A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Bystander’s Barriers to Intervene in Gender-Based Violence and the Role of Failed Prior Attempts

Abstract

Gender-based violence (GBV) is a pervasive public health issue that harms victims. Bystanders’ interventions are crucial in preventing the risks of GBV; however, numerous barriers impede their willingness and behaviors to intervene. As a part of efforts to thwart these barriers, this study used a systematic review and meta-analysis to identify such barriers and assess their impact on bystanders’ engagement to intervene. The researchers explored academic databases and included 38 studies in the analysis; we extracted and coded the identified barriers (e.g., lack of responsibility, rape myth) and allocated them to six domains: failure to notice, failure to perceive risk, failure to take responsibility for engaging, lack of bystander efficacy/competency, failure to take an action, and failure of previous intervention attempts. We calculated the overall and domain-specific effect sizes (ES) and performed moderator analysis. The overall ES of the barriers identified in the review were small but statistically significant. The most potent bystander intervention barrier domain was failed previous intervention attempts; the greatest specific barriers therein were negative emotions and feelings of uncertainty after engaging in bystander behaviors. University/college populations were more vulnerable to barriers to intervention than community members. Moreover, the barriers were more prohibitive in incidents of violence against women and sexual assaults than in intimate partner violence. Bystander-focused programs that address negative emotions and feelings arising from prior intervention experiences are needed to foster continued bystander engagement and assistance in GBV; moreover, tailored program content should also be provided for groups most vulnerable to intervention barriers.

Keywords

bystander gender-based violence intimate partner violence sexual assaults prevention

Introduction

Gender-based violence (GBV), which encompasses acts of violence directed at individuals based on their sex or gender, manifests in various forms, such as intimate partner violence (IPV), dating violence, violence against women, and sexual assault (UNHCR: The UN Refugee Agency, 2023). This issue poses a serious problem, as the prevalence of GBV is high worldwide, regardless of geographic region and ethnicity (United Nations, 2022). The devastating consequences range from psychological effects (Marchesani, 2015) to severe physical harm, including homicide (Kim et al., 2022).

Recently, prevention strategies with a more socio-ecological perspective have been gaining traction, assuming that the problem of such violence is not limited to perpetrators and victims but extends to the entire community (Mulla et al., 2022). Several prior studies (Taylor et al., 2019; Truman & Morgan, 2014) indeed demonstrated that many GBV incidents have occurred in public settings with the presence of other people, so-called bystanders. Bystanders who witness or are aware of violence can potentially intervene in the situation. Such prosocial responses from others can alleviate perpetrators’ behaviors and empower victims to seek help and escape crises (Gracia et al., 2018). Therefore, defining bystanders’ roles and enhancing their competencies are essential goals to reduce the risk of GBV.

According to the situational model of bystander behavior suggested by Latane and Darley (1970), bystanders are likely to undergo several steps when engaging in GBV situations: they (a) become aware of the situation, (b) interpret it as problematic, (c) take responsibility, (d) know what to do, and (e) take action. However, for each step, there are potential barriers that may prevent bystanders from successfully intervening. For example, Burn (2009) noted that bystanders may fail to notice the situation (step 1) due to sensory distractions or self-focus. Bystanders may also fail to perceive (step 2) an ambiguous or seemingly negligible situation as “risky.” They may fail to take responsibility (step 3) if they consider that a situation is not their concern (Park & Ko, 2020) or assume that someone else will step in when several other people are present. Moreover, a lack of perception of a victim’s worthiness owing to gender-based beliefs can also hinder individuals from assuming responsibility. For example, bystanders were less willing to intervene for victims with a “sexualized” appearance than those with a “non-sexualized” appearance (Gramazio et al., 2021). Bystanders may also fail to take responsibility (step 4) because they lack skills or knowledge (Yule et al., 2022). Finally, they may fail to act (step 5) if they experience audience inhibition, and bystanders may fear criticism of their actions for not conforming to societal norms.

Additional factors and circumstances that could negatively impact bystanders’ intervention intentions and actions have also been identified. For instance, Leone and Parrott (2019) reported that alcohol intoxication decreased bystanders’ intervention behaviors. Moschella-Smith et al. (2022) also reported that, among surveyed college students, those younger than 25 years and those identifying as women were the most likely to engage in bystander intervention behaviors. Recently, scholars have recognized the consequences of intervening experiences as essential factors in predicting the bystander’s later intervention behavior (Krauss et al., 2021; Moschella and Banyard, 2021). Moschella and Banyard (2021) report that bystanders could experience positive and negative feelings after intervening. However, experiencing negative emotions (e.g., “Wished I hadn’t stepped in”) or feeling uncertainty (e.g., “Felt confused about what to do”) while intervening in situations could decrease the likelihood of bystanders intervening in similar situations (Moschella & Banyard, 2021, p. NP3829). In addition, approximately 17%–20% of student bystanders have experienced undesirable consequences, including physical harm and trouble, which are also associated with lower efficacy and effectiveness of later bystander behavior (Krauss et al., 2021).

Understanding the mechanisms underlying these barriers can minimize their effects, consequently enhancing bystander willingness and intervention behaviors. Despite the extensive literature on the subject, there remains a gap in research that systematically reviews these barriers and quantifies their impact on bystander interventions. Furthermore, while scholars have examined barriers in a range of situations, including sexual assault, IPV, teen dating violence, and same-sex IPV, from both men’s and women’s perspectives, there is still a need for more evidence to understand the differing impacts of barriers based on specific circumstances and bystander groups.

This study addresses this gap in the literature by systematically reviewing the barriers that bystanders may encounter in the process of their engagement and evaluating their impact. Drawing from the five categories of barrier domain proposed by Burn (2009), we incorporated an additional domain, “the consequences of intervening,” as suggested by Moschella and Banyard (2021). This study, therefore, utilized six domains: (a) failure to notice, (b) failure to perceive risk, (c) failure to take responsibility for engaging, (d) lack of bystander efficacy/competency, (e) failure to take an action, and (f) failure of previous intervention attempts. The specific objectives of this study were as follows: (a) to systematically review the barriers that affect bystander engagement in intervention, (b) to determine the overall effect size (ES) of these identified barriers, (c) to ascertain the domain-specific ESs of the barriers, and (d) to explore the impact of various moderators (e.g., types of bystander populations and their genders, types of GBV situations, and publication types and years) on ESs.

Methods

Study Design

This systematic review and meta-analysis was performed using five steps: (a) literature search, (b) data extraction and coding, (c) allocation of data to the theoretical framework, (d) bias assessment, and (e) data analysis. The reported findings are in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines (PRISMA; Moher et al., 2009).

Searching Strategies

In this review, we focused on the literature addressing the correlates of bystander interventions; “bystander intervention” is defined as the intent to engage (e.g., willingness to intervene) or actions taken (e.g., reporting to police) by individuals who are not directly involved in incidents of GBV as either the victim or the perpetrator. Therefore, we included studies that accessed bystander intentions and behaviors in intervening during GBV incidents and those that explored these correlates using bivariate correlations with Pearson’s r.

We systematically searched seven databases to find relevant literature: PubMed, CINAHL (Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature), Medline, Scopus, Web of Science, PsycArticles, ProQuest Dissertations, and Theses Global. We used three categories of search keywords, including Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms: (a) bystander* OR friend*; (b) IPV OR sexual violence OR sexual assault OR rape OR domestic violence OR dating violence; and (c) help OR willingness OR engag* OR intent* OR interven* OR report OR behavior. The final search date was December 31, 2022.

Studies were excluded if they (a) were reviews or qualitative studies, (b) lacked statistical data from bivariate Pearson correlation, (c) focused on violence unrelated to GBV, such as school or workplace bullying, or (d) were written in languages other than English. Following the coding process, additional exclusions were made for studies that (e) did not identify the barriers of bystander intervention, (f) failed to address specific types of barriers, or (g) primarily focused on predicting “no intervention” (i.e., the bystander’s lack of intervention or unwillingness to act).

Initially, we identified 1,507 studies, of which 1,464 were from databases and 43 from manual searches in Google Scholar and C University’s online library search platforms. After removing duplicates, 1,207 studies remained. We divided these studies into three subsets, and each author independently screened and assessed the titles and abstracts in one subset. The authors scored the relevant literature with five, irrelevant studies with zero, and vague studies with three. We then switched the sets and cross-checked the scores given by other authors. Finally, we selected 348 studies that scored five or three from the three authors for full-text assessment. Thereafter, we carefully evaluated the eligibility of the studies by reading the full texts and rerating their scores. Following this rigorous process, 65 studies that scored five were selected.

Data Extraction and Coding

We used a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet to extract and code the data from 65 studies. The extracted data included titles, authors, publication years, study regions, publication types (peer-reviewed journal articles or theses/dissertations), target participants (university/college populations, high school populations, community members, or duty soldiers), participant gender (women only, men only, or mixed sex/gender), proportion (%) of women among the participants, sample sizes, correlates of bystander intervention, correlation coefficients, dependent variables, and instruments used to measure the dependent variables. The second and corresponding authors initially coded the data, and the first author cross-checked the accuracy of the data. We coded 914 independent correlates and their corresponding coefficients.

Theoretical Allocations of the Data

The authors theoretically defined six barrier domains based on the models of Burn (2009) and Moschella and Banyard (2021), as shown in Table 1: (a) failure to notice, (b) failure to perceive risk, (c) failure to take responsibility for engaging, (d) lack of bystander efficacy/competency, (e) failure to take an action, and (f) failure of previous intervention attempts. Among the 914 individual correlates identified, the first author selected barriers that negatively impacted bystander intervention based on the model. This selection was confirmed by the corresponding author through cross-checking. This process identified 194 separate barriers to bystander intervention in 41 studies. The barriers identified in each study were categorized into six domains, as shown in Table 2. The allocation was carried out through several discussions among the authors until a 100% agreement was reached.

Table 1.

Barriers of Bystander Intervention and Allocated Variables.

Barrier Domain	Defined Situations	Identified Barrier Categories
1. Notice the event (failure to notice)	Bystander distraction due to self-focus or sensory distraction	Alcohol use (e.g., binge drinking, drinking frequency); failure to notice (e.g., no awareness)
2. Interpret the situation as a problematic (failure to perceive risk)	Ambiguity of the situations or ignorance	Failure to perceive risk
3. Take responsibility (failure to take responsibility to engage)	Far relationship distance with victims or perpetrators, presence of other bystanders, lack of perception on victim’s worthiness	Lack of responsibility; rape myth; victim blame; violence acceptability; negative attitudes on LGBTs (e.g., homophobia)
4. Know how to help (lack of bystander efficacy/competency)	Skill deficit, lack of bystander efficacy, and competency	Lack of efficacy (e.g., intervening worsens the situation, cannot intervene, bystander difficulty); skill deficit
5. Take an action (failure to take action)	Audience inhibition and local norms	Audience inhibition; peer rape supportive norms
6. Positive experiences in the previous intervening (failure of previous intervention attempts)	Negative experiences and feelings after engaging in a situation	Negative consequences from helping (e.g., verbal threats, being harassed); negative evaluation from others; negative/unsure feelings

LGBTs = lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender individuals.

Table 2.

Lists of Included Studies.

#	Author (Year)	Publication Types	Target Populations	Gender	Sample Size	Study Regions	Target Situations	Barriers Domain^†	Target Outcomes	Name of Tools to Measure the Outcomes
1	Brown and Messman-Moore (2010)	Journal	Male college students	Male	395	USA	Sexual assault only	Peer rape supportive norms/attitudes⁵ Rape myth acceptance³	Willingness to intervene	Authors’ own scale
2	Foubert et al. (2011)	Journal	Men who were members of fraternities	Male	489	USA	Sexual assault only	Rape myth acceptance³	Bystander willingness	The Willingness to Help Scale
3	Bennett et al. (2014)	Journal	First year of college students	Mixed	242	USA	Sexual assault only	Failure to notice¹ Failure to identify as high risk² Failure to take responsibility³ Failure to intervene due to skills deficit⁴ Failure to intervene due to audience inhibition⁵	Help friend/stranger	Bystander Behavior Scale
4	Darlington and McWhirter (2014)	Thesis	Undergraduate fraternity men	Male	324	USA	Sexual assault only	Rape myth³	Intention to help/actual bystander behavior	Bystander Behavior Scale
5	Murphy (2014)	Journal	Undergraduate students	Mixed/Male for some variables	460	USA	Sexual assault only	Alcohol use¹ Peer rape supportive norms⁵	Bystander behavior/average percentage of bystander behavior	Bystander Behavior Scale and Bystander Intervention Behavior Scale
6	Alfredsson et al. (2014)	Journal	Community members (Internet participants)	Mixed	650	Sweden	Intimate partner violence (IPV)	Victim attribution³	Propensity to intervene	Authors’ own scale
7	Katz, Colbert, Colangelo et al. (2015)	Journal	Undergraduates	Mixed	151	USA	Sexual assault only	Audience inhibition⁵ Victim blame³ Lack of responsibility³	Intent to help	Intent To Help
8	Katz, Pazienza, Olin et al. (2015)	Journal	Undergraduate women	Female	249	USA	Sexual assault only	Skill deficit⁴ Audience inhibition⁵ Lack of responsibility³	Intent to help	Intent To Help
9	Murphy Austin et al. (2016)	Journal	Undergraduate men	Male	361	USA	Sexual assault only	Self-alcohol use¹	Self-bystander intervention	The Reactions to Offensive Language and Behavior Scale
10	Elder (2016)	Thesis	University students	Mixed	293	USA	Same-sex IPV	No awareness¹	Action	Readiness to Help Scale
11	Pacilli et al. (2017)	Journal	Community members recruited from campus and online	Mixed	150/109	USA	IPV	Sexualization (victim)³	Helping intention	Helping intentions toward the IPV victim
12	Katz et al. (2017)	Journal	White female college students	Female	160	USA	Sexual assault only	Perceived victim pleasure³ Perceived victim blame³	Intent to intervene	Intent to Intervene
13	Hahn et al. (2017)	Journal	College sorority members	Female	141	USA	Sexual assault only	Rape myth acceptance³	Bystander behaviors	Bystander Behavior Scale
14	Jin (2017)	Thesis	Undergraduate	Mixed	570	USA	Same-sex IPV	Homophobia³ IPV myth³	Intentions to directly/indirectly intervene	Bystander Behavior Scale
15	Cinquegrana et al. (2018)	Journal	Mixed (social psychology students, lay people, different professionals)	Mixed	464	Italy	IPV	Attribution of responsibility³	Willingness to intervene and support the victim	Authors’ own scale
16	Steel (2018)	Thesis	College students	Mixed/Male for some variables	668	USA	Sexual assault only	Relative blame to victim³ Rape supportive attributions³	Likelihood to intervene	In-the-moment Bystander Action
17	Riley and Yamawaki (2018)	Journal	College students	Mixed	184	USA	IPV	Victim blame³	Supportive attitudes toward victim	Supportive Attitudes Toward Victim Scale
18	Sherrard (2019)	Thesis	Undergraduates	Mixed	348	USA	Sexual assault only	Alcohol use¹ Rape myth acceptance³	Intention to help friends/strangers	Intent To Help Scale
19	Leone and Parrott (2019)	Journal	Social drinking men	Male	74	USA	Sexual assault only	Alcohol use¹	Intervention Intent to help strangers Intervention time	Bystander Behavior Scale
20	Bates et al. (2019)	Journal	General population	Mixed	122/101	UK	IPV	Acceptability of behavior³	Behavioral intentions	Socio-cognitive Outcomes
21	Edwards et al. (2019)	Journal	School personnel from 25 high schools	Mixed	1,150	USA	Teen dating violence	Bystander barriers (cannot intervene, intervening worsens situation)⁴	Bystander intentions (proactive/reactive)	The Bystander Intent to Help Questionnaire-School Personnel
22	Schipani-McLaughlin et al. (2020)	Journal	College men	Male	743	USA	Sexual assault only	Rape attitudes³ Rape myth acceptance³ Binge drinking¹	Intervening behaviors/intention to intervene	The Reactions to Offensive Language and Behavior Scale and The Willingness to Help Scale
23	Martini and de Piccoli (2020)	Journal	University students	Mixed	3,966	Italy	Sexual assault only	Acceptance of myth³	Bystander intention to intervene	The Bystander Intention to Intervene Scale
24	Pallotti (2020)	Thesis	Undergraduate men	Male	413	USA	Sexual assault only	Acceptance of violence³	Bystander intentions	Bystander Attitudes Scale-revised
25	Wyatt (2020)	Thesis	College students	Mixed	226	USA	Sexual assault only	Homonegativity³ Skill decifit⁴	Bystander intent	Intent to Intervention Scale
26	Papineau (2020)	Thesis	Undergraduate men	Male	254	USA	Sexual assault only	Rape myth³	Intent to help/Bystander behavior	The Brief Intent to Help Scale
27	Krauss et al. (2021)	Journal	First-year college students	Mixed	299	USA	Sexual and relationship violence	Negative evaluations from others⁵ Any negative consequences⁶	Quality of bystander behavior	The Quality of Bystander Behavior
28	Moschella and Banyard (2021)	Journal	Young adults between the ages of 18 and 24 years	Mixed	1,391	USA	IPV	Evaluations from others⁵ Perceived feelings after engagement⁶	Help again	Authors’ own scale
29	Leone et al. (2021)	Journal	Undergraduates	Mixed	395	USA	Sexual assault only	Rape myth acceptance³	Intent to help strangers/friends	Intent to Help Friends-Short Form and Intent to Help Strangers-Short Form
30	Zozula et al. (2021)	Journal	College students	Mixed	226	USA	Sexual assault only	Binge drinking¹	Intervene event/severe event	Authors’ own scale
31	Gramazio et al. (2021)	Journal	Undergraduates	Female/Mixed	115/160	Italy	Sexual assault only	Sexualization (victim)³ Victim blame³	Willingness to help	Authors’ own scale
32	Boppana (2021)	Thesis	College population	Mixed	265	USA	Sexual assault only	Alcohol use¹ Victim blame³ Rape myth³	Bystander aid	Bystander Aid
33	Cerda-Smith et al. (2022)	Journal	Adolescent participants	Mixed	828	USA	Teen dating violence	Judgment of teen dating violence acceptability³	Active bystander response to teen dating violence	Authors’ scale
34	Yule et al. (2022)	Journal	Psychology’s participants	Mixed	500	USA	Violence against women	Failure to perceive risk² Failure to perceive responsibility³ Rape myth acceptance³ Skill deficit⁴ Audience inhibition⁵	Pre/mid/post-assault intervention	Bystander Situation Questionnaire
35	Pazienza et al. (2022)	Journal	College student drinking gamers	Mixed	964	USA	Sexual assault only	Rape myth acceptance³	Intent to intervene	Bystander Attitudes Scale-revised
36	Orchowski et al. (2022)	Journal	Duty male soldiers	Male	282	USA	IPV	Binge drinking¹ Rape myth adherance³ Perceived peer rape myth adherence⁵	Bystander attitudes and intentions/perceived peer support and engagement in bystander intervention	Authors’ own scale
37	Lyons et al. (2022)	Journal	University staff and students	Mixed	129	USA	Sexual assault only	Bystander difficulty⁴ Rape myth³	Bystander likelihood	Authors’ own scale
38	John et al. (2022)	Journal	Undergraduates	Mixed	395	USA	IPV	Heavy episodic drinking¹	Intention	The Sexual Assault Bystander Behavior Questionnaire

†

Domain: ¹failure to notice, ²failure to perceive risk, ³failure to take responsibility to engage, ⁴lack of bystander efficacy/competency, ⁵failure to take action, and ⁶failure of previous intervention attempts.

Thereafter, as per the exclusion criteria mentioned above, any separate barrier that did not clearly specify and define the types of barriers it represented was excluded. For instance, the “perceived barrier” found in one of the included studies (Chabot et al., 2018) was excluded because its specific types or definitions were unclear, making categorization within a particular barrier domain challenging. In addition, barriers correlating to “no intervention” (predicting bystanders’ lack of intervention or unwillingness to intervene) were also excluded. Throughout this process, we identified 176 distinct barriers in the 38 studies included in the meta-analysis. Figure 1 illustrates the specific search procedure; Table 2 lists the included studies.

Figure 1.

Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) flow diagram.

Risk of Bias Evaluation

We evaluated the risk of bias in the 38 studies through discussion based on the Quality Assessment and Validity Tool for Correlational Studies (Wong & Cummings, 2007) criteria: (a) clear aims and objectives, (b) sample size justification, (c) reliable measurement tools, (d) a clear description of the statistical analysis, and (e) clear reporting of the results. Each item was assessed as either “−” (low risk of bias), “+” (potential risk of bias), or “?” (unclear). Figure 2 shows the evaluation results.

Figure 2.

Risk of bias of the included studies.

Data Analysis

Heterogeneity, the variation of the outcomes among the included studies, was assessed using I² statistics. Heterogeneity is generally considered low, moderate, or high based on an I² of ≤25%, about 50%, or ≥75%, respectively (Higgins et al., 2003). In addition, we assessed publication bias in the included studies by creating a funnel plot and conducting Egger’s regression test. We also examined ES, which refers to the strength of the relationship between the variables. Small ES is between 0.2 and 0.5, medium ES is between 0.5 and 0.8, and ES > 0.8 is large (Cohen, 1992). To calculate ES, we transformed all extracted correlation coefficients (Pearson’s r) into Fisher’s Z-scores and weighted them by the studies’ inverse variances and sample sizes. We then performed a meta-analysis of variance and meta-regression to test the effects of moderators on ESs, such as target populations and their genders, target situations, publication types, and years. Finally, we used comprehensive meta-analysis software to analyze the data and RevMan to evaluate the risk of bias in the included studies.

Results

Characteristics of Included Studies

The publication years of the studies included in the analysis were between 2010 and 2022, with the majority (n = 33, 86.8%) being conducted in the United States. Three studies were conducted in Italy (8.0%), whereas the rest were conducted in the United Kingdom (n = 1, 2.6%) and Sweden (n = 1, 2.6%). Of the 38 studies, nine (23.7%) were theses or dissertations, and 29 (76.3%) were peer-reviewed journal publications. These studies have examined various target situations to investigate the impact of barriers to engagement. However, most studies focused on sexual assault situations (n = 24, 63.2%), with fewer examining IPV (n = 8, 21.1%), same-sex IPV (n = 2, 5.3%), dating violence (n = 2, 5.3%), violence against women (n = 1, 2.6%), and sexual and relationship violence (n = 1, 2.6%). The sample size ranged from 74 to 3,966, with a total sample size of 93,908. The majority targeted university/college populations, including students and staff (n = 30, 78.9%); a few targeted community members (n = 5, 13.2%), high school populations (n = 2, 5.3%), and male duty soldiers (n = 1, 2.6%). In addition, most studies (n = 26, 68.4%) targeted participants of mixed sex/gender, including both men/males and women/females, whereas a few studies exclusively focused on either women/female (n = 3, 7.9%) or men/male (n = 9, 23.7%) participants.

Heterogeneity and Publication Bias

We observed a high level of heterogeneity among the included studies (I² = 94.48%, p < .001), which could be attributed to variations in population parameters. Therefore, we utilized a random-effects model to account for the differences between studies (Borenstein et al., 2009). In addition, we found no potential evidence of publication bias per the funnel plot, as it appeared symmetrical (Figure 3). Egger’s regression test result also statistically confirmed a lack of evidence of publication bias among our included studies (Intercept = 1.24, SE = .66, 95% CI [−0.07, 2.56]).

Figure 3.

Assessing publication bias.

Overall and Domain-specific ESs

Figure 4 shows the overall ES and ES of each domain. Our findings reveal that overall barriers systematically identified in this study were significantly and negatively associated with bystander intervention, with a small ES (Zr = −0.18 [−0.21, −0.15]). The sixth domain, which encompasses barriers related to the failure of previous intervening attempts, showed the largest ESs with statistical significance (Zr = −0.22 [−0.37, −0.08]). Thus, the most significant and powerful barrier domain associated with bystander intervention was the failure of previous intervention attempts, followed by lack of efficacy/competency (Zr = −0.21 [−0.31, −0.12]), failure to take responsibility (Zr = −0.19 [−0.23, −0.16]), and failure to take an action (Zr = −0.18 [−0.24, −0.12]). The ESs of the failure to notice and perceive risk domains were not statistically significant.

Figure 4.

Overall and domain-specific effect sizes.

ESs of the Specific Barriers in Each Domain

Figure 5 illustrates the ESs of the individual barriers within each domain. Neither alcohol use and lack of awareness (in the first domain) nor failure to perceive risk (in the second domain) were statistically significant. We classified five barriers within the third domain; among them, lack of responsibility showed an ES that, although small, was the largest in this domain (Zr = −0.32 [−0.52, −0.11]), followed by rape myth (Zr = −0.20 [−0.24, −0.16]), victim blame (Zr = −0.16 [−0.26, −0.07]), and negative attitudes toward lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender individuals (LGBTs; Zr = −0.10 [−0.20, −0.01]). The acceptability of violence was not statistically significant. Both lack of efficacy and skill deficits, which were the fourth domain categories, demonstrated small yet statistically significant ESs. However, skill deficit (Zr = −0.26 [−0.37, −0.14]) showed a larger ES than lack of efficacy (Zr = −0.16 [−0.32, −0.002]). Audience inhibition (Zr = −0.18 [−0.31, −0.06]) and peer rape supportive norms (Zr = −0.18 [−0.25, −0.11]), which were in the fifth domain, demonstrated small but significant ESs. Among the three barriers in the sixth domain, negative and unsure feelings experienced by the bystander when previously engaging with GBV situations demonstrated a medium ES with statistical significance (Zr = −0.55 [−0.81, −0.28]). This ES was the largest compared to negative evaluations from others (Zr = −0.22 [−0.42, −0.03]) and negative consequences of intervening (Zr = −0.08 [−0.14, −0.03]).

Figure 5.

Effect sizes of individual barriers within each domain: (a) failure to notice, (b) failure to perceive risk, (c) failure to take responsibility, (d) lack of bystander efficacy/competency, (e) failure to take action, and (f) failure of previous intervention attempts.

Effect of Moderators on the ESs

We performed a moderator analysis to identify the effect of moderators on ESs. In terms of target populations, university/college populations exhibited larger ESs (Zr = −0.19 [−0.22, −0.16]) than community populations (Zr = −0.11 [−0.20, −0.02]), indicating that the strength of the association between the barriers and bystander intervention was stronger in university/college populations than in communities. The moderating effects on the high school population and male duty soldiers were not significant. Concerning gender, females had the largest ES (Zr = −0.22 [−0.29, −0.16]), followed by participants of mixed genders (Zr = −0.18 [−0.22, −0.14]) and male (Zr = −0.15 [−0.20, −0.10]). An additional meta-regression analysis revealed a trend toward a decrease in ES as the proportion of women increased; however, this trend did not reach statistical significance (Slope = −0.001 [−0.003, 0.001]). The target situations varied among the included studies; however, violence against women (Zr = −0.19 [−0.27, −0.10]) and sexual assault situations (Zr = −0.19 [−0.22, −0.15]) had similarly larger ESs than IPV (Zr = −0.17 [−0.30, −0.06]). The moderating effects of teenage dating violence and same-sex IPV were not statistically significant. Finally, there were no significant moderating effects of the publication year or sample size on ESs. Theses and dissertations had a larger ES (Zr = −0.19 [−0.25, −0.14]) than peer-reviewed journal articles (Zr = −0.16 [−0.20, −0.13]).

Discussion

This study reviewed the barriers that bystanders encounter when intervening in GBV situations and assessed the extent of the barriers’ negative associations with bystander intervention in such situations. The overall ES of the barriers was Zr = −0.18 [−0.21, −0.15] with statistical significance, indicating that the barriers identified in this study have a small but significant negative impact on engaging in bystander intervention.

We established six domains of barriers and categorized the identified barriers based on their concepts. The barriers related to failure to notice and perceive risk did not appear to significantly impede engagement in bystander intervention, which is contrary to previous studies suggesting that greater knowledge and perception of sexual violence and relational abuse led to bystander behaviors (Moschella-Smith et al., 2022; Mulla et al., 2022). Previous qualitative studies also do not support our findings, establishing a failure to identify risk as a central barrier to college students’ intervention behaviors (Hoxmeier et al., 2019). These inconsistent findings indicate the need for further research, particularly to explore the possible and detailed mechanisms between awareness and bystander interventions. As many existing programs aim to teach GBV knowledge and signs to promote awareness and risk perception among bystanders (Park & Kim, 2023), our findings should be revisited through additional research.

One variable allocated to the first barrier domain (failure to notice) was bystander alcohol consumption. Our study found that bystanders’ alcohol use was not a significant barrier to intervention. The findings align with those of Murphy (2014) but diverge from Leone and Parrott’s (2019) report which emphasizes the influence of alcohol intoxication on bystander intervention. The study suggests that men, who are typically more inclined to assist strangers, become less likely to intervene in situations of sexual aggression when intoxicated than when they are sober. According to the authors, this might be due to alcohol consumption altering one’s focus from subtle cues to more prominent and immediate ones, heightening their concern for peer approval. The inconsistencies observed across studies concerning the relationship between alcohol consumption and bystander intervention underscore the need for further investigation.

The sixth domain, failure of previous intervention attempts, was not initially proposed by Burn (2009) but was later proposed by Banyard et al. (2021). For this reason, there has been relatively little research in this domain compared to other domains. Nevertheless, our findings indicate that the failure of previous intervention attempts in GBV situations constitutes the most significant barrier to bystander interventions. Specifically, bystanders’ negative emotions or uncertain feelings resulting from their previous intervention attempts comprised the variable with the strongest negative association with bystander intervention, making it the most influential barrier variable in our study. Given its high impact and the high prevalence of people (17%–20%) who experienced negative consequences after intervening (Krauss et al., 2021), more research is needed to explore and demonstrate the mechanism behind this phenomenon. In addition, evidence-based interventions aimed at alleviating bystanders’ negative feelings and emotions resulting from previous bystander engagement should be developed and implemented.

The remaining domains (failure to take responsibility to engage, lack of bystander efficacy/competency, and failure to take an action) demonstrated similar effects and were all significant barriers. This finding aligns with a previous report that identified skill deficits and lack of intervention responsibility as the most common reasons for inhibiting college students’ interventions in sexual assault situations (Bennett et al., 2014). Previous studies have yielded inconsistent results when comparing the impact of two predictors on bystander intervention: a lack of efficacy and competency, and a lack of responsibility (Bennett et al., 2014; Hoxmeier et al., 2019). These inconsistencies might stem from the inherently contextual nature of predicting bystander intervention. Factors such as the bystander’s perception of the situation and their experiences of uncertainty play a significant role (Hoxmeier et al., 2019). However, our findings show that the lack of bystander efficacy and competency has a more significant negative impact on bystander intervention than the failure to take responsibility for engaging.

Our moderator analysis yielded interesting results identifying university and college populations as the group most affected by barriers. This finding may be related to the campus culture among university and college students. Hoxmeier et al. (2020) pointed out that a significant number of college students refrained from intervening in potentially risky GBV situations—such as when they witnessed an individual taking a person who was intoxicated into their bedroom—because of uncertainty over whether consent for sexual activity had been given. This uncertainty may lead many university and college students to view such situations as ambiguous; thus, they may not have as much responsibility to intervene as other community members. Nonetheless, failing to achieve the second step of bystander behavior (i.e., failing to perceive risk) was not a significant barrier in accordance with the findings of this study. Therefore, further studies are needed to address this matter, especially focusing on exploring the impact of failing risk perception on the possibility of bystander intervention among university and college student populations.

Furthermore, the reviewed studies involving only women demonstrated higher ES than those involving only men, suggesting that women are more susceptible to these barriers than men. However, as the proportion of women did not significantly influence ES, this interpretation should be considered with caution. Scholars have widely studied gender differences in bystander interventions, with previous research suggesting that women might have higher bystander intentions than men (Hackman et al., 2022; Moschella-Smith et al., 2022). However, these findings are inconsistent across cultures and contexts. For example, a study conducted in Ecuador found that women faced significant intervention difficulties and were less likely than men to intervene as bystanders (Lyons et al., 2022). Therefore, simply comparing gender/sex in terms of bystander intervention may not be meaningful, as women and men may have different ways of perceiving GBV situations and motivating themselves to intervene (Labhardt et al., 2017).

Previous studies have identified various conditions and barriers that can affect women’s willingness to intervene as bystanders, including many related to personal safety concerns (Labhardt et al., 2017; Yule & Grych, 2020). For example, women are more likely to feel confident about intervening when they can take control of a situation, receive support from others, or perceive a situation as less dangerous (Labhardt et al., 2017). Although women’s higher awareness of GBV as a risk to themselves may make them more interested in and knowledgeable about violence prevention (Park & Kim, 2022), their focus on safety may also make them perceive barriers more strongly than men when taking on a bystander role (Yule & Grych, 2020). This interpretation may explain why the effects of existing bystander intervention programs are less pronounced in women than in men (Park & Kim, 2023) and why women in cultures where violence against women is prevalent, such as Ecuador, have reported more difficulties engaging in GBV situations (Lyons et al., 2022). Although further studies are essential to explore the differences between men and women in bystander engagement and intervention, sociocultural contexts must also be examined. We also suggest that bystander education programs should be tailored to different gender-specific needs and concerns and focus on educating women about safe and effective intervention strategies.

Although the differences were small, we found a stronger relationship between barriers to bystander intervention in cases of violence against women and sexual assault than in cases of IPV. These results contradict those of Moschella and Banyard (2021), who found that intervening in dating violence incidents was more likely to be associated with negative consequences, such as feeling apathetic about intervening or encountering disparaging reactions from others. Conversely, interventions for sexual assault incidents were more likely to be associated with positive outcomes (Moschella & Banyard, 2021). Given that victims of violence against women and sexual assault are predominantly female, the stronger associations identified in this study may be related to the perpetuation of rape myths or victim blaming, both of which assume that female victims have provoked or can control the situation (Wijaya et al., 2021) or have provided their consent (Hoxmeier et al., 2020). Moreover, in cases of sexual violence, one might misread an action, viewing it as the initiation of an intimate relationship. Consequently, bystanders may be less sympathetic than in IPV situations (Weiner, 2018).

The findings of this review and meta-analysis have important implications for future research (see Table 3). First, the overall ES of the identified barriers in this study was small, suggesting that other significant barriers remain to be explored. Future studies are needed to broaden the scope to incorporate potential barriers beyond those proposed by existing models. Second, there is a lack of diversity in existing bystander-related literature. Most studies, including those in our review, have focused on white, young, and highly educated populations, with few or no studies examining bystander intervention in minority populations such as LGBT individuals and people of color in community settings (DeGue et al., 2014; Kirk-Provencher et al., 2023; Mennicke et al., 2022). Future studies should aim to expand the study populations and regions to address this gap. It is also important to consider that the predictors of and barriers to bystander intervention may vary depending on cultural and generational factors. Therefore, future research should explore cultural and generational influences on bystander intent and intervening behaviors. Finally, bystander training that focuses on alleviating the negative consequences experienced by bystanders and increasing bystander efficacy is required (Krauss et al., 2021). Safety considerations are crucial for minimizing adverse outcomes and encouraging prosocial bystander behaviors. For instance, the “With-You” program developed and evaluated by Park and Kim (2021) exemplifies a bystander education intervention emphasizing safety. This program educates bystanders on how to evaluate situations and includes specific methods for collaborating with victims in creating safety plans.

Table 3.

Critical Findings and the Implications of the Review.

Critical Findings

• The strongest barrier deterring bystanders from intervening is the negative emotions and uncertain feelings stemming from past intervention attempts.
• College and university students displayed a heightened susceptibility to these barriers, making them less likely to intervene compared to community members.
• Incidents of violence against women and sexual assault faced stronger intervention barriers compared to intimate partner violence situations.

Implications of the Review

• It is crucial to develop bystander intervention programs that specifically target and alleviate the negative emotions and uncertain feelings that arise from past intervention attempts.
• Given the pronounced vulnerability of certain groups, notably college and university students, intervention strategies should be tailored to address their unique needs and barriers to ensure effectiveness.
• Future research in bystander intervention should prioritize diversifying study populations and exploring barriers across different regions and cultures.

Regarding the study’s limitations, first, our review and meta-analysis only included studies that (a) calculated bivariate correlations using Pearson’s r and (b) were written in English. Therefore, our results may differ from those that would be obtained from an analysis of the entire pool of literature. Second, the primary objective of this study was to explore specific barriers to bystander intervention and calculate the barriers’ ESs based on theoretical models presented by Burn (2009) and Moschella and Banyard (2021). Therefore, we excluded barriers that did not specify their type or definition; this exclusion may have affected the overall ES of the barriers. Third, in our literature search, we exclusively used MeSH terms like “bystanders” and “friends” to identify related articles. As a result, we may have missed pertinent studies using terms such as “stranger” or “acquaintance” to describe bystanders. Lastly, some moderator analyses were conducted with an extremely limited number of studies, sometimes as few as one or two. Consequently, caution is advised when generalizing the findings.

Conclusion

GBV remains a significant public health concern that has devastating consequences for victims. Bystanders can play a pivotal role by intervening in GBV situations; however, barriers continue to hinder bystanders’ active involvement. Through a systematic review and meta-analysis, we successfully mapped these barriers and illustrated their dimensions and power. The most potent barrier to GBV intervention for bystanders was the ineffectiveness of previous intervention attempts; as a consequence of the failure to affect a positive outcome, these bystanders experience negative emotions and feelings of uncertainty that inhibit their further intervention. Therefore, future bystander-related programs should be particularly mindful of this factor and focus on mitigating bystanders’ negative emotional experiences related to previous intervention attempts. Our findings also indicated that university/college populations are particularly vulnerable to these barriers, suggesting that interventions should be tailored to these specific groups. The potency of barriers was also higher in instances of violence against women and sexual assault than in cases of IPV, indicating the need for additional research and intervention strategies for these specific scenarios. The findings of the current study provide important notes for bystander-related education programs, indicating that they should aim not only to increase their efficacy and responsibility but also to address past failures and negative experiences associated with intervention attempts. We believe that the barriers identified in this study can contribute significantly to developing more effective and targeted bystander education programs, thereby promoting a proactive community response against GBV.

Footnotes

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) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Korean government (MSIT) under Grant number 2021R1F1A1048142.

ORCID iDs

Sihyun Park

Sin-Hyang Kim

Author Biographies

Sihyun Park is an associate professor at Chung-Ang University in Seoul, South Korea, in the Department of Nursing. In 2015, she obtained her PhD from the University of Washington School of Nursing. Park’s research interests primarily revolve around interpersonal violence, focusing on intimate partner violence and violence against women. She is particularly interested in investigating such violence issues from a cultural standpoint.

Hyunji Woo is a graduate student majoring in Nursing Science at the Graduate School of Chung-Ang University. She currently serves as a research assistant under Dr. Sihyun Park. Her primary research interests lie in improving sexual health and education for teenagers by fostering enhanced parent-child communication.

Sin-Hyang Kim holds two PhDs: one in social welfare from Hoseo University and the other in Nursing from Chung-Ang University in South Korea. She is currently serving as an assistant professor at Shinsung University. Kim has expertise in social statistics, with a specialization in data synthesis using big data.

References

Alfredsson

Ask

von Borgstede

(2014). Motivational and cognitive predictors of the propensity to intervene against intimate partner violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 29(10), 1877–1893. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260513511696

Banyard

Moschella

Jouriles

Grych

(2021). Exploring action coils for bystander intervention: Modeling bystander consequences. Journal of American College Health, 69(3), 283–289. https://doi.org/10.1080/07448481.2019.1665052

Bates

E. A.

Kaye

L. K.

Pennington

C. R.

Hamlin

(2019). What about the male victims? Exploring the impact of gender stereotyping on implicit attitudes and behavioral intentions associated with intimate partner violence. Sex Roles, 81(1–2), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-018-0949-x

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.

Boppana

(2021). When men are the victims: Factors affecting rape victim blame & bystander aid (Issue 28861193) [Doctoral dissertation, The University of Mississippi].

Borenstein

Hedges

L. V.

Higgins

J. P. T.

Rothstein

H. R.

(2009). Introduction to meta-analysis (1st ed.) John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Brown

A. L.

Messman-Moore

T. L.

(2010). Personal and perceived peer attitudes supporting sexual aggression as predictors of male college students’ willingness to intervene against sexual aggression. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25(3), 503–517.

Burn

S. M.

(2009). A situational model of sexual assault prevention through bystander intervention. Sex Roles, 60(11–12), 779–792. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-008-9581-5

Cerda-Smith

Gönültaş

Mulvey

K. L.

(2022). Adolescent peer aggression judgments and expected bystander intervention in teen dating violence. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 79, 101389. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2022.101389

10.

Chabot

H. F.

Gray

M. L.

Makande

T. B.

Hoyt

R. L.

(2018). Beyond sex: Likelihood and predictors of effective and ineffective intervention in intimate partner violence in bystanders perceiving an emergency. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 33(12), 1909–1930. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260515621064

11.

Cinquegrana

Baldry

A. C.

Pagliaro

(2018). Intimate partner violence and bystanders’ helping behaviour: An experimental study. Journal of Aggression Conflict and Peace Research, 10(1), 24–35. https://doi.org/10.1108/jacpr-08-2016-0243

12.

Cohen

(1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155–159. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155

13.

Darlington

E. M.

McWhirter

(2014). Decreasing misperceptions of sexual violence to increase bystander intervention: A social norms intervention (Issue 3644427) [Doctoral dissertation, The Graduate School of the University of Oregon].

14.

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

15.

Edwards

K. M.

Sessarego

S. N.

Banyard

V. L.

Rizzo

A. J.

Mitchell

K. J.

(2019). School personnel’s bystander action in situations of teen relationship abuse and sexual assault: Prevalence and correlates. Journal of School Health, 89(5), 345–353. https://doi.org/10.1111/josh.12751

16.

Elder

E. M.

(2016). Bystander intervention in intimate partner violence between same-sex partners: What predicts intentions to help? (Issue 10141360) [Doctoral dissertation, Ball State University].

17.

Foubert

J. D.

Brosi

M. W.

Bannon

R. S.

(2011). Pornography viewing among fraternity men: Effects on bystander intervention, rape myth acceptance and behavioral intent to commit sexual assault. Sexual Addiction & Compulsivity, 18(4), 212–231.

18.

Gracia

Martín-Fernández

Marco

Santirso

F. A.

Vargas

Lila

(2018, July 9). The willingness to intervene in cases of intimate partner violence against women (WI-IPVAW) scale: Development and validation of the long and short versions. Frontiers in Psychology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01146

19.

Gramazio

Cadinu

Pagliaro

Pacilli

M. G.

(2021). Sexualization of sexual harassment victims reduces bystanders’ help: The mediating role of attribution of immorality and blame. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(13–14), 6073–6097. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260518816326

20.

Hackman

C. L.

Branscum

Rush Griffin

Castle

Hagadorn

(2022). Gender differences in bystander intervention intentions to prevent sexual assault: A reasoned action approach. Journal of School Violence, 21(3), 237–251. https://doi.org/10.1080/15388220.2022.2075880

21.

Hahn

C. K.

Morris

J. M.

Jacobs

G. A.

(2017). Predictors of bystander behaviors and sexual assertiveness among college women attending a sexual assault prevention program. Journal of Community Psychology, 45(5), 672–677.

22.

Higgins

J. P.

Thompson

S. G.

Deeks

J. J.

Altman

D. G.

(2003). Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ: British Medical Journal, 327, 557. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557

23.

Hoxmeier

J. C.

McMahon

O’Connor

(2020). Beyond yes or no: Understanding undergraduate students’ responses as bystanders to sexual assault risk situations. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 35(23–24), 5772–5796. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260517723143

24.

Hoxmeier

J. C.

O’Connor

McMahon

(2019). “She wasn’t resisting”: Students’ barriers to prosocial intervention as bystanders to sexual assault risk situations. Violence Against Women, 25(4), 485–505. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801218790697

25.

Jin

H.-R.

(2017). Bystander intervention and same-sex intimate partner violence: College students’ decisions to intervene (Issue 10662323) [Doctoral dissertation, Sam Houston State University].

26.

John

D. A.

Hoxmeier

J. C.

Brown

A. L.

(2022). The theory of planned behavior & bystander intention: Differences based on gender and heavy episodic drinking. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 37(23–24), NP23306–NP23329. https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605221078809

27.

Katz

J. P.

Colbert

S. B. A.

Colangelo

L. B. A.

(2015). Effects of group status and victim sex on female bystanders’ responses to a potential party rape. Violence and Victims, 30(2), 265–278. https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.VV-D-13-00099

28.

Katz

Merrilees

Hoxmeier

J. C.

Motisi

(2017). White female bystanders’ responses to a black woman at risk for incapacitated sexual assault. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 41(2), 273–285.

29.

Katz

Pazienza

Olin

Rich

. (2015). That’s what friends are for: Bystander responses to friends or strangers at risk for party rape victimization. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 30(16), 2775–2792. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260514554290

30.

Kim

Park

Champion

J. D.

(2022). Intimate partner femicide in South Korea: An integrative review of the literature. Journal of Forensic Nursing, 18(2), 117–123. https://doi.org/10.1097/jfn.0000000000000353

31.

Kirk-Provencher

K. T.

Spillane

N. S.

Schick

M. R.

Chalmers

S. J.

Hawes

Orchowski

L. M.

(2023). Sexual and gender minority inclusivity in bystander intervention programs to prevent violence on college campuses: A critical review. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 24(1), 110–124. https://doi.org/10.1177/15248380211021606

32.

Krauss

Jouriles

E. N.

Yule

Grych

J. H.

Sargent

K. S.

Banyard

V. L.

(2021). Adverse consequences to assisting victims of campus violence: Initial investigations among college students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(3–4), NP1607–1624NP. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260517746944

33.

Labhardt

Holdsworth

Brown

Howat

(2017). You see but you do not observe: A review of bystander intervention and sexual assault on university campuses. In Aggression and Violent Behavior (Vol. 35, pp. 13–25). Elsevier Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2017.05.005

34.

Latane

Darley

J. M.

(1970). The unresponsive bystander: Why doesn’t he help. Appleton-Century-Crofts.

35.

Leone

R. M.

Oyler

K. N.

Parrott

D. J.

(2021). Empathy is not enough: The inhibiting effects of rape myth acceptance on the relation between empathy and bystander intervention. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(23–24), 11532–11552.

36.

Leone

R. M.

Parrott

D. J.

(2019). Acute alcohol intoxication inhibits bystander intervention behavior for sexual aggression among men with high intent to help: Clinical and experimental research. Alcoholism, 43(1), 170. https://doi.org/10.1111/acer.13920

37.

Lyons

Brewer

Castro Caicedo

Andrade

Morales

Centifanti

(2022). Barriers to sexual harassment bystander intervention in Ecuadorian universities. Global Public Health, 17(6), 1029–1040. https://doi.org/10.1080/17441692.2021.1884278

38.

Marchesani

E. S.

(2015). Contributing factors in the development of complex post-traumatic stress disorder among survivors of interpersonal violence [Doctoral dissertation]. University of North Texas.

39.

Martini

de Piccoli

(2020). Predicting bystander intention to intervene: The role of gender-specific system justification and rape myth acceptance for men and women. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 326. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00326

40.

Mennicke

Montanaro

Bowling

Tirunagari

Williams

Jules

B. N.

Campbell

Carlson

Farris

McClare

Kissler

McGonagle

Pruneda

Haley

McMahon

Correia

C. J.

Meehan

Benson

J. K.

Willard

Sotiroff

(2022). A systematic review of validated measures of U.S.-based bystander intervention-related constructs. Trauma, Violence, and Abuse. https://doi.org/10.1177/15248380221137067

41.

Moher

Liberati

Tetzlaff

Altman

D. G.

(2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-snalysis: The PRISMA Statement. Annals of Internal Medicine, 151(4), 264–269. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00135

42.

Moschella

E. A.

Banyard

V. L.

(2021). Action and reaction: The impact of consequences of intervening in situations of interpersonal violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(7–8), NP3820–NP3843. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260518782983

43.

Moschella-Smith

E. A.

Potter

S. J.

Moynihan

M. M.

(2022). Correlates of bystander intentions and behavior among community college students in situations of sexual violence. Journal of Primary Prevention, 43(2), 277–295. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10935-021-00663-y

44.

Mulla

M. M.

Haikalis

Orchowski

L. M.

Berkowitz

A. D.

(2022). The prospective influence of perceived social norms on bystander actions against sexual violence and relationship abuse: A multiple mediation model. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 37(3–4), NP2313–NP2337. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260520933035

45.

Murphy Austin

M. J.

Dardis

C. M.

Wilson

M. S.

Gidycz

C. A.

Berkowitz

A. D

. (2016). Predictors of sexual assault-specific prosocial bystander behavior and intentions: A prospective analysis. Violence Against Women, 22(1), 90–111. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801215597790

46.

Murphy

M. J.

(2014). Sexual assault-specific bystander behavior: Accounting for opportunity in a prospective analysis of the effects of individual, social norms, and situational variables (Issue 3672189) [Doctoral dissertation, Ohio University].

47.

Orchowski

L. M.

Berkowitz

Oesterle

Berry-Caban

Borsari

Kahler

C. W.

Kazemi

D. M.

(2022). Correlates of bystander intervention attitudes and intentions among young adult active duty male soldiers. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 37(23–24), NP23262–NP23280. https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605221080151

48.

Pacilli

M. G.

Pagliaro

Loughnan

Gramazio

Spaccatini

Baldry

A. C.

(2017). Sexualization reduces helping intentions towards female victims of intimate partner violence through mediation of moral patiency. British Journal of Social Psychology, 56(2), 293–313.

49.

Pallotti

(2020). Masculine norms and men’s bystander intentions: What is the role of male peer groups? (Issue 27740513) [Doctoral dissertation, Lehigh University].

50.

Papineau

(2020). The influence of rape myth acceptance, peer norms, and self-efficacy on bystander behavior: Utilizing the theory of planned behavior with bystander intentions to intervene in sexual violence as a mediator in college men (Issue 28154325) [Doctoral dissertation, Fielding Graduate University].

51.

Park

Kim

S. H.

(2021). A mixed-method pilot study to test a program for friend-supporters of victims of dating violence. Journal of Community Psychology, 49(5), 1153–1168. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.22568

52.

Park

Kim

S. H.

(2022). A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials for intimate partner violence: The effects of the programs based on their purposes. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, in press. https://doi.org/10.1177/15248380221084748

53.

Park

Kim

S. H.

(2023). A systematic review and meta-analysis of bystander intervention programs for intimate partner violence and sexual assault. Psychology of Violence, 13(2), 93–106. https://doi.org/10.1037/vio0000456

54.

Pazienza

Martin

J. L.

Wegner

McAndrew

L. M.

Carey

Blumenthal

Ham

L. S.

(2022). Bystander intervention among college student drinking gamers: Sexual assault attitudes, self-efficacy, and intent to intervene. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 37(23–24), NP23443–NP23467. https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605221078816

55.

Riley

C. E.

Yamawaki

(2018). Who is helpful? Examining the relationship between ambivalent sexism, right-wing authoritarianism, and intentions to help domestic violence victims. Sage Open, 8(April–June), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244018781899

56.

Schipani-McLaughlin

A. M.

Salazar

L. F.

Vivolo-Kantor

A. M.

(2020). The relationship between binge drinking and prosocial bystander behavior among college men. Journal of American College Health, 68(6), 570–574. https://doi.org/10.1080/07448481.2019.1583656

57.

Sherrard

L. A.

(2019). Factors influencing bystander intervention in hypothetical sexual assault situations (Issue 27539283) [Master thesis, Miami University].

58.

Steel

A. L.

(2018). The impact of victim intoxication and perpetrator status on bystander responses (Issue 10615329) [Doctoral dissertation, The Graduate College at the University of Nebraska].

59.

Taylor

Banyard

Grych

Hamby

(2019). Not all behind closed doors: Examining bystander involvement in intimate partner violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 34(18), 3915–3935. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260516673629

60.

Truman

J. L.

Morgan

R. E.

(2014). Nonfatal domestic violence, 2003–2012. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/ndv0312.pdf

61.

United Nations. (2022, December 29). Regional groups of member states. https://www.un.org/dgacm/en/content/regional-groups

62.

UNHCR: The UN Refugee Agency. (2023). Gender-based violence. https://www.unhcr.org/what-we-do/protect-human-rights/protection/gender-based-violence

63.

Weiner

(2018). The legacy of an attribution approach to motivation and emotion: A no-crisis zone. Motivation Science, 4(1), 4–14. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/mot0000082

64.

Wijaya

C. N.

Roberts

L. D.

Kane

R. T.

(2021). Attribution theory, bystander effect and willingness to intervene in intimate partner violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260521997945

65.

Wong

C. A.

Cummings

G. G.

(2007). The relationship between nursing leadership and patient outcomes: A systematic review. Journal of Nursing Management, 15(5), 508–521. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2834.2007.00723.x

66.

Wyatt

J. D.

(2020). Comparing bystander intentions in sexual assault situations involving same-gender and opposite-gender individuals: The role of sexual orientation (Issue 28225769) [Doctoral dissertation, Ohio University].

67.

Yule

Grych

(2020). College students’ perceptions of barriers to bystander intervention. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 35(15–16), 2971–2992.

68.

Yule

Hoxmeier

J. C.

Petranu

Grych

(2022). The chivalrous bystander: The role of gender-based beliefs and empathy on bystander behavior and perceived barriers to intervention. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 37(1–2), 863–888.

69.

Zozula

Costello

B. J.

Anderson

B. J.

(2021). Self-control, opportunity, and college students’ bystander intervention in sexually coercive situations. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(11–12), NP6144–NP6165. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260518808858