Sexual and Gender Minority Inclusivity in Bystander Intervention Programs to Prevent Violence on College Campuses: A Critical Review

Abstract

Sexual and gender minority (SGM) individuals are at increased risk for experiencing sexual violence. Bystander intervention training programs are a first-line prevention recommendation for reducing sexual and dating violence on college campuses. Little is known regarding the extent to which SGM individuals are represented in the content of bystander intervention programs or are included in studies examining the effectiveness of bystander intervention programs. The present critical review aimed to fill this gap in knowledge. Twenty-eight empirical peer-reviewed evaluations of bystander intervention programs aimed at reducing dating violence or sexual assault on college campuses were examined. Three studies (10.7%) described including content representing SGM individuals in the program. Personal communication with study authors indicated that—although not mentioned in the publication—many programs describe rates of violence among SGM students. When describing the study sample, six studies (21.4%) indicated that transgender, nonbinary, or students classified as “other” were included in the research. Approximately two thirds of studies (67.9%) did not describe participants’ sexual orientation. No studies reported outcomes specifically among SGM individuals, and two (7.1%) mentioned a lack of SGM inclusion as a study limitation. Work is needed to better represent SGM individuals in the content of bystander intervention programs and ensure adequate representation of SGM individuals in studies examining the effectiveness of bystander intervention programs.

Keywords

sexual minorities gender minorities inclusion sexual violence diversity bystander intervention

Rates of sexual violence are high on college campuses (Cantor et al., 2020; Krebs et al., 2016), especially among students who identify as sexual and gender minorities (Cantor et al., 2020; Krebs et al., 2016). The Sexual and Gender Minority Research Office of the National Institutes of Health (2020) defines sexual and gender minorities (SGMs) as individuals who identify as lesbian, gay, two-spirit, bisexual, transgender, and intersex, as well as individuals whose gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, or reproductive development diverges from societal, cultural, physiological, or traditional norms. Recent research suggests that rates of sexual violence among SGM college students are equal to or greater than rates among heterosexual and cisgender individuals (Cantor et al., 2020). More specifically, Coulter et al. (2017) documented the highest rates of sexual violence among college students who self-identified as transgender (20.9%), followed by individuals who identified as bisexual (15.7%), unsure (12.6%), gay or lesbian (9.8%), and heterosexual (6.4%). Edwards et al. (2015) also found differences in past-six-month incidence rates of sexual violence between sexual minority (24.3%) and heterosexual college students (11.0%), with sexual minority women and men victimized at greater rates (26.4% and 15.5%, respectively) than heterosexual women and men (13.7% and 6.5%, respectively). The high rates of sexual violence among SGM college students underscore the importance of understanding how SGM students are represented in sexual assault prevention initiatives on college campuses.

Bystander intervention training programs are one of the several approaches to campus sexual and dating violence prevention (Orchowski et al., 2020). Bystander intervention programs aim to engage all members of a campus community to take action when they witness risk for harm (for reviews, see Bennett et al., 2014; Burn, 2009; McMahon & Banyard, 2012). Bystander intervention programs for sexual assault prevention are often based on the Latané and Darley (1968) Bystander Model of Intervention. According to Latané and Darley’s (1968) model, helping behavior occurs when individuals notice a problem, label it as problematic, take responsibility for helping, and have the requisite skills to intervene. Toward this goal, bystander intervention training programs aim to increase individuals’ knowledge about sexual and dating violence, decrease belief and acceptance of rape myths, and increase individuals’ ability to intervene in risky situations (Banyard et al., 2007; Burn, 2009; Jouriles et al., 2018; Palm Reed et al., 2015). Whereas some programs such as Green Dot (Coker et al., 2016; Coker et al., 2011) and Bringing in the Bystander (Banyard et al., 2009; Moynihan et al., 2011) engage all members of the campus community, some programs designed to engage boys and men as allies in sexual violence prevention include bystander intervention as a component of their prevention program curriculum (Gidycz et al., 2011; Katz et al., 2011; Orchowski et al., 2018; Salazar et al., 2014).

As documented in a recent review by Mujal et al. (2019), the research literature examining bystander intervention programs for sexual and dating violence prevention is quickly expanding. In fact, Jouriles and colleagues’ (2018) systematic review and meta-analysis of campus bystander intervention programs included 24 rigorous program evaluations. The growing number of studies examining the effectiveness of bystander intervention programs is perhaps not surprising given that the 2014 White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault named bystander intervention as a frontline prevention approach. The positive results of bystander intervention programs were also highlighted in the second task force report (White House Task Force, 2017). Further, in 2019, the provision of bystander intervention programming was also a required component in grants to reduce domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking on campuses provided by the U.S. Department of Justice Office on Violence Against Women. As Coulter and Rankin (2020) discuss, in order to be successful in reducing college sexual assault among all students, it is vital that prevention efforts address the disparities in rates of sexual victimization among SGM students.

Problematically, no sexual assault prevention programs exist that are specific to SGM college student experiences (DeGue et al., 2014). Support services for survivors of violence also often fail to address the needs of SGM individuals (Jordan et al., 2020; Potter et al., 2012). The lack of attention to the needs of SGM students in sexual assault prevention aligns with the historical focus of research on men’s perpetration of violence against women (Cannon, 2015; Potter et al., 2012). However, as noted by Coulter et al. (2017), “if sexual assault prevention solely focuses on cisgender heterosexual violence (e.g., cisgender man-on-woman violence), it may invalidate LGBT people’s assault experiences and be ineffective for LGBT populations” (p. 8). As described by McCauley et al. (2019), sexual violence prevention efforts “often incorporate ‘power-evasive, identity-neutral’ content into our prevention programs, a strategy that emerged from efforts to highlight that people of all genders experience sexual violence and for the purposes of reducing men’s resistance in prevention efforts” (p. 15). Yet, as McCauley et al. (2019) note, such an approach fails to address how gendered homophobia is associated with perpetration of sexual violence (see Aosved & Long, 2006; Espelage et al., 2018).

Examining the way in which bystander intervention programs address the needs of SGM students is especially important in light of research suggesting that identity status and group membership influence helping behavior in emergencies (Levine & Manning, 2013; Levine et al., 2005). Individuals are less likely to help others when there is not a shared identity (Levine et al., 2005), which may help to explain why individuals who identify as SGMs are less likely to receive help from bystanders who do not identify as SGMs (Wernick et al., 2013). Stereotypes regarding who experiences sexual violence may also reduce the likelihood that individuals intervene to help SGM students who are at risk for harm. According to Ford et al. (1998), men are less likely to label a scenario as rape when the victim is a lesbian woman, and women are less likely to label a scenario as rape when the victim is a gay man. Allyship may also influence helping behavior. For example, Dessel et al. (2017) found that students identifying as heterosexual are more likely to intervene to address risk for violence involving SGM individuals when they had SGM friends and positive attitudes toward people belonging to SGM communities. Conversely, negative attitudes toward SGM individuals may also influence helping behavior. For example, Wakelin and Long (2003) found that individuals who identify as SGM are assigned more personal responsibility for experiences of sexual victimization. These findings highlight the importance of including content within bystander intervention programs which attends to how identity influences helping behavior to address risk for sexual victimization among SGM students.

To date, there is limited information about whether bystander intervention programs are effective for SGM students. For example, Coker et al. (2020) examined the efficacy of a bystander program among high school students and found that sexual minorities reported less change in rates of violence, suggesting that the program was less efficacious for the SGM students as compared to the non-SGM students. Further, Palm Reed et al. (2015) found that participants identifying as sexual minorities showed a significant decrease in their self-reported bystander efficacy after attending a bystander intervention program which portrayed men and lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans (LGBT) individuals as both victims and perpetrators of sexual violence.

In addition to calls for more inclusive programming efforts for SGM students, there is also increasing recognition of the importance of assessing and reporting on the gender identity as well as the sex assigned at birth of participants in study samples (American Psychological Association [APA], 2020). The APA (2012) defines sex (i.e., female, male, intersex) as one’s biological status as indicated by sex chromosomes, internal reproductive organs, external genitalia, and/or gonads; whereas gender is defined as the behaviors, attitudes, and feelings associated with a person’s biological sex and is based on a given culture’s expectations. Gender identity is defined as an inherent and deeply felt sense of one’s own gender, which may or may not adhere to societal norms or align with biological sex assignment (APA, 2015). However, as discussed in the Seventh edition of the APA Publication Manual, the terminology that researchers use to refer to sex and gender within a study sample are often conflated (APA, 2020). Furthermore, the assessment of gender identity in research may fail to recognize gender diversity. For example, in an investigation of transgender inclusion on college campuses, Patchett and Foster (2015) found that over 70% of campuses used the dichotomous classification of “male” and “female” to assess gender, and 13% provided an option to select “other.” Mohr (2010) describes how “othering” of gender minority students reinforces, harmful, stereotypical beliefs that position gender minority students as subordinate to their cisgender peers, likely adding to the stigmatization that many SGM individuals already face (Bedera & Nordmeyer, 2020; Johnson & Grove, 2017). As researchers in sexual assault prevention strive to increase the inclusivity of prevention efforts, it is important to understand the way in which researchers are assessing sex assigned at birth and gender identity among participants and document how researchers are using terminology pertaining to sex and gender in research reports.

Purpose of the Current Study

While previous work suggests that experiences of SGM individuals are included in the programmatic material of some bystander intervention trainings used on college campuses (see Potter et al., 2012), it is unclear the extent to which SGM inclusion has been described in the published literature and to which outcomes for SGM individuals have been examined and reported. This study sought to critically review and describe the inclusion of SGM populations in the existing published, peer-reviewed literature evaluating bystander intervention training programs designed to reduce sexual and dating violence on college campuses. Journal publications (vs. dissertations, unpublished studies) were selected for review in order to evaluate and describe the inclusivity of the published literature regarding bystander intervention program evaluations that have undergone the peer-review process. The present analysis sought to examine (1) the extent to which publications reported bystander intervention program content that includes sexual and dating violence experiences of SGMs; (2) describe the inclusion of SGM individuals as study participants; (3) whether the published bystander intervention evaluations reported findings and outcomes related to individuals who identify as SGM participants; and (4) whether the published bystander intervention evaluations called for the inclusion of SGM participants within their limitations and future directions sections.

Method

Search Criteria

To obtain a comprehensive set of research studies evaluating bystander intervention programs among college students, we first revisited the published articles in Jouriles and colleagues’ (2018) systematic review of bystander intervention programs for sexual and dating violence among college students. The Jouriles et al. (2018) systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the outcomes and efficacy of 24 bystander intervention studies published through August 2017. We followed the search and screening procedures used in the Jouriles et al. (2018) systematic review to identify articles published from September 1, 2017, until March 16, 2020. This process allowed for more recent studies to be included in the current review. Jouriles and colleagues’ (2018) search for articles was conducted via PsycINFO, PsycARTICLES, MedLine, ERIC, Academic Search Complete, Education Source, and PubMed. Of note, the current review did not search Education Source, as the database was not available to the authors. In accordance with Jouriles et al. (2018), search terms included “bystander intervention” OR “bystander intervention program” OR “bystander training” OR “bystander program” OR “bystander education” OR “peer prevention” OR “witness” AND “sexual assault” OR “assault” OR “victimization” OR “revictimization” OR “sexual coercion” OR “rape” OR “sexual violence” OR “date rape” OR “relationship violence” OR “interpartner violence” OR “dating violence” OR “perpetration” AND “college” OR “university” OR “undergraduate” OR “student” OR “young adult” OR “campus.” All journal articles generated using these search criteria were compiled into a database. Articles were selected for inclusion in the present review if they were (a) published in English language; (b) an empirical, peer-reviewed manuscript; (c) population of focus was undergraduate students; (d) purpose of the study was to evaluate a bystander program to reduce dating violence, sexual assault, or both; (e) included a control group that did not receive a bystander program or components of such a program; (f) utilized a measure of attitudes, beliefs, or bystander behaviors as an outcome; and (g) collected measures at post-treatment or follow-up. Study abstracts were screened by two bachelor’s-level independent reviewers to assess inclusionary criteria. Raters reached consensus on 91.8% of articles in the initial search. Discrepancies in coding were reviewed by a third independent reviewer and final inclusionary determinations were made.

Search Results

First, from the articles included in the Jouriles et al. (2018) review, those studies that were published in peer-reviewed journals were retained for the current critical review (n = 21). Three studies were excluded from the current critical review: two dissertations and one unpublished study. Next, the database search strategy yielded 503 articles. After removing duplicates, the search resulted in 230 articles. After the initial abstract review, 145 were excluded. Following the procedures outlined above, the remaining 85 articles were reviewed and seven were determined as meeting inclusionary criteria. A total of 28 articles were subsequently examined, and relevant information pertaining to study goals was extracted. The full search strategy is summarized in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Flow Diagram for Review Procedures.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

Full-length articles were reviewed and coded by two master’s-level independent raters for each of the inclusion domains of interest; raters reached consensus on most occasions (86.1%). The two raters then met and discussed coding discrepancies until consensus was reached. Domains of interest were identified a priori and included: program characteristics (i.e., program being evaluated, inclusions of SGMs in program content), participant characteristics (i.e., participant sex, gender, sexual orientation), and article sections in the published manuscripts (i.e., results, limitations, and future directions sections). In addition to examining the description of the content in the publication, the authors of each manuscript were contacted to provide further detail on how the curriculum addressed the needs of SGM participants.

Coding of Program Characteristics

Program characteristics as described in the study publication were coded based on the title, abstract, present study, methods, and procedure sections of the article. The name of the bystander program being evaluated was gleaned from each study (e.g., Green Dot). Whether the program content addressed SGMs was classified as follows: (a) SGM inclusion in the program content was not described in the study, (b) SGMs were described as being represented in program materials (e.g., stories, videos, pictures, examples), and (c) program content did not describe including SGMs but described example(s) of nonfemale/nonwomen being victimized (e.g., men being victims of sexual violence regardless of perpetrators’ sex/gender). The description of program characteristics provided from the author(s) of the study were described separately (see Table 1) in order to examine the extent to which content relating to SGM participants is described within publications.

Table 1.

Program Characteristics.

Citation	Bystander Program Evaluated	Outcomes Assessed	In What Way Did the Research Article Describe How the Program Content Was Inclusive of SGM Students?	Personal Communication From the Study Authors Regarding Inclusion of SGM Students in the Program Content
Alegria-Flores et al. (2017)	One Act	Rape attitudes/behaviors; bystander’s confidence; willingness to help; bystander behavior	Not described in the article	The authors note that training materials and pre- and posttraining surveys included content that specifically sought to inform trainees of challenges faced by SGM students, pointed out violence among SGM students, included scenarios relating to SGM students, and overall was inclusive of the LGBTQ community in its development and implementation
Amar et al. (2015)	Friends Helping Friends	RMA; bystander efficacy; bystander intentions; bystander barriers	Not described in the article	No additional communication was provided by the author team
Banyard, Moynihan & Plante (2007)	Bringing in the Bystander	Knowledge of sexual misconduct; RMA; date rape attitudes; bystander attitudes; bystander behaviors; bystander efficacy; pros and cons of intervening	Content did not explicitly include SGMs; described examples of nonfemales/women being victimized: used gender neutral terms to describe victim and perpetrator	This description was confirmed by the authors
Cadaret et al. (2019)	Bystander Plus (comprised of Empowering the Bystander & Define It!)	Rape culture beliefs	Not described in the article	The authors of the article acknowledge the lack of discussion and predominance of information that largely excludes SGM populations in Empowering the Bystander and note that Define It! is a dialogue-based program which is adaptable to the gender, sexuality, and perspectives of the participants
Cares et al. (2015)	Bringing in the Bystander	RMA; willingness to engage in sexual aggression; readiness to help; bystander efficacy; intent to help (a friend, a stranger); sexual violence knowledge	SGMs were explicitly represented in program materials: included discussion of men as potential victims in same-gender relationships	This description was confirmed by the authors
Carlyle et al. (2020)	Red Flag Campaign	Bystander attitudes; bystander efficacy	SGMs were explicitly represented in program materials: posters feature students in same-sex relationships	This description was confirmed by the authors
Coker et al. (2011)	Green Dot	RMA; acceptance of dating violence; observed and actual bystander behavior	Not described in the article	The authors note that the assessment did not specifically ask about SGM status. Individuals were not excluded based on SGM status
Coker et al. (2015)	Green Dot	Interpersonally violent behaviors (victimization and perpetration)	Not described in the article	The authors note that the assessment did not specifically ask about SGM status. Individuals were not excluded based on SGM status
Elias-Lambert & Black (2016)	Bringing in the Bystander	Sexually coercive behavior and intentions; RMA; bystander attitudes; bystander behavior	Not described in the article	This description was confirmed by the authors
Exner-Cortens & Cummings (2017)	Wingman 101	Pros and cons of intervening; willingness to help; bystander efficacy; RMA; bystander behaviors	Not described in the article	The authors note that the program was developed with a focus on cis-gender men, but that programs have since been developed based on the original Wingman 101 program that include other identities and scenarios
Foubert & Marriott (1997)	“How to Help a Sexual Assault Survivor”	RMA	Content did not explicitly include SGMs; described examples of nonfemales/women being victimized: included video describing a man being raped	This description was confirmed by the authors
Foubert (2000)	The Men’s Program: How to Help a Sexual Assault Survivor, What Men Can Do	RMA; intent to rape; sexually coercive behavior	Content did not explicitly include SGMs; described examples of nonfemales/women being victimized: included a video describing a male police officer being raped by two men	This description was confirmed by the authors
Gidycz et al. (2011)	The Men’s Project	RMA; hypergender ideology; perceptions of other men’s attitudes and behaviors; norms regarding sexually aggressive behavior; bystander behavior; support for victims; understanding of consent; perpetration of sexual aggression	Not described in the article	The authors note that program content mentions male victimization and that sexual violence is not exclusively perpetrated by men against women
Jouriles et al. (2016)	TakeCARE	Bystander behavior; bystander self-efficacy	Not described in the article	The authors note the program uses gender neutral content (e.g., definition and examples of consent/not consent). Includes images of the pride flag and same-sex couples and indicates higher rates of violence experienced by SGMs
Katz et al. (2013)	Know Your Power	RMA; willingness to help; social self-identification	Not described in the article	The authors note that the programming includes depictions of bystanders intervening in scenarios involving LGB individuals
Kleinsasser et al. (2015)	TakeCARE	Bystander behavior; bystander efficacy	Content did not explicitly include SGMs; described examples of nonfemales/women being victimized: included discussion of both men and women being able to experience unwanted sexual pressure	The authors note that much of the program content is gender neutral, the programming includes depictions of same-sex couples and the Pride Flag, and program content describes SGM individuals expiring higher rates of violence
Langhinrichsen-Rohling et al. (2011)	The Men’s Program	Bystander efficacy; willingness to intervene; RMA	Content did not explicitly include SGMs; described examples of nonfemales/women being victimized: included an example of “male-on-male” rape	This description was confirmed by the authors
Moynihan et al. (2010)	Bringing in the Bystander	RMA; bystander efficacy; intention to help; bystander behavior	Not described in the article	At the time of the authors’ evaluation, the program did not explicitly include SGM content. The program uses gender neutral pronouns
Moynihan et al. (2011)	Bringing in the Bystander	Bystander efficacy; intention to help; readiness to change; lack of awareness; taking responsibility	Not described in the article	At the time of the authors’ evaluation, the program did not explicitly include SGM content. The program uses gender neutral pronouns
Moynihan et al. (2015)	Bringing in the Bystander	Lack of awareness; opportunities to engage in bystander behaviors; perception of peer helping; bystander behavior	Content did not explicitly include SGMs; described examples of nonfemales/women being victimized: used gender neutral language (i.e., she or he) to describe victims	This description was confirmed by the authors
O’Brien et al. (2019)	STOP Dating Violence	Recognition of warning signs; knowledge of bystander interventions; helping behavior attitudes; intentions to help; bystander efficacy; bystander behaviors	SGMs were explicitly represented in program materials: depicted couples varied in terms of gender identity and sexual orientation	This description was confirmed by the authors
Peterson et al. (2018)	Bringing in the Bystander (adapted version)	RMA; attitudes regarding intimate partner violence; sexist attitudes; bystander efficacy; intentions to help; bystander behaviors	Not described in the article	No additional communication from the author team. The article notes that: Standardized modifications were made to adapt the curriculum to the campus and address other forms of dating violence, in addition to sexual assault
Potter et al. (2009)	Know Your Power	Awareness of sexual violence as a problem; willingness to get involved in reducing violence against women; bystander behavior	Not described in the article	The authors note that the programming includes depictions of bystanders intervening in scenarios involving LGB individuals
Potter et al., (2011)	Know Your Power	Awareness of sexual violence as a problem; willingness to get involved in reducing violence against women; bystander behavior	Not described in the article	The authors note that the programming includes depictions of bystanders intervening in scenarios involving LGB individuals
Potter et al., (2019)	Mindflock & Ship Happens	Bystander attitudes; bystander efficacy	Not described in the article	The authors note that the programming includes depictions of bystanders intervening in scenarios involving LGB individuals
Salazar et al. (2014)	RealConsent	Prosocial intervention behaviors; sexual violence perpetration	Not described in the article	This description was confirmed by the authors. The authors also note that the program was designed to be specific to heteronormative populations
Salazar et al. (2019)	RealConsent	Prosocial bystander behaviors; sexual violence perpetration	Not described in the article	This description was confirmed by the authors. The authors also note that the program was designed to be specific to heteronormative populations
Senn & Forrest (2016)	Bringing in the Bystander (3-hr Canadian Adaptation)	Bystander efficacy; readiness to help; bystander intentions; barriers to intervention; bystander behavior	Not described in the article	The authors note the program script included that sexual violence can happen to, and be committed by, anyone, and that the skills can be generalized to a variety of situations

Note. SGM = sexual and gender minority; RMA = rape myth acceptance.

Coding of Participant Characteristics

Each study was examined to examine assessment of sex assigned at birth, including the representation of intersex participants. Assessment and reporting of gender identity outside of a gender binary was coded to reflect whether the authors used the terms transgender or nonbinary when describing the sex or gender of participants. Sexual orientation was coded to reflect whether the authors described collecting participant sexual orientation information. Coding response options were (a) sexual orientation was not reported, (b) reported the percent of heterosexual participants, and (c) reported the frequency of students identified as sexual minorities (e.g., lesbian, gay, bisexual).

Coding of the Representation of SGM Students in the Study Results, Limitations, and Future Directions

The results section of each study was coded to reflect whether the authors presented findings regarding SGM individuals in the results section. Coding response options were (a) no explicit results regarding study outcomes among SGMs were reported (i.e., unclear whether results applied to SGM participants in the samples because SGM participants were not explicitly mentioned), (b) results described findings specifically among SGM participants, and (c) results described the findings among heterosexual and/or cisgender participants. Limitations was coded to reflect whether the authors mentioned a lack of SGM inclusion in the limitations section. Coding response options were (a) lack of SGM inclusion was not reported as a limitation, (b) mentions a lack of SGM inclusion as a limitation, and (c) mentions a general lack of diversity as a limitation. Future directions were coded to reflect whether the authors mentioned the inclusion of SGMs in the future directions section. Coding response options were (a) future inclusion of SGMs was not reported, (b) calls for SGM inclusion in future directions regarding program content and/or research, and (c) calls for more general diversity in future directions regarding program content and/or research.

Results

Information regarding program characteristics, participant characteristics, and article sections was compiled into tables. Table 1 describes the program content and participant characteristics. Table 2 describes the participant characteristics. Table 3 describes how the study represented SGM students in study analyses as well as the study limitations and future directions.

Table 2.

Participant Characteristics.

Citation	Did the Authors Use the Term Transgender or Nonbinary When Describing the Sex or Gender of Participants?	Description of Sexual Orientation
Alegria-Flores et al. (2017)	No	Reported on participants being heterosexual/gay/bisexual/other
Amar et al. (2015)	No	Not reported
Banyard et al. (2007)	No	Not reported
Cadaret et al. (2019)	No	Not reported
Cares et al. (2015)	Yes	Not reported
Carlyle et al. (2020)	No	Reported on percent of heterosexual participants
Coker et al. (20110)	No	Not reported
Coker et al. (2015)	No	Reported on percent of participants “not exclusively attracted to the opposite sex”
Elias-Lambert & Black (2016)	No	Reported on percent of heterosexual participants
Exner-Cortens & Cummings (2017)	No	Not reported
Foubert & Marriott (1997)	No	Not reported
Foubert (2000)	No	Not reported
Gidycz et al. (2011)	No	Reported on percent of heterosexual participants
Jouriles et al. (2016)	No	Not reported
Katz et al. (2013)	No	Not reported
Kleinsasser et al. (2015)	No	Not reported
Langhinrichsen-Rohling et al. (2011)	No	Not reported
Moynihan et al. (2010)	No	Not reported
Moynihan et al. (2011)	No	Not reported
Moynihan et al. (2015)	Yes	Not reported
O’Brien et al. (2019)	Yes	Not reported
Peterson et al. (2018)	No	Reported on participants identifying as heterosexual or straight/gay/lesbian/bisexual
Potter et al. (2009)	No	Not reported
Potter et al. (2011)	No	Not reported
Potter et al. (2019)	Yes	Not reported
Salazar et al. (2014)	No	Reported on participants as heterosexual/bisexual
Salazar et al. (2019)	No	Reported on participants as heterosexual/bisexual
Senn & Forrest (2016)	Yes	Reported on percent of heterosexual participants

Table 3.

Representation of SGM Students in Study Analyses and Acknowledgment in the Study Discussion.

Citation	Were Findings Regarding SGMs Presented in the Results Section?	Was a Lack of SGM Inclusion Mentioned in the Limitations Section?	Was SGM Inclusion Mentioned as a Future Research Direction?
Alegria-Flores et al. (2017)	None reported	Not included	Not included
Amar et al. (2015)	None reported	Mentioned lack of diversity: racial/ethnic/sociodemographic	Called for diversity
Banyard et al. (2007)	None reported	Mentioned lack of diversity: racial/ethnic	Called for diversity: racial/ethnic
Cadaret et al. (2019)	None reported	Mentioned lack of diversity: racial/majority female sample	Called for diversity
Cares et al. (2015)	None reported	Not included	Called for diversity: racial/ethnic
Carlyle et al. (2020)	None reported	Not included	Not included
Coker et al. (2011)	None reported	Not included	Not included
Coker et al. (2015)	None reported	Not included	Not included
Elias-Lambert & Black (2016)	None reported	Not included	Not included
Exner-Cortens & Cummings (2017)	None reported	Explicitly mentioned lack of SGM inclusion	Explicitly called for SGM inclusion
Foubert & Marriott (1997)	None reported	Mentioned lack of diversity: racial/ethnic	Not included
Foubert (2000)	None reported	Mentioned lack of diversity: ethnic	Called for diversity
Gidycz et al. (2011)	None reported	Not included	Not included
Jouriles et al. (2016)	None reported	Mentioned lack of diversity: racial/ethnic	Called for diversity
Katz et al. (2013)	None reported	Not included	Explicitly called for SGM inclusion
Kleinsasser et al. (2015)	None reported	Mentioned lack of diversity: racial/ethnic/majority female sample	Called for diversity
Langhinrichsen-Rohling et al. (2011)	None reported	Not included	Called for diversity
Moynihan et al. (2010)	None reported	Not included	Not included
Moynihan et al. (2011)	None reported	Mentioned lack of diversity: ethnic	Called for diversity: geographic/racial/ethnic
Moynihan et al. (2015)	None reported	Not included	Not included
O’Brien et al. (2019)	None reported	Explicitly mentioned lack of SGM inclusion	Explicitly called for SGM inclusion
Peterson et al. (2018)	None reported	Mentioned lack of diversity: racial/ethnic	Called for diversity: racial/ethnic
Potter et al. (2009)	None reported	Not included	Not included
Potter et al. (2011)	None reported	Mentioned lack of diversity: age/ethnic	Explicitly called for SGM inclusion
Potter et al. (2019)	None reported	Mentioned lack of diversity: “homogenous sample”	Called for diversity
Salazar et al. (2014)	None reported	Not included	Called for diversity: urban versus rural
Salazar et al. (2019)	None reported	Not included	Called for diversity: racial/ethnic
Senn & Forrest (2016)	None reported	Not included	Not included

Note. SGM = sexual and gender minority.

Content of the Programs

Of the 28 articles, three articles (10.7%) described including content representing individuals who identify as SGMs: (a) men as victims of sexual violence in same-gender relationships, (b) examples of same-sex relationships, and (c) depicted couples varying by gender identity and sexual orientation. The majority of program examined (67.9%) did not describe content representing individuals who identify as SGMs. The remaining six studies (21.4%) included descriptions of nonfemale/nonwomen being sexually victimized. Of note, three of the six articles stated that the description of male-on-male victimization was used specifically to engender empathy for women sexual violence victims, and the other half mentioned that men can experience unwanted sexual pressure or used gender neutral terms regarding the victim and perpetrator. Regarding the delivery of the program, it was notable that one study reported that transgender participants could choose which group they felt most comfortable attending (i.e., because the groups were single sex). While not reported in the published manuscripts, several authors indicated through personal communication that content relevant to SGM individuals was included in the program under evaluation (see Table 1).

Participant Characteristics

There was limited information on how studies assessed participants’ assignment of sex at birth. No articles reported the term intersex, and it is not known whether intersex was an option for participants to report. Most studies did not report on the sexual orientation of participants (67.9%). Two studies reported the percentage of participants who identified as gay, one study reported the frequency of participants who identified as lesbian, four studies reported participants identified as bisexual, and one reported the frequency of participants who described themselves as “not exclusively attracted to the opposite sex.” Two studies reported that individuals who identified as “homosexual” were excluded from study participation. Regarding assessment of gender identity outside of a gender binary (man/woman), six studies (21.4%) used the terms transgender or nonbinary to describe participant gender. Specifically, four reported including transgender participants, one reported including nonbinary participants, and one reported the percent of participants described as “other” in relation to gender identity. It was also noted that most studies did not assess both sex and gender. Further, studies tended to use terminology referring to participant sex and gender interchangeably, including using the terms male/female and man/woman interchangeably throughout the study when the study did not report on assessing both sex and gender.

Results, Limitations, and Future Direction Sections of Articles

None of the 28 articles include in the present review reported explicit outcomes regarding SGM students. Further, none of the articles reviewed differentiated outcomes by SGM participants compared to heterosexual and/or cisgender participants. Additionally, in two articles (7.1%) the authors reported that transgender participants were excluded from analyses due to sample size limitations. However, one article did report that transgender participants were included in analyses presented elsewhere although did not include a citation to allow readers to easily access those results. Finally, one article noted that heterosexual participants were more likely to have completed follow-up surveys.

Regarding the limitation sections, 15 articles (53.6%) did not mention a lack of SGM inclusion as a limitation of their study. Further, 11 articles (39.3%) mentioned a lack of diversity broadly (e.g., lack of racial/ethnic diversity, homogenous samples) as a limitation of their study. However, two articles (7.1%) mentioned a lack of SGM inclusion as a limitation of their study. Further, 13 articles (46.4%) called for more diversity (e.g., racial/ethnic, geographic) in program content and future research, while 11 articles (39.3%) did not include mention of diversity and inclusion in their future directions. Four articles (14.3%) called for inclusion of SGM representation in future research. Specially, one called for greater sexual and gender diversity in samples, one called for measurement of sexual orientation, one called for men being depicted as at risk for sexual violence, and one called for poster campaigns to include depictions of sexual violence in the lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, and queer/questioning (LGBTQ) community.

Discussion

The current review examined the scope of reported inclusion of individuals identifying as SGMs within program characteristics, participant characteristics, and reporting in article results, limitations, and future directions sections. Examining and describing the extent to which SGMs are represented in the peer-reviewed published evaluations of bystander intervention training programs for sexual and dating violence may provide critical insights into what we know and do not know about how such approaches are inclusive of the experiences of individuals who identify as SGMs. Findings highlight the lack of reported inclusion of individuals who identify as SGM within the current bystander intervention programming evaluation literature. Lack of inclusion is of concern as it leads to a knowledge gap in how current bystander intervention programs meet the needs of students who identify as SGMs.

First, examination of the research articles indicated that there was a lack of SGMs as being included within the program content of bystander interventions programs. Personal communication with the authors of studies included in the review indicated some inclusion of content relating to SGM participants within the program (i.e., indication of prevalence rates among SGM students, recognition that anyone can be a victim or perpetrator, discussion of homophobia). It was notable that three studies portraying victimization among men did so with the intent to evoke empathy for, or draw connections to, females’ experiences of sexual violence (i.e., Foubert, 2000; Foubert & Marriott, 1997; Langhinrichsen-Rohling et al., 2011), rather than to be inclusive of individuals identifying as SGMs.

As discussed by Coulter et al. (2017), the lack of inclusion of content depicting the experiences of SGM individuals may perpetuate the myth that men (in general), transgender, and gender-diverse individuals, among others, cannot be victims. Although there is no data to examine whether bystander intervention programs are equally effective for SGM participants, the lack of content pertinent to the experiences of SGM youth may lead programs to be less salient for SGM participants. For example, as noted by Potter et al. (2011), social self-identification in relation to bystander intervention posits that individuals exposed to program content will receive increased benefit when they identify with the people depicted in the program content. It is further important to ensure that content is inclusive of the experiences of SGM individuals given that individuals who do not identify as sexual minorities are less like to provide bystander intervention when witnessing harassment of individuals who identify as sexual minorities (Wernick et al., 2013).

Regarding participant characteristics, one third of articles reported information regarding participants’ sexual orientation. Four of the reviewed articles reported including transgender individuals as participants in the study. Generally, it was also unclear whether participants were asked to report on their sex assigned at birth, gender identity, or both. The way in which gender identity was assessed in the study was also often unclear. For example, articles often did not describe the specific options provided to participants in order to describe their gender identity (i.e., man, woman, gender nonbinary, transgender). Including dichotomous or binary options for reporting on gender identity precludes accurate reporting of gender minority students in research (Fraser, 2018). Moving forward, it is important to provide an inclusive list of options to reflect participant sex and gender identity, or as Fraser (2018) suggests, providing options for write-in self-identification of sex and gender. Purposive oversampling from SGM communities may also be needed to facilitate subgroup analyses in some research studies (Etikan et al., 2016; Vaughan, 2017). It was especially surprising given the low rates of SGM inclusion in study samples, that studies rarely cited a lack of diversity and inclusion of SGM participants as a limitation or an area for future research in the discussion section of the manuscript.

Given that a relatively lower percentage of individuals identify as SGMs in the broader population, it is perhaps unsurprising that there are low rates of SGM students in study samples. While some studies clarified that no transgender students were included, it was unclear in other studies whether there were no transgender students included or if transgender students were not accurately identified by the demographic questions utilized in the research. It was also noted that in two studies, data from transgender participants were excluded from analyses. Whereas this decision may be statistically justified, work is needed to ensure sufficient representation of SGM students in research in order explore the question of whether bystander intervention programs are equally effective for SGM participants.

Limitations

The present research should be considered in the context of several limitations. First, the study was restricted to analysis of bystander intervention programs. As documented by DeGue et al. (2014), numerous other forms of sexual assault prevention exist. Future studies should follow-up on this research to examine SGM inclusion in other types of sexual assault prevention programs. Second, the present study did not employ a systematic review of the literature following PRISMA guidelines or Cochrane review criteria to rate the quality of the research reviewed. Third, except in the assessment of program content, we relied on the information reported in the published studies. Thus, it is possible that individuals who identify as SGMs were included in – but not described in – some studies included in this review. In other words, it may be that that such information is not being reported in publications although it is collected on survey assessments. Nevertheless, it is important that information related to sexual and gender identity be included in published literature to allow readers to critically evaluate the study findings. Therefore, the present study should be considered as highlighting the gap in the published literature regarding inclusion of participants identifying as SGMs in bystander intervention programs for dating and sexual violence on college campuses.

Conclusions

The present study highlights a gap in the sexual and dating violence bystander intervention literature as it applies to the inclusion of individuals identifying as SGMs. As the current findings highlight, there is work to be done with respect to the reporting of assigned sex, gender identity, and sexual orientation in bystander intervention program evaluation research. Moving forward, it is imperative that future research be mindful and purposeful in the recruitment of SGM participants, the use of inclusive and appropriate terminology and survey assessments, and the analysis and reporting of results that include relevant findings for diverse SGM subgroups. As sexual and dating violence continues to be major concerns on college campuses, it is imperative that researchers evaluate whether the outcomes of bystander intervention programs and trainings vary among SGM students, in order to better understand program efficacy and potential beneficial, or harmful, outcomes.

Critical Findings

The inclusion of sexual and gender minorities is frequently not described in studies examining the efficacy of bystander intervention for sexual violence.

Most studies of bystander intervention training programs for college students do not describe whether or not the curriculum includes content pertinent to sexual and gender minority students. Personal communication from authors reveals that some programs do include information relevant to SGM students within the curriculum.

It is currently unclear whether bystander intervention programs for sexual violence are efficacious for individuals who identify as sexual or gender minorities, or whether programs are adequately targeting the risk for sexual violence among individuals who identify as sexual or gender minorities.

Implications for Research, Practice and Policy

Researchers should continue to increase inclusivity of SGM individuals in study samples, as well as when describing participant demographics and reporting study results.

Researchers and practitioners should ensure the appropriate use of terminology when describing sexual orientation, gender identity, and sex assigned at birth.

Research is needed to examine whether bystander interventions are effective for students as a function of sexual orientation and gender identity.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank Allison Tobar-Santamaria and Emma Grace Pecha for their assistance in coding articles for this review.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Katelyn T. Kirk-Provencher

Lindsay M. Orchowski

References

*Alegría-Flores

Raker

Pleasants

R. K.

Weaver

M. A.

Weinberger

(2017). Preventing interpersonal violence on college campuses: The effect of one act training on bystander intervention. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 32(7), 1103–1126. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260515587666

*Amar

A. F.

Tuccinardi

Heislein

Simpson

(2015). Friends Helping Friends: A nonrandomized control trial of a peer-based response to dating violence. Nursing Outlook, 63(4), 496–503. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.outlook.2015.01.004

American Psychological Association. (2015). Guidelines for psychological practice with transgender and gender nonconforming people. American Psychologist, 70(9), 832–864.

American Psychological Association (2020). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association: The official guide to APA style (7th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Aosved

A. C.

Long

P. J.

(2006). Co-occurrence of rape myth acceptance, sexism, racism, homophobia, ageism, classism, and religious intolerance. Sex Roles, 55(7-8), 481–492. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-006-9101-4

Banyard

V. L.

Moynihan

M. M.

Crossman

M. T.

(2009). Reducing sexual violence on campus: The role of student leaders as empowered bystanders. Journal of College Student Development, 50(4), 446–457. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.0.0083

*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

Bedera

Nordmeyer

(2020). An inherently masculine practice: Understanding the sexual victimization of queer women. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260519898439

Bennett

Banyard

V. L.

Garnhart

(2014). To act or not to act, that is the question? Barriers and facilitators of bystander intervention. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 29(3), 476–496. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260513505210

10.

Burn

S. M.

(2009). A situational model of sexual assault prevention through bystander intervention. Sex Roles, 60, 779–792. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-008-9581-5

11.

*Cadaret

M. C.

Johnson

N. L.

Devencenzi

M. L.

Morgan

E. M.

(2019). A quasiexperimental study of the Bystander Plus program for changing rape culture beliefs. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260519872981

12.

Cannon

(2015). Illusion of inclusion: The failure of the gender paradigm to account for intimate partner violence in LGBT relationships. Partner Abuse, 6(1), 65–77. https://doi.org/10.1891/1946-6560.6.1.65

13.

Cantor

Fisher

Chibnal

Harps

Townsend

Thomas

Lee

Kranz

Hervison

Madden

(2020). Report on the AAU campus climate survey on sexual assault and misconduct, Revised. Association of American Universities and Westat Inc. https://www.aau.edu/sites/default/files/AAU-Files/Key-Issues/Campus-Safety/Revised%20Aggregate%20report%20%20and%20appendices%201-7_(01-16-2020_FINAL).pdfS

14.

*Cares

A. C.

Banyard

V. L.

Moynihan

M. M.

Williams

L. M.

Potter

S. J.

Stapleton

J. G.

(2015). Changing attitudes about being a bystander to violence: Translating an in-person sexual violence prevention program to a new campus. Violence Against Women, 21(2), 165–187. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801214564681

15.

*Carlyle

K. E.

Conley

A. H.

Guidry

J. P.

(2020). Development and evaluation of the red flag campaign for the primary prevention of sexual and dating violence on college campuses. Journal of American College Health, 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1080/07448481.2020.1726924

16.

Coker

A. L.

Bush

H. M.

Clear

E. R.

Brancato

C. J.

McCauley

H. L.

(2020). Bystander program effectiveness to reduce violence and violence acceptance within sexual minority male and female high school students using a cluster RCT. Prevention Science, 21(3), 434–444. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-019-01073-7

17.

Coker

A. L.

Bush

H. M.

Fisher

B. S.

Swan

S. C.

Williams

C. M.

Clear

E. R.

DeGue

(2016). Multi-college bystander intervention evaluation for violence prevention. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 50(3), 295–302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2015.08.034

18.

*Coker

A. L.

Cook-Craig

P. G.

Williams

C. M.

Fisher

B. S.

Clear

E. R.

Garcia

L. S.

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

19.

*Coker

A. L.

Fisher

B. S.

Bush

H. M.

Swan

S. C.

Williams

C. M.

Clear

E. R.

DeGue

(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/10.1177/107780121454284

20.

Coulter

R. W.

Mair

Miller

Blosnich

J. R.

Matthews

D. D.

McCauley

H. L.

(2017). Prevalence of past-year sexual assault victimization among undergraduate students: Exploring differences by and intersections of gender identity, sexual identity, and race/ethnicity. Prevention Science, 18, 726–736. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-017-0762-8

21.

Coulter

R. W.

Rankin

S. R.

(2020). College sexual assault and campus climate for sexual-and gender-minority undergraduate students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 35(5-6), 1351–1366. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260517696870

22.

DeGue

Valle

L. A.

Holt

M. K.

Massetti

G. M.

Matjasko

J. L.

Tharp

A. T.

(2014). A systematic review of primary prevention strategies for sexual violence perpetration. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 19(4), 346–362. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2014.05.004

23.

Dessel

A. B.

Goodman

K. D.

Woodford

M. R.

(2017). LGBT discrimination on campus and heterosexual bystanders: Understanding intentions to intervene. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 10(2), 101–116. https://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000015

24.

Edwards

K. M.

Sylaska

K. M.

Barry

J. E.

Moynihan

M. M.

Banyard

V. L.

Cohn

E. S.

Walsh

W. A.

Ward

S. K.

(2015). Physical dating violence, sexual violence, and unwanted pursuit victimization: A comparison of incidence rates among sexual-minority and heterosexual college students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 30(4), 580–600. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260514535260

25.

*Elias-Lambert

Black

B. M.

(2016). Bystander sexual violence prevention program: Outcomes for high-and low-risk university men. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 31(19), 3211–3235. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260515584346

26.

Espelage

D. L.

Basile

K. C.

Leemis

R. W.

Hipp

T. N.

Davis

J. P.

(2018). Longitudinal examination of the bullying-sexual violence pathway across early to late adolescence: Implicating homophobic name-calling. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 47(9), 1880–1893. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-018-0827-4

27.

Etikan

Musa

S. A.

Alkassim

R. S.

(2016). Comparison of convenience sampling and purposive sampling. American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics, 5(1), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajtas.20160501.11

28.

*Exner-Cortens

Cummings

(2017). Bystander-based sexual violence prevention with college athletes: A pilot randomized trial. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260517733279

29.

Ford

T. M.

Liwag-McLamb

M. G.

Foley

L. A.

(1998). Perceptions of rape based on sex and sexual orientation of victim. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 13(2), 253–263.

30.

*Foubert

J. D.

(2000). The longitudinal effects of a rape-prevention program on fraternity men’s attitudes, behavioral intent, and behavior. Journal of American College Health, 48(4), 158–163. https://doi.org/10.1080/07448480009595691

31.

*Foubert

J. D.

Marriott

K. A.

(1997). Effects of a sexual assault peer education program on men’s belief in rape myths. Sex Roles, 36(3/4), 259–268. https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/BF02766271.pdf

32.

Fraser

(2018). Evaluating inclusive gender identity measures for use in quantitative psychological research. Psychology & Sexuality, 9(4), 343–357. https://doi.org/10.1080/19419899.2018.1497693

33.

*Gidycz

C. A.

Orchowski

L. M.

Berkowitz

A. D.

(2011). Preventing sexual aggression among college men: An evaluation of a social norms and bystander intervention program. Violence Against Women, 17(6), 720–742. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801211409727

34.

Johnson

N. L.

Grove

(2017). Why us? Toward an understanding of bisexual women’s vulnerability for and negative consequences of sexual violence. Journal of Bisexuality, 17(4), 435–450. https://doi.org/10.1080/15299716.2017.1364201

35.

Jordan

S. P.

Mehrotra

G. R.

Fujikawa

K. A.

(2020). Mandating inclusion: Critical trans perspectives on domestic and sexual violence advocacy. Violence Against Women, 26(6-7), 531–554. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801219836728

36.

Jouriles

E. N.

Krauss

N. L.

Banyard

V. L.

McDonald

(2018). Bystander programs addressing sexual violence on college campuses: A systematic review and meta-analysis of program outcomes and delivery methods. Journal of American College Health, 66(6), 457–466. https://doi.org/10.1080/07448481.2018.1431906

37.

*Jouriles

E. N.

McDonald

Rosenfield

Levy

Sargent

Caiozzo

Grych

J. H.

(2016). TakeCARE, a video bystander program to help prevent sexual violence on college campuses: Results of two randomized, controlled trials. Psychology of Violence, 6(3), 410. https://doi.org/10.1037/vo0000016

38.

Katz

Heisterkamp

H. A.

Fleming

W. M.

(2011). The social justice roots of the mentors in violence prevention model and its application in a high school setting. Violence Against Women, 17(6), 684–702. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801211409725

39.

*Katz

Olin

Herman

DuBois

(2013). Spotting the signs: First-year college students’ responses to bystander-themed rape prevention posters. Journal of Community Psychology, 41(4), 523–529. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.21552

40.

*Kleinsasser

Jouriles

E. N.

McDonald

Rosenfield

(2015). An online bystander intervention program for the prevention of sexual violence. Psychology of Violence, 5(3), 227. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037393

41.

Krebs

C. P.

Lindquist

Berzofsky

Shook-Sa

Peterson

Planty

Langton

Widico-Stroop

(2016). Campus climate survey validation study final technical report. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ccsvsftr.pdf

42.

*Langhinrichsen-Rohling

Foubert

J. D.

Brasfield

H. M.

Hill

Shelley-Tremblay

(2011). The men’s program: Does it impact college men’s self-reported bystander efficacy and willingness to intervene? Violence Against Women, 17(6), 743–759. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801211409728

43.

Latané

Darley

J. M.

(1968). Group inhibition of bystander intervention in emergencies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 10(3), 215–221. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0026570

44.

Levine

Manning

(2013). Social identity, group processes, and helping in emergencies. European Review of Social Psychology, 24(1), 225–251. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2014.892318

45.

Levine

Prosser

Evans

Reicher

(2005). Identity and emergency intervention: How social group membership and inclusiveness of group boundaries shape helping behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(4), 443–453. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167204271651

46.

McCauley

H. L.

Campbell

Buchanan

N. T.

Moylan

C. A.

(2019). Advancing theory, methods, and dissemination in sexual violence research to build a more equitable future: An intersectional, community-engaged approach. Violence Against Women, 25(16), 1906–1931. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801219875823

47.

McMahon

Banyard

V. L.

(2012). When can I help? A conceptual framework for the prevention of sexual violence through bystander intervention. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 13(1), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838011426015

48.

Mohr

J. M.

(2010). Oppression by scientific method: The use of science to “other” sexual minorities. Journal of Hate Studies, 77(22), 21–45. https://jhs.press.gonzaga.edu/issue/8/file/16/#page=28

49.

*Moynihan

M. M.

Banyard

V. L.

Arnold

J. S.

Eckstein

R. P.

Stapleton

J. G.

(2010). Engaging intercollegiate athletes in preventing and intervening in sexual and intimate partner violence. Journal of American College Health, 59(3), 197–204. https://doi.org/10.1080/07448481.2010.502195

50.

*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. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801211409726

51.

*Moynihan

M. M.

Banyard

V. L.

Cares

A. C.

Potter

S. J.

Williams

L. M.

Stapleton

J. G.

(2015). Encouraging responses in sexual and relationship violence prevention: What program effects remain 1 year later? Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 30(1), 110–132. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260514532719

52.

Mujal

G. N.

Taylor

M. E.

Fry

J. L.

Gochez-Kerr

T. H.

Weaver

N. L.

(2019). A systematic review of bystander interventions for the prevention of sexual violence. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838019849587

53.

*O’Brien

K. M.

Sauber

E. W.

Kearney

M. S.

Venaglia

R. B.

Lemay

E. P.

Jr (2019). Evaluating the effectiveness of an online intervention to educate college students about dating violence and bystander responses. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260519829769

54.

Orchowski

L. M.

Barnett

N. P.

Berkowitz

Borsari

Oesterle

Zlotnick

(2018). Sexual assault prevention for heavy drinking college men: Development and feasibility of an integrated approach. Violence Against Women, 24(11), 1369–1396. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801218787928

55.

Orchowski

L. M.

Edwards

K. M.

Hollander

J. A.

Banyard

V. L.

Senn

C. Y.

Gidycz

C. A.

(2020). Integrating sexual assault resistance, bystander, and men’s social norms strategies to prevent sexual violence on college campuses: A call to action. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 21(4), 811–827. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838018789153

56.

Palm Reed

K. M.

Hines

D. A.

Armstrong

J. L.

Cameron

A. Y.

(2015). Experimental evaluation of a bystander prevention program for sexual assault and dating violence. Psychology of Violence, 5(1), 95–102. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037557

57.

Patchett

Foster

(2015). Inclusive recreation: The state of campus policies, facilities, trainings, and programs for transgender participants. Recreational Sports Journal, 39(2), 83–91. https://doi.org/10.1123/rsj.2015-0028

58.

*Peterson

Sharps

Banyard

Powers

R. A.

Kaukinen

Gross

Decker

M. R.

Baatz

Campbell

(2018). An evaluation of two dating violence prevention programs on a college campus. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 33(23), 3630–3655. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260516636069

59.

*Potter

S. J.

Flanagan

Seidman

Hodges

Stapleton

J. G.

(2019). Developing and piloting videogames to increase college and university students’ awareness and efficacy of the bystander role in incidents of sexual violence. Games for Health Journal, 8(1), 24–34. https://doi.org/10.1089/g4h.2017.0172

60.

Potter

S. J.

Fountain

Stapleton

J. G.

(2012). Addressing sexual and relationship violence in the LGBT community using a bystander framework. Harvard Review of Psychiatry, 20(4), 201–208. https://doi.org/10.3109/10673229.2012.712838

61.

*Potter

S. J.

Moynihan

M. M.

Stapleton

J. G.

(2011). Using social self-identification in social marketing materials aimed at reducing violence against women on campus. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26(5), 971–990. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260510365870

62.

*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

63.

*Salazar

L. F.

Vivolo-Kantor

Hardin

Berkowitz

(2014). A web-based sexual violence bystander intervention for male college students: Randomized controlled trial. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 16(9), e203. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.3426

64.

*Salazar

L. F.

Vivolo-Kantor

Schipani-McLaughlin

A. M.

(2019). Theoretical mediators of RealConsent: A web-based sexual violence prevention and bystander education program. Health Education & Behavior, 46(1), 79–88. https://doi.org/10.1177/1090198118779126

65.

*Senn

C. Y.

Forrest

(2016). “And then one night when I went to class…”: The impact of sexual assault bystander intervention workshops incorporated in academic courses. Psychology of Violence, 6(4), 607–618. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039660

66.

Vaughan

(2017). Oversampling in health surveys: Why, when, and how? American Journal of Public Health, 107(8), 1214–1215. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2017.303895

67.

Wakelin

Long

K. M.

(2003). Effects of victim gender and sexuality on attributions of blame to rape victims. Sex Roles, 49(9), 477–487. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:102587652202

68.

Wernick

L. J.

Kulick

Inglehart

M. H.

(2013). Factors predicting student intervention when witnessing anti-LGBTQ harassment: The influence of peers, teachers, and climate. Children and Youth Services Review, 35(2), 296–301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2012.11.003

69.

White House Task Force. (2014). Not alone: The first report of the White House Task Force to protect students from sexual assault. https://www.justice.gov/archives/ovw/page/file/905942/download

70.

White House Task Force. (2017). The second report of the White House task force to protect students from sexual assault. https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/images/Documents/1.4.17.VAW%20Event.TF%20Report.PDF