intervention education program on college students' attitudes and behaviors associated with bystander intervention and sexual violence.
Detailed description
This study used a randomized control trial, longitudinal design to determine the impact of a peer education theater intervention on undergraduate student attitudes and behaviors related to sexual violence and bystander intervention. Students were assigned to either an experimental group (receiving 3-4 doses of the intervention ) or a comparison group (receiving 1 dose only) and were surveyed six times over an 18 month period.
Interventions
BEHAVIORALSCREAM Theater Dose 1
Intervention 1: A three part program: a skit acted out by peer educators that depicts a sexual assault; an in-character question and answer session; and an out-of-character information session.
BEHAVIORALSCREAM Theater Doses 2 & SCREAM Theater Dose 3
Dose 2: Scenes from the skit from Session 1 are re-created with small groups of students, but stop at certain points to allow audience members to explore different bystander intervention possibilities. Dose 3: The six scenes outlined in Session 2 are presented individually to small groups of student participants; specifically outlining potential points of bystander intervention.
BEHAVIORALSCREAM Theater Dose 4
Booster Session
Sponsors
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey
Study design
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
PREVENTION
Masking
NONE
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to 21 Years
Healthy volunteers
Yes
Inclusion criteria
* Incoming first year students in the fall semester of 2010 * Age 18 - 21 * Attended Summer Orientation session
Exclusion criteria
* Incoming transfer students * Younger than 18 or older than 21
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Bystander Intentions | Change from baseline in bystander intentions to up to three months | To measure intentions to be a bystander, we used the Bystander Attitude Scale, Revised (BAS-R) which is a modified version of Banyard's Bystander scale (Banyard, Plante, & Moynihan, 2005; see McMahon et al., in press, for scale development information). Participants were asked to indicate how likely they were to engage in the behavior in the future on a Likert scale from 1 - 5, Unlikely to Very likely. Students' bystander intentions were assessed via (1) a paper survey in June, July or August 2010 (baseline) and (2) a follow-up web-based survey in early September, 2010. All study participants received one dose of the intervention in June, July or August. |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Bystander Efficacy | Change from baseline in bystander efficacy to up to three months | To assess level of confidence in one's ability to intervene, the Bystander Efficacy Scale was used (Banyard et al., 2007). Respondents were asked to rate their level of confidence that they would perform certain bystander behaviors on a scale of 0 (can't do) to 100 (very certain can do). Students' bystander efficacy was assessed via (1) a paper survey in June, July or August 2010 (baseline) and (2) a follow-up web-based survey in early September, 2010. All study participants received one dose of the intervention in June, July or August. |
| Bystander Behavior | Change from baseline in bystander behavior to up to three months | To measure actual bystander behavior, we used the Bystander Attitude Scale, Revised (BAS-R), which contains 18 items, each stating a different bystander behavior. For this portion of the survey, participants were asked whether they actually participated in the behavior in the previous month. Respondents can indicate Yes, No, or Wasn't in the Situation.Students' bystander behavior was assessed via (1) a paper survey in June, July or August 2010 (baseline) and (2) a follow-up web-based survey in early September, 2010. All study participants received one dose of the intervention in June, July or August. |
| Bystander Friend Norms | Change from baseline in bystander friend norms to up to three months | To measure friends' norms about being a bystander, we used the Bystander Attitude Scale, Revised (BAS-R). In this portion of the survey, participants were asked to indicate how likely they think their friends would be to engage in the items on the BAS-R in the future on a Likert scale from 1 - 5, Unlikely to Very likely.Students' bystander friend norms were assessed via (1) a paper survey in June, July or August 2010 (baseline) and (2) a follow-up web-based survey in early September, 2010. All study participants received one dose of the intervention in June, July or August. |
| Proclivity to Perpetrate Sexual Violence | Change from baseline in proclivity to perpetrate sexual violence to up to three months | For proclivity to perpetrate, we used an item from Malamuth's (1989) Attraction to Sexual Aggression Scale and we created a question that combined items from Malamuth's scale and Lisak's Perpetrator History (PH) Scale (2000). These measures were assessed via (1) a paper survey in June, July or August 2010 (baseline) and (2) a follow-up web-based survey in early September, 2010. All study participants received one dose of the intervention in June, July or August. |
| Sexual Violence Perpetration | Change from baseline in sexual violence perpetration to up to three months | Two questions from Lisak's Perpetrator History (PH) Scale (Lisak, Conklin, Hopper, Miller, Altschuler & Smith, 2000) were used to assess actual perpetration. Students' past perpetration was assessed via (1) a paper survey in June, July or August 2010 (baseline) and (2) a follow-up web-based survey in early September, 2010. All study participants received one dose of the intervention in June, July or August. |
| Rape Myth Acceptance | Change from baseline in rape myth acceptance to up to three months | A revised version of the Illinois Rape Myth Acceptance Scale (Payne, Lonsway, & Fitzgerald, 1999) was used. The revised version (McMahon & Farmer, 2011) was selected because the scale includes updated language for college students as well as having a specific focus on accountability for rape and victim blaming (for information on scale development, see McMahon & Farmer, 2011). Students' rape myth acceptance was assessed via (1) a paper survey in June, July or August 2010 (baseline) and (2) a follow-up web-based survey in early September, 2010. All study participants received one dose of the intervention in June, July or August. |
Countries
United States
Outcome results
None listed