“I’ll be that one cockblocking friend”: Understanding Student Experiences of Bystander Intervention in Alcohol-Related Sexual Assault

Abstract

The prevalence of sexual assault (SA) among college students (13%) is unacceptable, underreported, and alcohol use by the perpetrator or victim is reported in 50% of SA cases. Bystander intervention (BI) programs, which use prosocial behaviors to prevent or stop a harmful situation from occurring, have been implemented across college campuses to reduce SA. There are several known barriers (e.g., self-intoxication) and facilitators (e.g., peer support) to BI for SA; however, less is known about barriers and facilitators to BI for alcohol-related SA. Alcohol-related SA includes situations in which the perpetrator and/or victim are intoxicated, whereas alcohol-facilitated SA includes situations in which individuals intentionally use alcohol as a perpetration strategy. The current study examined student perspectives of BI for SA opportunities, actions taken in response to opportunities, and barriers and facilitators to action. The team conducted content and deductive thematic analysis of data from focus groups and interviews with diverse undergraduate students (N = 79). Opportunities included perpetrator-focused, victim-focused, and sexual risk opportunities. Actions taken included staying vigilant, monitoring friends, communicating with friends, and removing friends. Barriers included self-intoxication, feeling helpless, peer pressure, not feeling personally responsible, and fearing the consequences of helping. Finally, facilitators included knowing friends’ concerning signals and drinking motives, feeling like some intervention strategies are easy, understanding sex-related risks, acknowledging consent and personal boundaries, and feeling personally responsible for friends. Understanding these situations’ nuances can help to inform more effective and comprehensive BI programs to reduce SA.

Around 13% or more of college students experience sexual assault (SA) or violence through physical force, violence, or incapacitation (Cantor et al., 2020). Furthermore, alcohol use by the victim or perpetrator of SA is reported in around 50% of cases (Cantor et al., 2020). However, alcohol use has been more often reported by the perpetrator (69%) than the victim (43%) in cases of SA (Fisher et al., 2003). These numbers may be an underrepresentation, as college student victims often do not report their SA to school officials or law enforcement because they believe their victimization is personal or fear that authorities might not be helpful (Langton, 2014). For instance, only around 20% of women who experience SA in college report their experience to law enforcement (Langton, 2014). Victims who drink before experiencing SA may be even less likely to report because they fear being victim-blamed (Burn, 2009; Lynch et al., 2013). Alcohol use is common in SA, and alcohol-involved SA situations vary. Two alcohol-involved SA situations are (1) alcohol-related SA and (2) alcohol-facilitated SA. We define alcohol-related SA as situations in which the perpetrator and/or victim are intoxicated and alcohol-facilitated SA as an important and unique subcategory of alcohol-related SA in which alcohol intoxication is intentionally used as a perpetration strategy. While alcohol-related SA is commonly examined, instances where alcohol was intentionally used to facilitate SA are less distinguishable in SA work.

Drinking in college is a social norm, such as drinking at parties and social gatherings (Perkins, 2002) that may increase the risk of SA. For example, alcohol myopia theory (Steele & Josephs, 1990) posits that as people become intoxicated, salience to positive environmental cues may lead them to inaccurately interpret sexual situations or make decisions they may not make when sober (Zawacki et al., 2005). Additionally, alcohol consumption is related to sexual disinhibition (Leeman et al., 2007; Seto & Barbaree, 1995). When drinking around those who may hold certain alcohol-related expectations (e.g., those who drink may be more open to sex), the risk of SA may increase (Benson et al., 2007; Tyler et al., 2017); however, the literature on these expectations is mixed (Wiersma-Mosley et al., 2020). Nonetheless, alcohol consumption in college is associated with an increased risk of SA (Abbey, 2002), highlighting the need to thoroughly understand the contexts in which alcohol consumption and SA occur.

Bystander Intervention for SA

Several college programs aim to decrease the rate of SA through individual-focused programs, environment-based programs that reduce the availability of alcohol (Carey et al., 2007; DeGue et al., 2014; Saltz, 2011; Scott-Sheldon et al., 2014), and programs that capitalize on prosocial behaviors of bystanders in SA situations (Coker et al., 2011; Coker et al., 2015; Cook-Craig et al., 2014; Orsini et al., 2019). Bystander intervention (BI), or the helping behaviors of those who may be present during a potential SA, is shown to be effective at increasing knowledge and efficacy to intervene in SA (Kettrey & Marx, 2019) and preventing or stopping SA (Mujal et al., 2021). BI is a community approach that attempts to change social norms and increase community response to sexual violence (Banyard et al., 2020). College BI programs for SA teach students how to notice signs of potential SA and build students’ skills and self-efficacy to prevent or stop the situation from occurring. According to the Situational Model of BI (Darley & Latane, 1968), the five steps of BI include: 1) notice the event, 2) interpret the event as a risk, 3) assume personal responsibility to help, 4) know how to help, and 5) take action to help.

BI Opportunities and Actions for SA

BI opportunities are worrisome situations that warrant action from a bystander to prevent or stop harm from occurring. These opportunities range from low risk, from making a sexist or sexual joke, to high risk, such as seeing a man alone with a highly intoxicated woman; McMahon & Banyard, 2012). While opportunities for SA vary depending on the context, many bystanders report intervening in unambiguously high-risk situations (e.g., someone attempting to rape a screaming individual; Fischer et al., 2011). Noticing early cues for potential SA is necessary for primary prevention (Banyard & McMahon, 2012), but often, bystanders do not intervene until an immediate threat or emergency is explicitly present (Arbeit, 2018). A bystander’s ability to notice and interpret subtle and ambiguous situations that may lead to SA is essential to early intervention (e.g., noticing that an individual is being served numerous consecutive drinks by a stranger). Further, many opportunities for intervention in SA do not distinguish between alcohol-related events (e.g., a drunk person going home with a stranger) and alcohol-facilitated events (e.g., a sober person preying upon an intoxicated person). Gaining a more nuanced understanding of opportunities for BI in alcohol-related SA (including alcohol-facilitated SA) may help inform more comprehensive and effective BI programs for SA that prevent SA before it occurs.

Bystander actions are behaviors witnesses take in worrisome situations that aim to prevent or stop harm from occurring. For bystanders to act in concerning situations that could lead to SA, they must identify the situation as needing intervention (Burn, 2009). After identifying situations that call for intervention, bystanders encourage friends to party safely by taking actions such as watching their friends’ drinks and confronting sexist jokes and comments made by others (Banyard & Moynihan, 2011). BI strategies for SA have been categorized as the ‘three Ds’ for SA: direct, delegate, and distract (Coker et al., 2017; Kaya et al., 2020). ‘Direct’ involves physically getting in between the victim and the perpetrator and confronting them, ‘delegate’ includes asking other bystanders for assistance and/or calling 911, and ‘distract’ consists of distracting the victim or perpetrator. More recently, Casper et al. (2023) and Moschella et al. (2018) have expanded the ‘three Ds’ to include ‘distance’, like physically taking the victim away, and ‘diffuse’, which includes calming the situation down. However, bystanders’ inaction to potential alcohol-related SA was beyond the scope of Casper and colleagues’ (2023) ‘five D’s.’ In other work, passively responding was the most common response to alcohol-related SA (Haikalis et al., 2018), making it clear that a more nuanced understanding of bystander behavior (e.g., moving bystanders from passive to active response) for alcohol-related SA is needed to lead to more effective intervention responses.

Barriers and Facilitators to BI in SA

There is a high likelihood that bystanders may be drinking while witnessing potential SA situations. For instance, around 88% of bystanders who were present before a SA occurred reported drinking (Haikalis et al., 2018). Thus, bystander intoxication may be a significant barrier in the intervention process. Limited research explicitly describes how intoxication influences BI in real-life SA situations. While nearly all bystanders who may witness potential SA report that they would intervene regardless of their intoxication (Bridges et al., 2021), intoxicated bystanders may report less effective or no intervention strategies (e.g., alert authorities, do nothing) compared to sober bystanders who report more effective strategies (e.g., confront the person). In hypothetical SA situations, intoxicated and sober bystanders have not reported differences in assuming responsibility to intervene, knowing what to do, and deciding whether or not to intervene (Ham et al., 2019). On the other hand, intoxication may facilitate intervention, as reported in Mennicke et al. (2023). Thus, intoxication may uniquely influence how bystanders notice and interpret a situation, even among those with high intentions of helping.

The context in which SA occurs poses numerous barriers and facilitators that impede intervention. Other known barriers to intervention for SA include ambiguous situations, discomfort in intervening, and lack of social support for intervention (Banyard, 2011; Bennett et al., 2014). Facilitators include clearly and accurately assessing the situation for risk and need for intervention, the victim explicitly stating they need help, having others present and supportive of helping, feeling safe to help, having knowledge of what to do, and not being under the influence of any substances (Bennett et al., 2014).

However, limited research explicitly highlights what opportunities, actions, barriers, and facilitators look like in alcohol-related SA. Further, considering differences in rates of SA across student groups (e.g., sexual and gender minority [SGM] students), it is important to capture alcohol-related SA intervention experiences among diversely identified students. Greater rates of SA among marginalized groups, such as sexual and gender minority (SGM) students (Beyer et al., 2021) and Black, Indigenous, and other students of color (BIPOC students; Gómez, 2022), may influence their opportunities for intervention, and prosocial behaviors to take action (Hoxmeier et al., 2022). Further, colleges with more students who are athletes or Greek-affiliated may have increased reports of campus sexual violence (Wiersma-Mosley, et al., 2017), with these attributes associated with greater alcohol use and sexual violence (Barnes et al., 2021; Beaver, 2019). Thus, campus BI research should include samples representing diverse college students, including sexual, gender, and racial/ethnically diverse students and students across social groups, such as Greek-affiliated students and athletes (Hoxmeier et al., 2021).

Altogether, relatively little is known about BI opportunities, actions, barriers, and facilitators for alcohol-related and alcohol-facilitated SA. Understanding how individuals use alcohol to facilitate SA, in particular, is important. Additional research is necessary to better understand how and under what circumstances these factors influence alcohol-related SA (including alcohol-facilitated SA) intervention among diverse college students.

Purpose

The current study aims to provide a more comprehensive understanding of BI for alcohol-related SA in particular among college students by using diverse student perspectives (e.g., Greek life, athletes, SGM, and BIPOC) to identify 1) opportunities for BI in alcohol-related SA, 2) actions taken or not taken in these situations, and 3) barriers and facilitators to intervention.

Method

The current study was part of a more extensive study focused on identifying phases of BI for problematic alcohol use among undergraduate college students and their friends (see Mennicke et al., 2023 for full details, referred to herein as the primary study). The research team in the current study were also involved in the parent study. The research team conducted 20 focus groups and nine interviews with diverse undergraduate students (N = 79) across various backgrounds (e.g., racial/ethnic identity, sexual orientation, gender identity, student-athletes, students involved in Greek life). The university institutional review board approved all study protocols (#21–0222).

Participants

For recruitment and consent information, see Mennicke et al. (2023). Eligibility criteria included: a) enrolled as a full-time undergraduate student at UNC Charlotte, b) between 18–25 years old, and c) friends with individuals who drink alcohol. The study team used intake survey results to schedule identity-specific focus groups and interviews (e.g., first-year students, cisgender men, etc.). Individual interviews were conducted to include populations underrepresented in the data (e.g., fraternity and sorority members, student-athletes). Participants provided preferred pseudonyms in the intake survey. Initially, study participants were compensated for their time with a $10 Amazon e-gift card. Due to recruitment challenges, compensation was increased to a $20 gift card plus one entry into a random drawing for an iPad.

Procedure

A focus group guide was developed based on the primary studies’ research question: What are the phases of BI for problematic alcohol use among college friends? (see Mennicke et al., 2023). However, before conducting the focus groups, researchers identified a gap in understanding experiences of problematic alcohol use as it relates to sexual violence specifically. As such, three research questions were added focusing on alcohol-related and -facilitated SA: 1) What are sexually risky decisions or situations people find themselves in while drinking or drunk?, 2) In your previous experiences or knowledge, what are ways that people may or have used alcohol to try to engage in sexual activity?, and 3) Which of these strategies would you say are concerning? And which are not concerning? The current paper focuses on the secondary analysis answering the aforementioned questions and thereby addressing this gap. Pairs of research team members conducted twenty-three focus groups and six interviews virtually via Zoom between November 2021 and April 2022. Students who participated in interviews instead of focus groups were from underrepresented backgrounds (e.g., fraternity and sorority members, student-athletes). There was no overlap among students who participated in the focus groups or interviews. On average, focus groups ranged in size from 2 to 10 participants, with an average size of 3.5 participants (SD = 2.1). Focus groups lasted on average 67 minutes (range 30–106 minutes, SD = 19.5) and interviews lasted on average 45 minutes (range 33–75 minutes, SD = 14.3). Focus groups and interviews were audio recorded and transcribed using Zoom and Microsoft Word transcription features. Transcripts were reviewed for accuracy by research team members.

Data Analysis

Transcripts were analyzed using content analyses (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005). A team of three researchers conducted initial content analyses, in which meaningful chunks of texts were coded into categories in an excel document (e.g., “Opportunity”, “Action”, “Barrier”, “Facilitator”). Next, the researchers used deductive thematic analyses to search for frequent and significant ideas between and across student backgrounds (e.g., “friends disappearing as a common barrier to intervention,” “understanding consent and personal boundaries as a facilitator”; Creswell, 2007). The research team met biweekly to debrief the application of codes and discuss any conflicting code applications or issues/insights that may have emerged to ensure consistency in code applications and content analysis. The research team reached 100% agreement on code application regarding opportunities, actions, barriers, and facilitators after these ongoing discussions. Once we had identified themes and subthemes, we compared for gender, age, and sexual identity within those themes. If more than 50% of responses within a theme/subtheme were from a particular group, we name that in the results.

Results

Participants

Study participants were 18 to 24 years old (M_age = 20.12 years; SD = 1.22). There was diverse university grade-level representation. Most participants were cisgender women (60.8%), followed by cisgender men (35.4%) and transgender/nonbinary/genderfluid (3.8%). Over half of the total sample identified as heterosexual (59.5%), followed by bisexual (17.7%), two or more sexual identities (12.8%), gay or lesbian (5%), and pansexual/otherwise identified (5%). Across BIPOC participants, those identifying as Black/African American were represented the most (24%). Lastly, 23.1% were affiliated with fraternities or sororities, and 12.8% were intercollegiate student-athletes. Focus groups ranged in size from 2 to 10 participants, with an average of 3.5 participants. On average, focus groups lasted 67 minutes, while interviews lasted 45 minutes.

Below, we describe opportunities, actions, barriers, and facilitators to intervening in alcohol-related SA. Figure 1 depicts opportunities and actions. Figure 2 depicts barriers and facilitators.

Figure 1.

Perpetrator-focused, victim-focused, and sexual risk opportunities for alcohol-related (and facilitated) SA with corresponding actions described by participants

Figure 2.

Barriers and facilitators to intervention across ecological levels for alcohol-related (and facilitated) SA

Opportunities

Participants described perpetrator-focused, victim-focused, and sexual risk opportunities for intervention. Perpetrator-focused opportunities focused on preventing or stopping individuals from perpetrating alcohol-facilitated SA. These involved strangers, often men, being around participants’ intoxicated friends, preying on participants’ intoxicated friends, feeling more comfortable approaching their intoxicated friends in sexual ways, and intoxicated friends who are men being around people they were attracted to or being sexually frustrated around others. Victim-focused opportunities focused on preventing or stopping friends from experiencing alcohol-related SA. These included intoxicated friends becoming sexually disinhibited and withdrawing from the group. Both perpetrator and victim-focused opportunities revolve around opportunities for intervention. Finally, sexual risk opportunities focused on the risk involved when having sex under the influence, including intoxicated friends having sex with someone they would not while sober, not using condoms, having public sex, and trying to have sex with as many people as possible. The sexual risk opportunities identified offer areas for BI programs to expand on as they relate to SA, consent, and sexual health more broadly.

Perpetrator-focused Opportunities

Presence of Strangers.

Participants described strangers, particularly men, being around their friends while drinking as an opportunity to prevent potential alcohol-facilitated SA. While these strangers have not yet inflicted any harm, friends noted their willingness to intervene. Participants described these concerns among their women friends. “Sometimes, if some guy tries to come towards my friend at a party and I don’t know him and my friend is really intoxicated, I very much try to stand right next to my friend. Just in case he tries to put his hands on her or tries to be like, ‘oh, you should upstairs so we can talk.” [August S., White heterosexual/straight woman].

Preying on Intoxicated Friends.

Participants described friends being preyed on by men as an opportunity for intervention, including others intentionally seeking out drunk women. “I know a few people that were blackout drunk, or were with people that were really drunk that took advantage of them sexually due to the state of which they were in or how the drunk person was in.” [Aurora M., Asian bisexual woman]. Preying on intoxicated friends also involved others making strong drinks for women and not telling them about it, drugging women’s drinks, and offering women drugs while they were drinking. “Sometimes the people who are throwing the party make a really strong punch, and they only let the girls drink it…so maybe it gets them drunk, or the girls don’t know what’s in it.” [Ben P., White gay man]. The notion of ‘preying’ is evident in these situations as participants described men purposefully engaging with intoxicated women and using alcohol (and, in some instances, drugs) to get closer to women.

Sexual Approaches by Men.

Men approaching their friends in sexually suggestive ways, presented opportunities for intervention for alcohol-related SA. These included initiating sexual activity with their friends, invading their friends’ personal space, touching or fondling them inappropriately, and making inappropriate sexual comments about women and their intentions with women after drinking. “They’ll start rubbing up on you and on your friends, and it’s definitely a two-way street, but it is a little more concerning, I guess, when it’s a man doing it because of physical strength, which can be scary.” [Jackson N., White heterosexual/straight man].

Men discussed their friends who were men being around people they are attracted to while drinking or being sexually frustrated while drinking as an opportunity for intervention. “If we’ve ever had a problem with acting inappropriately towards a woman or drinking or the combination of both, it’s the ones that are frustrated sexually. When they start drinking and they see someone else getting with a girl…that’s when they decide, ‘hey, I need to step it up, or I need to try harder because I’m lacking’ and they start feeling incompetent… so maybe they’ll start resorting to aggression.” [Jackson N., White heterosexual/straight man, Interfraternity Council]. Men described being fearful of their friends becoming too physically affectionate with others and the potential crossing of personal boundaries. “I know a friend of mine where drinking too much makes them more physically active, especially toward some girls, and we have to pull them back just to make sure that it doesn’t get too out of control.” [John S., Latinx/Hispanic heterosexual/straight man].

Victim-focused Opportunities

Friends Becoming Sexually Disinhibited.

Participants described their friends becoming sexually disinhibited as an opportunity for intervention to prevent alcohol-related SA, including becoming more vulnerable to sexual suggestions from others, saying sexually suggestive things they would not say sober, becoming highly affectionate and flirtatious with others, and becoming attracted to people they otherwise would not be attracted to while sober. “Typically, when the liquor starts being involved, and it’s when things move from words to actions…Next thing I know, I see from across the room, and they’re either sitting in each other’s laps, or they’re holding hands, or they’re just getting affectionate physically.” [Mark R., White heterosexual/straight man].

Participants described their friends questioning their sexual identity as an opportunity for intervention. “I think we all understand if you drink more, certain people start to become more attractive in your mind, and I have had friends…They’ve questioned whether or not they like who they’re with, and they start looking at someone else differently, and I’ve kind of had to sit down and talk with one specific friend about a situation where she was confusing herself, but it was really only when she was drinking that those thoughts start going through her mind.” [Olivia Z., White heterosexual/straight]. These opportunities also included being aware of their friends’ motives, such as drinking and being open to having sex as a way to alleviate stress. “I don’t think I’ve ever had a friend saying they’re getting drunk to get laid, but it happens basically every time that they drink and go out. It’s like they come back with someone new.” [Mary K., Black/African American heterosexual/straight woman].

Relatedly, participants described their friends using their phones in concerning ways, such as using dating sites to meet up with strangers and texting their ex-partners while drinking. While these did not present immediate harm, participants described them as opportunities for intervention because it can lead to potential SA and other harm. “Something they will do while drunk is they love to swipe [dating app], and they love to respond and make plans with people and not really think things through. So, in terms of safety, I’ve had friends who are very adamant on getting into a stranger’s car while everyone in the situation is not in the right set of mind or thinking very safely about the actual consequences and things that could happen in that situation.” [Elizabeth W., White bisexual woman].

Friends Withdrawing from Group.

Participants mentioned their friends’ withdrawal from the group as a major concern and opportunity for intervention when possible. These included their friends being led away by someone, disappearing from the group, and going home with strangers. Often, there was no opportunity to intervene because they could not find their friends. “They [friends] sleep with people they wouldn’t sleep with when they’re sober when they’re drunk. I have had a friend that has, on a couple of occasions, just disappeared, and we’ll find out the next morning that she hooked up with someone, like went to some guy’s apartment or something. That’s like really risky behavior” [Anna B., White bisexual woman]. Relatedly, when participants’ friends disappeared, they found them later after already having had sex with someone. They stated that no immediate action could have been taken to prevent or stop this from happening.

Sexual Risk Opportunities

While participants did not directly discuss sexual risk opportunities leading to alcohol-related SA, the various opportunities described by participants for intervention while their friends engage in sexual activity were frequently mentioned and are noteworthy. These opportunities have implications for issues such as consent, inaction, and sexual health more broadly (e.g., pregnancy, STDs) that may be addressed in BI work.

Friends Having Sex with Someone They Would Not If Sober.

Participants described how concerning it was for their friends to have sex with someone while drinking that they otherwise would not if sober. “They don’t even find the person attractive after they’re not drunk anymore. So they were only attracted to them when they were drinking or drunk, and then they wake up the next morning beside them, and they’re like, ‘oh, actually, I’m not even attracted to you, and I don’t even know your name.’” [Mary K., Black/African American heterosexual/straight woman].

Friends Not Using Condoms.

Participants noted the risk of their friends having sex while drinking and not using condoms. “When people try to have sex while they’re drunk, they tend to forget that they have protection or that they need to get some.” [Kia, Black/African American heterosexual/straight man, first-year student, 19 years old]. Not using condoms was concerning, in part, due to the longer-term consequences. “…that could have longer-term implications in terms of STIs if that’s not done properly and safely.” [Elizabeth W., White bisexual woman].

Friends Trying to Have Sex with as Many People as Possible.

Participants noted that their friends sometimes intentionally try to engage in sexual activity with as many people as possible. They described this as a risky situation that could lead to alcohol-related SA. Some participants described this as normal behavior that was hard to intervene in, as others and their friends saw it as expected and often acceptable behavior. “One of my friends likes to kiss a bunch of guys at parties and just likes to see how many people she can get with in a night.” [Marie M., White heterosexual/straight woman, first-year student].

Actions

Actions taken by participants in light of these situations were organized into five overarching categories: 1) monitoring their friends, 2) communicating with friends, 3) removing their friends from these situations, 4) confronting others around their friends, and 5) staying vigilant.

Monitoring Friends

In many perpetrator-focused opportunities (e.g., strangers being around or approaching friends), participants described monitoring their friends to ensure their safety. Monitoring behaviors included having a friend remain sober to care for others in the group when needed, keeping an eye out on their friends for body language and decision making, or standing next to the friend. “…Going into a bar or a public place, our friends like to start talking to guys, and I’m fine with it, but sometimes it makes me nervous for them to keep an eye on them, you know, in the corner of my eye, to make sure that they are there and look at things happening.” [Aria S., Black/African American heterosexual/straight woman].

In particular, participants who were men described monitoring their male friends’ behaviors, such as being around people they were attracted to or making sure they did not become too touchy with others. Men often watched their other friends who were men in these instances. “…In my group, we’re all pretty much scared of things like that happening, whether it’s like we’ve talked to someone and then something leads to something else. And so, we try to stay pretty wary of our situation, and try not to do things. I know whenever I start drinking at a party, I personally will stay away from people I have interest in. I’ll just talk to my friends, or I’ll try to meet new people, and I suggest to the guys that they always do the same.” [Marc R., White heterosexual/straight man].

Communicating with Friends

Communicating with friends is a step further from monitoring friends, in that participants not only kept an eye out for their friends, but talked to their friends about their intentions, how much they had to drink, and if their friends felt safe. Further, after the event, participants mentioned discussing the concerning situation the next day, which was followed by being more vigilant the next time. For example, a participant described trying to counsel their friend: “I always try to talk to some of my friends about it,. You’ll be at a party, and maybe they’ve been getting drunk, and they’re with some girl for most of the night, and they want to go home with her, and the one thing that I’ve always told him is like ‘Listen, you really don’t want to just put your future at risk by doing something that you might not normally do.’ And I always tell him, ‘Look if this girl is that into you, get her number, get her Snapchat, she’ll be into you in the morning when you’re both sober” [Mark W., White heterosexual/straight man].

Removing Friends

Participants described removing their friends from the situation when others approached their friends. Removing friends helped participants protect their friends from being preyed upon. Generally, seeing others around their friends or even strangers in an uncomfortable way prompted them to take action and remove them from the situation. “If a guy is coming up to your friend and asking, ‘Come on. Come home with me.’ Removing them from that situation if they’re not able to think for themselves.” [Marie M., White heterosexual/straight woman, first-year student].

Confronting Others Around Friends

Participants also described confronting individuals who were actively harming or potentially harming their friends. Confronting involved getting into a physical altercation or simply standing next to their friend to ensure their safety. “I’ll be that one cockblocking friend that comes in between, like ‘hey who are you?’… Depending on the type of dude, if he is actually in your good interest, he probably will stay and answer your questions, but if he’s not, and he’s just like, ‘why are you asking all these questions?’ ‘Because I can ‘cause my friend is drunk here, and you’re getting kind of close to her, and I need to know who you are. So again, what is your name just in case something is to happen, and I need to know who your name is if she cannot remember what your name is.’” [Brittany, Black/African American heterosexual/straight woman, National Pan-Hellenic Council].

Staying Vigilant

Staying vigilant involved participants preventing their friends from experiencing potential alcohol-related SA, usually in advance of the event and during the event. This included some participants bringing their own drinks and making sure to stay within their friend group. Additionally, participants discussed talking with their friends about their plans prior to attending the party/event. “Me and my friends, we usually have a little pep talk before we go out. And one of the things I always make sure to say is your drink is in your hand, your eyes are on it at all times. If you put that drink down and you come back to it later, that drink is dead to you. Don’t look at it because there’s a chance that someone might have put something in it and then will try and take advantage of you.” [Holly G., mixed race/ethnicity/Asian/White/Middle Eastern/Arab bisexual and queer woman].

Double-checking their friends’ intentions before and after drinking was their way of preventing a harmful situation from occurring. “…Me and friends have talked about, ‘I plan on going out, and I’m gonna make out with this guy, or a guy or a girl.’ And we’ve talked about it beforehand, and then we’ll get to a party and if somebody is drunk and they’re like, ‘Yeah, I think me and this guy are going to do something.’ I’m like, ‘OK, well sober you decided this, are you still OK with this?…and even if I am intoxicated and you are intoxicated, I’m still going to hold you to that. Sober you said’ no’, so it’s a very different conversation.” [Rebecca M., White heterosexual/straight woman, Panhellenic Association].

Barriers

Barriers to intervention across these opportunities included self-intoxication, lacking trust and comfort, feeling helpless or powerless, not feeling personally responsible for friends, fearing the consequences of helping, and feeling like concerning behaviors are normalized. Although opportunities and actions were all described at the interpersonal level, we organized barriers and facilitators into individual, interpersonal, and societal levels due to the span of participants’ identified factors.

Individual

Self-Intoxication.

Participants described self-intoxication as a barrier to intervention: “We went to a party as a group, and some of my friends had invited some of their friends, and I didn’t know these people, but I thought it was fine because they were their friends. Long story short, one of the new friends tried taking away one of my personal friends, and he was a pretty big dude, and I thought that maybe if I hadn’t drank so much or if I had like noticed something sooner, that probably wouldn’t have happened.” [Kia, Black/African American heterosexual/straight man, first-year student].

Lacking Trust and Comfort.

Other barriers involved lacking trust and comfort with the people their friends were around. Participants described not trusting their friends’ other friends but not wanting to intervene and feel uncomfortable. “The person I know was supposed to sleep on the couch, but they ended up going to that person’s bedroom. They know the person, so they trust them, but I personally do not trust that person. Especially ‘cause I wasn’t there that night to see what happened because that person tends to not remember what they did the night before. That makes me think I don’t trust that person, so I don’t know if they could have done something to you, and you just don’t remember.” [Aryan B., Black/African American heterosexual/straight woman]. Participants also described lacking the comfort to tell their friends what to do: “For instance, if a friend wanted to text an ex, I have a really hard time telling people what to do. So even though in my sober head I know it’s a bad idea, in their head, they’re like, ‘Oh yeah, this is a great idea.’ I guess being more assertive when I know things are a bad decision.” [Sarah M., White questioning woman].

Feeling Helpless or Powerless.

Participants described feeling like their friends will do whatever they choose, regardless of their opinions. A participant details her friend becoming aggressive after refraining her from leaving with a man: “And she decided to go over to this male’s place even after I had refrained her from doing it, but she ended up getting aggressive with me. And she ended up getting put into a situation, a sexual situation, that she did not want to and that she ended up regretting afterward.” [Davis T., Black/African American heterosexual/straight woman]. Confusion around consent also came up as a barrier to intervention. Participants described not knowing whether a situation was consensual or not. “I’ve been to parties where I’ve seen people kind of isolate themselves to a corner, and then they start doing touchy-feely things. So, then personally, I try to go over and figure out like this is, you know, consensual or just, make sure that everything is OK.” [Junior, mixed race/Black/African American/Asian heterosexual/straight man].

Interpersonal

Feeling Helpless or Powerless.

Participants also described feeling helpless or powerless when their friends disappeared. In many instances, participants did not find out what happened to their friend until the next day or later in the evening when they had already engaged in sexual activity that they regretted or had been sexually assaulted. “I’ve had friends who sometimes will just disappear and then go home with someone random, and then the next morning it’s always getting like a text or call and just being like I had no idea that I went home with him like I don’t know why I did.” [Kasey H., Latinx/Hispanic heterosexual/straight woman, Panhellenic Association].

Not Feeling Personally Responsible.

Some participants described not feeling personally responsible for their friends all the time. “If we’re drinking and you decide to talk to someone else, then that’s on you. And if you decide to go away from the group, then I can’t stop you ‘cause I’m not your keeper.” [Mary K., Black/African American heterosexual/straight woman].

Societal

Fearing the Consequences of Helping.

Participants reported fearing involvement with law enforcement and school officials. Only in severe instances (i.e., when SA has already occurred) did participants state they would get law enforcement or school officials involved. “For me, the only thing I wouldn’t want to do unless absolutely necessary is call the police or call any kind of emergency service like the ambulance or something, unless it was absolutely necessary for medical reasons. Or I would call the cops if I knew they had already gone somewhere where they could possibly be injured physically or sexually, so I just wouldn’t call the cops unless absolutely necessary.” [A., Black/African American heterosexual/straight woman]. Some participants preferred helping on their own instead, keeping what happened between them and their friend group instead of alerting officials. “This is going to sound really bad. But the school is so complicated. If you can keep it within your group, it’s probably better.” [Rosa M., white heteroflexible woman].

Feeling Helpless or Powerless.

Relatedly, participants described feeling helpless or powerless in these situations, as their university has dismissed cases of SA. “I had a friend who, I’m not sure how alcohol-related it was. I believe she was at a party, but she got assaulted by this guy, and the case was too complicated, so of course it got dismissed” [Rosa M., White heteroflexible woman].

Feeling like Concerning Behaviors are Normalized.

Participants described the normality of sexually concerning behaviors while drinking among their friends, which made it harder to intervene and prevent it from occurring. “One example would be like going over to some person’s place that you just met that night while drinking. I personally feel that’s sorta risky because you don’t have your best judgment, but for them, they’re like, “Oh no, it’s fine. I normally do this”, so they’re used to that.” [Shelby H., White gay and lesbian woman].

Drinking games and normalizing sexual behaviors during drinking games created opportunities for SA. Women participants described feeling peer pressured to continue drinking and playing games. “I like drinking games, I think they can be fun, but then there’s sexy truth or dare and then people plan to dare someone to kiss their friend that they have a crush on or do 7 minutes in heaven with them like something that can start off fun. But then if you’re around the wrong crowd, a frat, or something, people can take advantage of you.” [Saya, Middle Eastern/Arab pansexual woman].

Facilitators

Facilitators reported by participants included knowing friends’ signals and motives (physical, verbal, emotional), understanding sex-related risks, feeling like intervention can be easy, feeling responsible for friends, and acknowledging consent and personal boundaries.

Individual

Knowing Friends’ Signals and Motives.

Participants described being able to identify their friends’ cues in a concerning situation. Being cognizant of physical signals (e.g., having a heavy head), verbal signals (e.g. saying inappropriate things or things they would not otherwise say sober), and emotional signals (e.g. becoming too affectionate and friendly) were all facilitators of intervention. “Noticing when their body language changes, so like a little bit slouched over, maybe you’re noticing their head is a little bit heavy…like sometimes if clothes can be like falling off the shoulder a little bit, or they’re slurring their words. So it’s a little bit, not like a judgment piece, but just noticing if they are presenting themselves in a way that they wouldn’t be fully comfortable presenting themselves in typically, or even one or two drinks ago.” [Jane D., White bisexual woman].

Understanding why their friends were drinking was a reported facilitator of intervention. Participants described various reasons for drinking including to engage in concerning behaviors and not remember, to become more social, to have sex, or to get others drunk to have sex. In light of their motives, participants engaged in the most appropriate form of intervention when they could. “I’m friends with a lot of introverts and I don’t need a lot of alcohol to be very social and have fun at parties. But a lot of my friends tend to drink to help lower their inhibitions and be able to have fun. So they’ll become a lot more promiscuous after drinking at parties, which makes me a bit worried for them. ‘cause then it’s like a bit too promiscuous happening.” [Aurora M., Asian bisexual woman].

Understanding Sex-Related Risks.

Participants described having a general understanding of the risks involved while drinking as a woman and the possibility of being taken advantage of sexually as facilitators to intervention. Women often looked out for their other women friends due to this understanding. “I think there’s just generally more things that girls have to take in consideration like a lot of different precautions, such as having a buddy or being able to recognize if a woman is uncomfortable [in] that certain setting and being able to tell that’s what is going on.” [Sasha, Asian bisexual woman].

Ease of Strategies.

Participants felt that certain intervention strategies were feasible and accessible, prompting them to intervene: “My friends who will make bad decisions like texting their ex, it’s easy for me to intervene in those situations ‘cause…I’ll take their phone and then put something else in their hand, and they’re very much like, ‘oh, OK.’ And then they just start drinking, whether it be water or it is another drink or whatever it is.” [August S., White heterosexual/straight woman].

Interpersonal

Feeling Personally Responsible for Friends.

Some participants described how they do not mind being a babysitter. After intervening, they felt proud and helpful and believed it was their responsibility to protect their friends. “It makes me feel like I have something going for myself, ‘Oh wow, I helped somebody from either getting raped or from getting alcohol poisoning.’ So I be feeling good about myself. I have to hype myself up sometimes ‘cause I be feeling bad, but yeah.” [Brittany, Black/African American heterosexual/straight woman, National Pan-Hellenic Council].

Men participants often described thinking of their friends’ reputations. They described how they would not want any of their friends or their own reputation to be tainted by their behaviors at a party/event. “I believe some of my friends have run into issues where they have drunk too much, and I wouldn’t say trying to take advantage of women, but certainly pursued a little harder than they should have, which again just comes back to their reputation and their character as people think who they are. So that’s definitely something that concerns me, and I’m fearful as their friend for what their dreams and aspirations are in life.” [Jackson N., White heterosexual/straight man, Interfraternity Council, Athlete].

Acknowledging Consent and Personal Boundaries.

Participants across groups described feeling like sexual consent cannot be provided while intoxicated, prompting them to intervene. “Whether it’s both parties involved, or maybe just one. Consent almost goes out the door, where you’re not in a good state of mind to make the decisions that you would if you were sober. And it’s a very easy position to get taken advantage of, and that’s definitely something that we need to address more in this society.” [Sech C., Asian heterosexual/straight man, 21 years old]. Students in the SGM group specifically described the importance of acknowledging personal boundaries and ensuring situations are consensual for their friends. “I’ve had more resistance from cis- het- people about me not drinking than my queer friends or just queer people in general. I guess some queer people just are better about consent, even about non-sexual or non-drug actions.” [James O., White pansexual nonbinary].

Discussion

The current study explored students’ experiences of opportunities, actions, barriers, and facilitators to BI for alcohol-related SA. Below, we discuss each component of BI, while also linking the components to each other as they naturally occur in real-world contexts.

Opportunities

While not all opportunities described in the data led to alcohol-related SA, participants described opportunities as potential cues that alcohol-related SA could occur, leading them to decide whether or not to intervene. Perpetrator-focused opportunities centered exclusively around perpetrators who are men. In the data, all participants (including men) discussed men as the primary potential perpetrators of alcohol-facilitated SA. Men discussed looking out for their other friends who were men becoming too touchy/affectionate while drinking and described how sexual frustration might exacerbate these situations. While women often have higher intentions to help, more positive attitudes towards helping, and greater perceived behavioral control to help (Hackman et al., 2022), our work highlights specific opportunities that men report among their friends regarding potential alcohol-facilitated SA and specific actions they took in response to these opportunities. Of note, many of the men in the study were inclined and willing to intervene. While unable to be examined in the current study, men’s understanding of consent and bodily autonomy may serve to protect women or to protect their own self-interests, the latter aligning and reinforcing hegemonic systems of power rather than dismantling them (Metz et al., 2021). Interestingly, men in the current study discussed looking out for their friends more so to protect their friends and their friends’ reputations over protecting women; however, we are unable to draw this conclusion concretely given the limited sample and type of analysis. It is important to explore whether affirmative consent and consent education alone will tackle sexual violence or only reinforce strategies such as getting a ‘yes’ out in some way or providing drinks to seduce women (Pascoe & Hollander, 2016).

Among reported victim-focused opportunities, participants described friends withdrawing from the group as a concern. Notably, participants did not describe any verbal or physical cues for intervention before their friend disappeared, suggesting that future work to identify early disappearance signs for primary intervention opportunities would be helpful (McMahon & Banyard, 2012). Further, many of the participants’ friends became sexually disinhibited while drinking, wanting to engage in sexual activity with others. These opportunities highlight important considerations for examining strategies (i.e., alcohol use) people use to enhance their sexual agency, as many college students are at an age of increased exploration of their sexuality and romantic relationships (Lyons et al., 2014). From this developmental perspective, there are socially acceptable ways of being “sexual,” and sexual behaviors while under the influence of alcohol are seen as normal, accepted, and even expected (Alvarez et al., 2021). Thus, participants had to balance these normalized behaviors, their expectations, and their friends’ safety to determine whether or not to intervene.

Actions

Actions reported by participants aligned with Moschella and colleagues’ (2023) ‘3 D’s’ of intervention, including directly confronting the perpetrator, distancing the individual by taking them home, and delegating to others for help (Moschella et al., 2018). Our findings also align with the additional ‘Ds’ of distancing and diffusing (Casper et al., 2023), such that participants described removing friends from potential SA opportunities and communicating with friends. Notably, in the data, diffusion did not occur by telling friends to calm down but by communicating about drinking and sexual intentions and ensuring their friends’ safety throughout the event. Further, monitoring played a part in diffusion, such that participants monitored their friends across both perpetrator- and victim-focused opportunities, either when strangers approached their friend or when friends became sexually disinhibited. Our work expanded actions under ‘diffuse,’ in which all of these actions attempted to diffuse opportunities for SA.

Additionally, our work found a unique area to enhance BI. Particularly among sexual risk opportunities, participants did not report any actions taken and discussed being unable to intervene. However, bringing their friends’ condoms or checking if their friends brought condoms beforehand could be helpful intervention strategies. Encouraging friends to be proactive and use protective behavioral strategies in potential situations of risky sex or sexual violence may be a useful strategy that could prevent SA or negative sexual health outcomes (Treat et al., 2021). Intervention research could enhance this area of sexual risk through educating and promoting types of action bystanders can engage in during sexual risk opportunities.

Further, these sexual risk opportunities highlight an important area of discussion in BI programs for SA: consent. Distinguishing between consensual and non-consensual situations is important for intervening to prevent SA (Labhardt et al., 2017). However, participants did not describe ensuring these situations were consensual, highlighting the need for BI research and programs to include consent content across all situations that involve alcohol and sex, particularly since sex-while-drinking behaviors are normalized.

Barriers

Barriers to intervention described by participants in alcohol-related SA were similar to those found in previous work (e.g., fearing consequences, self-intoxication; Bridges et al., 2021; Exner & Cummings, 2011). Additionally, at the individual level, confusion around consent was shown to influence the intervention process. This finding suggests that BI programs addressing SA should continue to enhance strategies among bystanders to gauge whether situations are consensual in alcohol-facilitated SA. Ambiguous situations impede bystanders’ willingness to intervene, particularly in instances where there is no explicit threat of harm identified (Fischer et al., 2011), which is an important reason the current work aimed to identify opportunities, actions, barriers, and facilitators to intervene in situations of potential alcohol-related SA. Another barrier found at the individual level was the lack of trust and comfort participants had for their friends’ social networks. Participants were concerned when their friends left them and to be around other strangers they did not trust, but participants did not intervene because they did not feel comfortable telling their friends how they felt. Interventions enhancing communication strategies that take these dynamics into consideration would help remove this barrier to intervention, as BI can be a highly influential and communicative process (White & Malkowski, 2014).

At the interpersonal level, participants reported feeling helpless. In many instances, their friends disappeared, and they could not intervene. Identifying early cues that friends may disappear is necessary to inform preventative action, such as communicating with friends about their intentions to leave or who they plan to leave with. Noticing when a friend is becoming distant and taking action to keep them with the friend group is important to prevent potential alcohol-related SA. Additionally, many participants, particularly women, described feeling peer pressured to continue drinking, play games, and have a good time. When women began to feel concerned about a situation, their friends and others present would pressure them to continue drinking and not intervene. Feeling unsupported by peers to intervene or feeling as though peers were not as concerned about the situation is a noted barrier to intervention (Nickerson et al., 2022), and work focusing on these peer norms and how to navigate feelings of peer pressure in situations of potential SA is necessary. Lastly, an interpersonal barrier was not feeling personally responsible for friends, suggesting that interventions should highlight protective behavioral strategies one could use when not being monitored or helped by friends. While much of the literature on protective behavioral strategies focuses on reducing alcohol use, this work can be extended to include strategies to protect against alcohol-related SA when alone at social gatherings (see Treat et al., 2021).

At the societal level, participants felt helpless and powerless due to institutional issues (e.g., dismissal of SA cases), which were a strong barrier to intervention. These findings align with work on institutional betrayal concerning bystander intervention (Duffy et al., 2023). Participants noted that they felt like schools and institutions did not take alcohol-related SA cases seriously, leaving many to feel helpless and powerless in alcohol-related or -facilitated SA situations. Fear of involving law enforcement was reminiscent of prior work identifying issues with reporting and taking cases of SA seriously (Langton, 2014). Despite this well-established finding, results of the current study indicate that more work is necessary to improve responses to victims or potential victims of SA to facilitate future engagement in this intervention behavior. SA prevention and intervention work must be community-based to avoid these negative experiences (Gentile, 2018). Addressing these societal barriers and enhancing appropriate and effective intervention strategies without fear of these issues is imperative.

Facilitators

Participants described facilitators of intervention in alcohol-related SA across the individual and interpersonal levels. At the individual level, these consisted of knowledge of friend’s concerning signals and understanding sex-related risks, such as the risk of STIs. In knowing friends’ concerning signals, participants captured the physical, verbal, and emotional signs displayed. Men specifically described physical signals such as their friends becoming affectionate and being around attractive romantic partners. At the interpersonal level, participants also highlighted the importance of acknowledging consent and personal boundaries (particularly among SGM-identifying participants) and feeling personally responsible for their friends. Encouraging personal responsibility for friends while enhancing strategies that protect against SA (e.g., planning in advance) may facilitate greater intervention behaviors and prevent SA. Notably, participants only identified intervention facilitators at the individual and interpersonal level, presenting a need to explore and promote potential facilitators at the societal level that could help combat the barriers participants have noted in situations of alcohol-related and -facilitated SA.

Altogether, it is clear that components of BI (opportunities, actions, barriers, and facilitators) cannot be discussed separately as they all relate to and influence one another. Opportunities (e.g., friends becoming sexually disinhibited), presented barriers (e.g., not feeling personally responsible for friends), or facilitators (e.g., understanding risks while drinking as a woman) that influenced whether participants intervened (e.g., communicating with friends) or did not intervene (i.e., inaction). We discuss further the implications of our findings as they relate to BI research and programs.

Implications

The current work highlights several implications for BI for alcohol-related SA (including alcohol-facilitated SA). First, BI programs should focus on and promote the early signs for primary intervention in situations where alcohol-related SA may occur. Research indicates that bystanders may be more likely to stop SA that is actively occurring than to intervene earlier (e.g., when someone tells a sexist or sexual objectification joke; Lindegaard et al., 2022). Honing in on instances where bystanders can intervene earlier is necessary. As seen in the current study, participants intervened when their friends became sexual or when men approached them in sexual ways; however, we do not know what preceded these situations (e.g., how many times was their friend offered a drink by a stranger before they intervened?).

Second, the normalization of sex while drinking was a significant barrier to intervention. BI programs should identify concerning sexual behaviors while drinking as early signs for intervention and also acknowledge common drinking and sexual experiences among college students. BI programs should target the risks involved in being sexual while drinking, particularly for women, but should also consider the typical sexual development and exploration of college students. BI programs could promote strategies for friend groups interested in sexual exploration, such as creating plans in advance and communicating with friends throughout the night as intentions change. Further, when friends want to have sex while drinking, BI programs should encourage friend groups to be proactive about their sexual intentions. For example, bring condoms and ensure situations are consensual. Some students discussed their friends’ promiscuity and casual sex while under the influence of alcohol as concerning, and this dilemma is often not discussed in BI training. As the majority of participants did not intervene in situations where their friends were having sex while drinking, BI programs can promote safer sex while drinking.

Third, BI programs for SA should expand to identify and enhance strategies for bystanders to gauge whether situations are consensual or non-consensual. Building trust and comfort within friend groups is necessary to ensure that friends can identify non-consensual situations and effectively communicate concerns. Fourth, BI programs could highlight protective behavioral strategies friends can use together and individually, as friends may disappear or not feel personally responsible for one another. Finally, BI programs should inform better responses to victims or potential victims of SA, inform effective communication strategies to ensure victims’ needs are met, and advocate for societal-level facilitators that promote intervention (e.g., via policy).

Limitations

Findings from the current study should be considered in light of several limitations. First, the study did not explicitly differentiate intervention experiences in alcohol-related versus alcohol-facilitated SA. We wanted to better understand early signs for intervention, actions taken, and barriers and facilitators at the primary level of prevention. However, our inability to parse the differences in intervention outcomes in alcohol-related and -facilitated SA due to secondary data analysis may limit our understanding of the findings. Future work should expand in this area, and the current team will seek to examine these differences in intervention outcomes in future work. Second, while we aimed to represent students across diverse backgrounds, most participants were of Caucasian/White racial/ethnic identity. However, African American/Black participants comprised the next majority of participants. We acknowledge the limitations to generalizing these findings. Third, while we analyzed the data searching for differences in intervention experiences across student groups, additional work is necessary to establish these differences more comprehensively (e.g., within and across groups). For instance, the grouping of all gender-diverse individuals serves as a limitation of the study. Fourth, focus groups and interviews were conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic (November 2021-April 2022), a period that saw significant reductions in drinking among college students (White et al., 2020). Given the qualitative nature of data collection and analysis, we did not conduct analyses to identify whether there were group differences between focus groups made up of 2 people versus 10 people. Inter-rater reliability coefficients were not calculated for code applications due to the straightforward nature of the coding process (i.e., what constitutes an opportunity, action, barrier, and facilitator). Finally, the scope of the study is limited to recommendations for BI programs for friends, not strangers, and does not explore the nuances of friendship such as closeness or duration. Findings from this work are therefore limited in the extent to generalize, and additional work in this area is necessary.

Conclusion

In summary, the current study aimed to examine the experiences of intervention among student bystanders in potential alcohol-related SA. While findings align with previous work, several unique findings and implications were found for policy and advocacy work that reduces societal barriers to intervention and for research that examines these opportunities, actions, barriers, and facilitators in situations that directly led to SA. For intervention programs, focusing on strategies to ensure consensual relationships among friends, to identify concerning situations that may potentially lead to SA, and to intervene before and during SA and during situations of high sexual risk is warranted. Additionally, results highlight the importance of understanding the developmental period of sexual agency among college students while changing norms around drinking and sex across college campuses to be safer.