College Male Attitudes Towards Bystander
Intervention
RESEARCH PROBLEM:
College males are more likely than college females to accept
rape myths and less likely to hold positive views towards bystander
intervention (McMahon, 2010; Kress, Shepherd, Anderson, Petuch,
Nolan, & Thiemeke, 2006).
RESEARCH QUESTION:
What are college male attitudes towards bystander intervention in
the context of violence against women?
METHOD:
Nate Tysk
Advisor: Susan Wolfgram, Ph. D
University of Wisconsin-Stout
PARTICIPANTS: 69 college male students from a Midwestern
University
RESEARCH DESIGN: Non-random pilot study, cross sectional,
purposive sampling
DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENT: IRB approved, informed
by literature & theory, implied consent. Online survey with 4
demographic variables, 12 closed ended statements based on a
1-5 Likert Scale, and 5 open ended statements.
HYPOTHESIS:
1) Males will not deviate from the current social structure, as defined
by the Feminist Theory, thus choosing to be an inactive bystander and
stay silent.(Boss, Doherty, LaRossa, Schumm, & Steinmets, 1993).
2) Positive correlation between BPA and the following WTI, IMF, IFM,
CSS, WSD, BEA, CCI
3) Positive correlation between BVI and the following WTI, IMF, IFM,
CSS, WSD, BEA, CCI
4) Positive correlation between VFB and the following WTI, IMF, IFM,
CSS, WSD, BEA, CCI
PROCEDURE: Questionnaires administered to male college
students living in campus residence halls. Implied consent and
confidentiality was attached to email with survey.
DATA ANALYSIS PLAN: Cleaned & coded surveys, analyzed
data using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS),
frequencies, mean comparisons, correlations, and a reliability
analysis: Cronbach’s Alpha.
PURPOSE OF STUDY:
RESULTS:
1) To investigate college male attitudes towards bystander
intervention in the context of violence against women
2) To develop a reliable survey instrument to measure those attitudes
towards bystander intervention
3) To use the results from this study to increase college campus
administration’s awareness of the need for bystander intervention
programming as well as to increase males’ awareness of their
accountability as a bystander of any violence or even potential violence
towards another individual.
HYPOTHESES:
1) Little support for this hypothesis. 70% of surveyed chose
intervention over silence. support: WTI, WSD, IAP, CCI.
2) Some support for this hypothesis. Correlation between BPA and
WSD.
3) Support for this hypothesis. Correlation between BVI and WTI,
as well as BVI and BEA.
4) Strong support for this hypothesis. Correlation between VFB
and WTI, as well as VFB and IMF, as well as VFB and CSS. .
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK:
Feminist Theory (Boss, Doherty, LaRossa, Schumm, & Steinmets,
1993) This theory is unique in the sense that it is action oriented,
focused on the study of female subordination with the intentions to
change that gendered mindset.
As applied to my study this theory predicts male perspectives will be
affected simply due to their societal understanding of social relations
between genders.
LITERATURE REVIEW:
McMahon (2010) discovered incoming college students had a
negative relationship between their acceptance to rape myths and
willingness to intervene. Three variables were significant in bystander
attitudes: 1) being male 2) those lacking previous rape education and, 3)
those not knowing a survivor of sexual assault.
Hillenbrand-Gunn et al. (2010) found that both male and female
rape-supportive attitudes decreased after educational intervention.
Moynihan et al. (2010) conducted an exploratory evaluation of a
sexual and intimate partner violence prevention program focusing on
intercollegiate athletes and found that such individuals confidence and
intent to practice bystander behaviors increased regardless of gender.
Banyard et al. (2007) found a college sexual violence prevention
program focused on the education of safe and effective intervention to
increase prosocial bystander attitudes, increase bystander efficacy, and
increase self-reported bystander behaviors in both men and women.
Kress et al. (2006) examined a sexual assault program that targeted
college freshmen and discovered that men held a greater endorsement
for rape myths and that the program greatly decreased rape myth
acceptance attitudes regardless of gender.
DEPENDENT VARIABLES: WTI (I would intervene if I saw a male
forcefully taking a female who is intoxicated back to his room)
IMF (I would intervene if I saw a male being verbally aggressive
towards a female in a busy public area)
IFM (I would intervene if I saw a female being verbally aggressive
towards a male in a busy public area)
CSS (I would voice my disapproval if I was in the presence of a male
making a sexist joke)
WSD (I would support a female in front of my friend if he was blaming
the female for being sexually assaulted)
BPA (When a violent offense occurs towards a female in a busy
public area, the bystanders are at least partially accountable.
IAP (It is more important to me to be accepted by my peers than to
intervene for a female in a situation that is potentially dangerous for her)
BEA (If I intervene regularly in situations where there is a possibility
of violence against females I can prevent someone from being hurt)
CCI (I am confident that I would have the courage to intervene in a
situation where it is likely another male may hurt a female)
BVI (I believe there are many warning signs in public that could
indicate a male’s tendency to be aggressive. (ex. Demeaning language,
encouraging females to over consume alcohol, etc.)
VFB (I would intervene if a male was being aggressive with a female
because she would not go home with him, even if she was accepting
drinks from him and “leading him on” all night)
Correlations: All Correlations significant at the p<0.01 level (2-tailed)
IMF IFM
CSS BPA
WTI .495 .416
IAP
BEA CCI
BVI
-.326 .361 .418 .369 .508
IMF
.521 .332
.392
IFM
.330
.318
.407
IAP
VARIABLES:
BEA
DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES: GEN (Gender), AGE (AGE), CST
(College Status), PBE (I have previously participated in some form of
bystander intervention education or training:
BVI
IMPLICATIONS:
PRACTITIONERS: University use by Housing, Counseling
Center/Campus Violence Prevention Project, general/staff and
students.
FUTURE RESEARCH: Increase variability on the scale, using a 16 scale (Agree Strongly, Agree Moderately, Agree Slightly, Disagree
Slightly, Disagree Moderately, Disagree Strongly) rather than a 1-5, to
help decrease neutral answers. Large and random sampling so
findings can be generalized.
Wording of dependent variable IAP survey statement should be
altered to be a “positive inquiry,” similarly phrased as other survey
statements. If this question were to be deleted the Cronbach’s Alpha
would have been .755
Due to the strongly defensive reactions displayed in the open
ended questions of the survey, it would be beneficial to conduct
qualitative interviews allowing a researcher to further explore the
origin of such responses.
More questions similar to the variables IMF and IFM: exploring
reactions to similar bystander situations while changing the gender of
the victim and aggressor to study differences in responses.
CONCLUSION:
CSS
WSD
VFB
RELIABILITY ANALYS: Cronbach’s Alpha: 0.677
.311
.362
-.316 -.345
.382
.378
Majority of college males willing to intervene when females are in
situations potentially dangerous. But, bystander intervention:
1) varied depending on gender of the victim and/or aggressor
2) correlated with belief of warning signs indicating aggression
3) correlated with a male’s view of the female’s blameworthiness.
Preventative efforts : youth programming focused on the education
of the topics above could help eliminate unhealthy viewpoints held
towards females, encourage bystander intervention, and help break
the cycle of violence.