Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2022 Sep 1.
Published in final edited form as: J Interpers Violence. 2019 May 29;36(17-18):8606–8626. doi: 10.1177/0886260519851222

Male Role Norms, Heavy Drinking, and Bystander Behavior for Sexual Aggression

Ruschelle M Leone 1,2, Dominic J Parrott 1
PMCID: PMC6883136  NIHMSID: NIHMS1057928  PMID: 31140371

Abstract

Bystander training programs have proliferated on college campuses to prevent alcohol and non–alcohol-related sexual aggression. However, many programs fail to address the effects of a bystander’s alcohol use on intervention. This is not surprising due to the limited research examining this association. To this end, the present study examined how heavy drinking and a known correlate of intervention, men’s adherence to traditional masculinity, are jointly and independently associated with bystander behavior in drinking contexts. Participants were 148 community men between the ages of 21 and 30 who completed measures of heavy drinking, adherence to traditional male role norms, and prior bystander behavior in drinking contexts aimed at helping friends and strangers. Hierarchical linear regressions demonstrated that adherence to the belief that men should attain social status was associated with more frequent bystander behavior for friends, whereas adherence to the belief that men should avoid stereotypical feminine activities was associated with less frequent bystander behavior for friends. In addition, the relation between adherence to the belief that men should avoid stereotypical feminine activities and bystander behavior for friends was significant and negative among heavy drinkers but not among non-heavy drinkers. Findings suggest that men who avoid stereotypical feminine activities may be most inhibited from intervening to help friends in party contexts if they are heavy, compared with non-heavy, drinkers. These men are likely consuming alcohol in these party contexts and may benefit from targeted, gender-specific, interventions.

Keywords: bystander intervention, alcohol use, sexual assault, prevention, masculinity

This is happening in broad daylight with hundreds of people seeing and hearing what is happening, and they are more concerned about spilling their beer than somebody being raped. (Sheriff Frank McKeithen of Bay Country, Florida in response to a sexual assault)

—Estep (2015)

Although there are many contexts in which sexual aggression can occur, research has demonstrated sexually aggressive behavior (e.g., unwanted fondling or touching, persistent unwanted sexual advances) is common at bars and parties (Flack et al., 2007; Graham, Bernards, Abbey, Dumas, & Wells, 2017; Graham et al., 2014). Bystanders in drinking contexts can likely play an important role in prevention when witnessing high-risk behaviors that could lead to a sexual assault. However, there exists limited empirical evidence to inform how alcohol use affects bystander behavior (Leone, Haikalis, Parrott, & DiLillo, 2018). Thus, it is not surprising that training programs are just beginning to integrate bystander alcohol use into their efforts (Orchowski et al., 2018; Salazar, Vivolo-Kantor, Hardin, & Berkowitz, 2014; Zinzow et al., 2018). To this end, the aim of the present study was to examine the moderating effects of heavy drinking on the relation between traditional masculinity—which is often a focus of bystander training programs—and bystander behavior in drinking contexts.

Masculinity and Bystander Intervention

Masculinity refers to the external cultural or social standards of manhood that are a function of a particular place or time and sanction masculine performances (Thompson & Bennett, 2015). In other words, these standards dictate how men should behave, feel, or act in gender-salient situations. There exists a robust association between men’s adherence to traditional masculinity and sexual aggression (Murnen, Wright, & Kaluzny, 2002). Thus, some bystander programs aim to challenge conceptions of masculinity that are linked to the derogation of women (Gidycz, Orchowski, & Berkowitz, 2011; Katz, 1995; Orchowski et al., 2018). Indeed, a key focus of one of the first bystander training programs was to facilitate a conversation on “toxic masculinity” and how fears about endangering one’s status and being perceived as weak or feminine silence men from speaking out against violence toward women (Katz, 1995, 2018). Consistent with this focus, it is important to note that masculinity is not monolithic, but rather multiple masculinities exist (Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005). One conceptualization put forth by Thompson and Pleck (1986) identified three distinct facets of traditional masculinity to which men vary in their adherence: (a) Status, which reflects the belief that men must attain social status and respect of others; (b) Toughness, which reflects the expectation that men be physically tough and inclined to be aggressive; and (c) Antifemininity, which reflects the belief that men should not act in stereotypically feminine ways or participate in stereotypically feminine activities.

A growing body of evidence indicates that adherence to these norms is differentially associated with bystander intervention for sexual aggression. For example, in a community sample of men, stronger endorsement of the status norm was associated with more confidence in men’s ability to intervene in sexual aggression; in contrast, stronger endorsement of the toughness and antifemininity norms was associated with less confidence to intervene (Leone, Parrott, Swartout, & Tharp, 2016). In a laboratory study of college men, stronger endorsement of the status norm predicted a decreased likelihood of displaying prosocial bystander behavior when men were exposed to misogynistic, compared with ambiguous, peer norms (Leone & Parrott, 2019a). Together, these data suggest that men who endorse the status norm may feel confident to intervene because enacting dominance over other men is consistent with their high-status masculine identity; however, they may only adopt the role of the “alpha male” if they perceive themselves being in a position of power or authority (Casey & Ohler, 2012). In line with this literature, a qualitative study of 12 college men found that men describe feeling personally responsible, and often emboldened by alcohol, to “save” a woman from the unwanted sexual advances of a male who is outside of their peer group (Oesterle, Orchowski, Moreno, & Berkowitz, 2018). This finding demonstrates that men view themselves as higher on the social hierarchy and are willing to help women who they view as needing protection (Oesterle et al., 2018). However, consistent with prior work (Leone & Parrott, 2019a), this effect may be context dependent such that situations in which men’s status is at a greater social risk, including around peers who derogate women, reduce the likelihood that men will intervene.

While endorsement of the status norm may promote intervention, endorsement of the toughness and antifemininity norms likely inhibit bystander behavior due to men’s expectation of negative consequences. Indeed, recent research suggests that adherence to the toughness norm was associated with greater perceived negative consequences for intervention (Leone et al., 2016). Furthermore, men report fears that intervening in sexual aggression will make them appear less masculine or too sensitive to their male peers (Carlson, 2008; Katz, 2018). Some men report that talking about being offended by other’s language or violence against women is perceived as weak and contradicts norms of masculinity (Casey & Ohler, 2012). Similarly, qualitative data suggest that discussing sexual aggression with male peers is difficult due to fear of being perceived as “weak” (i.e., not tough) or “gay” (i.e., feminine) (McMahon & Dick, 2011). Collectively, this growing body of evidence indicates that there is a differential pattern of association between specific facets of traditional masculinity and bystander behavior; however, these effects are likely context dependent and thus identifying potential moderating variables is needed to inform intervention programming.

Alcohol Use as an Inhibitor and Facilitator of Bystander Behavior

The integrative theoretical framework for alcohol-related bystander behavior advanced by Leone and colleagues (2018) can be useful in explaining how alcohol may impact bystander behavior. The model combines the decision-making model of bystander behavior (Latané & Darley, 1970) and the attention-allocation model of Alcohol Myopia Theory (Steele & Josephs, 1990). The decision-making model (Latané & Darley, 1970) purports that bystanders must go through five stages to intervene: they must (a) notice the event, (b) interpret it as high-risk, (c) develop a feeling of personal responsibility, (d) decide how to help, and (e) choose to act. At each stage of the decision-making model, bystanders may be ineffective at helping due to barriers that interfere with one’s ability to help. Alcohol Myopia Theory posits that the pharmacological properties of alcohol narrow attentional capacity and restrict the internal and external cues which individuals perceive and process (Steele & Josephs, 1990). As a result, individuals allocate or shift their attentional focus to the most salient, immediate, and easy to process cues in the environment, to the exclusion of less salient cues. In this regard, alcohol intoxication may increase bystander intervention to the extent that salient cues promote intervention and inhibit intervention to the extent that salient sues discourage intervention.

The integrative framework (Leone et al., 2018) suggests that the pharmacological effects of alcohol may pose additional barriers to intervention at multiple steps of the decision-making model among certain individuals who are otherwise prepared to help. Pertinent to the present study, a bystander may decide not to help because of fear of negative reappraisal from their peers (Step 5; Burn, 2009). In heavy drinking settings—where bystanders are likely consuming alcohol themselves—there is a robust association between alcohol and sexual activities (Lindgren, Pantalone, Lewis, & George, 2009). To this end, men may feel pressure to adhere to masculine norms to which they proscribe. Alcohol intoxication likely facilitates their attention to salient masculine-relevant cues, strengthening this association.

Despite high-rates of alcohol-related sexual aggression (Abbey, 2002), scholars have just begun to examine the distal and proximal effects of alcohol use on bystanders (Fleming & Wiersma-Mosley, 2015; Leone et al., 2018; Oesterle et al., 2018; Orchowski, Berkowitz, Boggis, & Oesterle, 2016). Studies examining the distal effects of alcohol suggest that a pattern of heavy drinking, compared with non-heavy drinking, is associated with less willingness (Orchowski et al., 2016) and a lower likelihood (Fleming & Wiersma-Mosley, 2015) to intervene in sexual aggression. A recent laboratory-based study examining the acute effects of alcohol demonstrated that alcohol intoxication decreases the likelihood and speed of intervention among men who reported intentions to help (Leone & Parrott, 2019b). In other words, men who are willing to help prevent sexual aggression are the most susceptible to the inhibiting effects of alcohol (Leone & Parrott, 2019b). Recent qualitative data indicate that alcohol may be a barrier to intervention by focusing one’s attention to salient cues in the environment (e.g., socializing or seeking sexual partners) at the exclusion of less salient sexual risk cues (Oesterle et al., 2018). Conversely, men in this study also reported that alcohol can at times promote intervention by providing liquid courage to act like “superman and step in and try to save the day” (Oesterle et al., 2018). Collectively, this work suggests that the extent to which alcohol inhibits or facilitates bystander behavior is dependent on the cues which are most salient in the immediate environment.

Theoretical Integration

Extant theory and research suggest that men who adhere to norms which dictate that they should be tough and aggressive (i.e., toughness) and should avoid stereotypical feminine activities (i.e., antifemininity) will be less likely to engage in bystander behavior due to fears of being perceived as weak or sensitive (Abbey, 2002) Conversely, men who adhere to norms which dictate that they must attain social status and the respect of others will be more likely to engage in bystander behavior as a means to affirm and demonstrate their masculinity to others, albeit only in certain contexts (Leone & Parrott, 2019a). However, all of these associations are likely moderated by heavy drinking. Indeed, heavy drinkers are more likely to be intoxicated in contexts where they have an opportunity to intervene in sexual aggression. Consistent with this assertion, victims of sexual assault reported that 88% of bystanders present prior to their assault were consuming alcohol (Haikalis, Leone, Parrott, & DiLillo, 2018). Although heavy drinkers are likely to have more opportunities to intervene than non-heavy drinkers, extant research suggests that they may be less confident or likely to do so (Fleming & Wiersma-Mosley, 2015; Oesterle et al., 2018; Orchowski et al., 2016). In accordance with Alcohol Myopia Theory, this effect is posited to be due to the proximal effects of alcohol on attentional processes. Specifically, intoxicated men are posited to allocate their attention such that they perceive and process only the most salient cues in their environment (e.g., threats or affirmations to their masculine status) to the exclusion of less salient cues (e.g., sexual disinterest of woman, long-term consequences). Thus, heavy drinkers will likely experience more barriers to intervention across the decision-making model (Latané & Darley, 1970), decreasing their likelihood of intervention in drinking contexts. Conversely, because non-heavy drinkers will tend to be sober (or have consumed alcohol in small doses), they are posited to largely retain the ability to allocate attention toward both salient and non-salient cues in their environment.

The Present Study

To our knowledge, only one study has examined the intersection of masculinity, alcohol use, and bystander intervention (Orchowski et al., 2016). This investigation demonstrated that men who drank heavily and had more traditional views about masculinity reported that they were less likely to intervene in sexual aggression. The present study extends these findings in three key ways by (a) adopting a multidimensional conceptualization of masculinity, (b) measuring self-reported bystander behavior as an outcome (as opposed to likelihood to intervene), and (c) measuring bystander behaviors in drinking contexts that aim to help either friends or strangers. Notably, extant research has examined how one’s relationship to a potential victim may impact intervention. While some research suggests bystanders are more likely to help friends than strangers (Katz, Pazienza, Olin, & Rich, 2015), other studies have found no difference (Branch, Richards, & Dretsch, 2013). Thus, we make no specific predictions on how bystander behavior toward friends and strangers may differ. To this end, the following hypotheses were advanced.

  • Hypothesis 1: Adherence to the toughness and antifemininity norms would be associated with less bystander behavior, whereas adherence to the status norm would be associated with more bystander behavior.

  • Hypothesis 2: Heavy drinking would be associated with less bystander behavior.

  • Hypothesis 3: Heavy drinking would moderate the association between adherence to these male role norms and bystander behavior. Specifically, the hypothesized relations between adherence to male role norms and bystander behavior would be stronger among heavy-drinking, compared with non-heavy drinking, men.

Method

The present study was drawn from a larger two-session laboratory-based study on acute alcohol intoxication and bystander intervention (Leone & Parrott, 2019b). Thus, all participants who presented to the laboratory reported that they had consumed alcohol during the past year (see below). Hypotheses tested herein are novel and the analytic plan was developed specifically to address these aims.

Participants

Men between the ages of 21 and 30 were recruited from the metro-Atlanta community through Internet advertisements and flyers. Respondents were initially screened by telephone to confirm that on at least three occasions in the past year, they had consumed a quantity of alcohol that would result in intoxication. Those who reported past or present attempts to seek treatment for an alcohol or substance use disorder, a psychiatric disorder, a serious head injury, or a condition in which alcohol is medically contraindicated were also excluded.

Upon arrival to the laboratory, participants’ age was confirmed and self-reported drinking patterns were also re-assessed. Three participants were removed for not completing pertinent questionnaires. This resulted in a final sample of 148 men (age M = 23.99, SD = 2.59). More than half of participants self-identified as White (54.1%), 23.6% identified as Black or African American, 12.2% identified with more than one race, 7.4% identified as Asian, and 2.7% identified with another racial description. The sample had an average of 16.38 years of education and 43.2% were full-time college students. Participants on average earned US$35,861 a year. Men reported consuming an average of 4.07 (SD = 1.99) alcoholic drinks per drinking day approximately 2.19 (SD = 1.54) days per week. Approximately 87% had never been married. This study was approved by the university’s Institutional Review Board.

Measures

Demographic form.

This form obtained information such as age, self-identified sexual orientation, racial identity, relationship status, years of education, and yearly family income.

Heavy drinking.

Participants’ alcohol use during the past year was assessed with the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism’s (2003) recommended set of six self-report alcohol consumption questions. Two aspects of participants’ alcohol use were of particular interest in the present study: participants’ frequency of alcohol consumption during the past year and average quantity of drinks per drinking day during the past year. Frequency of alcohol consumption was assessed with the question, “During the last 12 months, how often did you usually have any kind of drink containing alcohol?” A categorical response ranging from “everyday” to “I never drank alcohol in my whole life” was provided and used to obtain participants total number of drinking days during the past year. Average quantity of alcohol consumption during the past year was assessed with the question, “During the last 12 months, how many alcoholic drinks did you have on a typical day when you drank alcohol?” A categorical range of responses from “1 drink” to “25 or more drinks” was provided (e.g., three to four drinks, five to six drinks). Total scores were obtained by computing the average number of drinks in each range. For example, if a participant indicated a response of “9-11” drinks per drinking occasion, his average quantity of alcohol consumption would be “10.” This strategy reliably assesses an individual’s average quantity of alcohol consumption per drinking day over a specific period of time (for a review, see Sobell & Sobell, 2003). Heavy drinking was operationalized by standardizing and summing participants’ frequency of alcohol consumption and average quantity of drinks per drinking day during the past year; higher scores reflected a greater pattern of heavy drinking during the past year.

Traditional masculinity.

The Male Role Norms Scale (Thompson & Pleck, 1986) is a 26-item Likert-type scale that assesses men’s endorsement of three dimensions of traditional masculine ideology: Status (e.g., “I always like a man who’s totally sure of himself”), Toughness (e.g., “I think that a young man should try to become physically tough, even if he’s not big”), and Antifemininity (e.g., “It bothers me when a man does something that I consider ‘feminine’”). Participants rate items on a 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) scale, with higher scores reflecting greater adherence to the three dimensions of masculinity. The current investigation examined the status, toughness, and antifemininity subscales represented with 11, 8, and 7 items, respectively, and individual scores were computed as means. These subscales have acceptable reliability, with alpha coefficients ranging from .74 and .81 in standardization samples (Thompson & Pleck, 1986), which was consistent with the present sample (Status: α = .82, Toughness: α = .78, Antifemininity: α = .84).

Bystander behavior.

The Bystander Behavior Scale (Banyard, Moynihan, Cares, & Warner, 2014) is a 44-item Likert-type scale that measures bystander behaviors for sexual and relationship abuse within the past 2 months. Participants are asked to indicate whether they had engaged in each behavior separately for friends and strangers (0 = no, 1 = yes). In the present study, only the 6-item Party Safety subscale was examined for both friends and strangers. This subscale assesses bystander behavior to prevent sexual aggression or unwanted behavior directed toward friends or strangers that may take place at a party (e.g., “I made sure I left the party with the same people I came with”). Thus, relative to other subscales (i.e., risky situation, access resources, proactive behavior), the Party Safety subscale most closely aligns with the aim to examine bystander behavior in alcohol-related contexts. A total score was used, with higher scores corresponding to more frequent bystander behaviors during the past 2 months. The authors report good internal consistency (friends α = .87, strangers α = .79), which is consistent with the present sample (friends α =.84, strangers α = .72).

Procedure

Upon arrival to the laboratory, all participants were led to a private testing room. After providing informed consent, participants completed the questionnaire battery on a computer using Qualtrics. To disguise the true aims of the study, additional questionnaires not pertinent to the aims were administered. After completion of the questionnaire battery, participants who were ineligible for the second session were compensated and thanked for their time. The remaining participants were scheduled for the second session of the study and compensated upon completing that session.

Results

Preliminary Analyses

Sample descriptive and correlations between study variables are presented in Table 1. Age was significantly and negatively correlated with bystander behavior toward friends and thus included as a covariate in regression models. Status was positively and significantly associated with heavy drinking. All three male role norms were positively and significantly correlated. Bystander behaviors toward friends and strangers were positively and significantly correlated. Antifemininity was negatively correlated with bystander behavior toward friends.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics and Correlations for Study Variables.

Variable M SD 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. Age 23.99 2.59 .06 −.23** −.01 .12 −.10 −.03
2. Heavy drinking — — .01 −.05 .15 .19* .09
3. Party safety friends 3.28 2.21 .45** −.05 .11 −.18*
4. Party safety strangers 0.73 1.25 .05 .06 −.12
5. Toughness 2.77 0.76 .58** .56**
6. Status 2.99 0.71 .55**
7. Antifemininity 1.87 0.74
Open in a new tab

Note. Heavy drinking is comprised of two aspects of participants’ alcohol use: (a) frequency of alcohol consumption in the past year (Mdays = 114.12, SDdays = 79.87) and (b) average quantity of drinks per drinking day (M = 4.07, SD = 1.99) during the past year. These scores were standardized and summed, and thus the mean and standard deviation for this variable are not reported, as they are not meaningful.

*

p = .05.

**

p = .01.

Analytic Plan

To test study hypotheses, hierarchical linear regressions were performed separately for each norm in accordance with the procedures outlined by Frazier, Tix, and Barron (2004). Party safety aimed at helping friends or strangers were examined separately. For each model, Step 1 included age, the three male role norm, and heavy drinking. Step 2 included the relevant Male Role Norm x Heavy Drinking interaction. This resulted in six full models (three for helping friends, three for helping strangers), each with six variables.

Prior to computing regression models, scores for male role norms were z-transformed to reduce multicollinearity between the interaction term and its constituent lower order terms and improve the interpretability of regression equations. Furthermore, the computation of interactions with raw scores yields incorrect regression coefficients because they are not scale invariant. Interaction terms were then calculated by obtaining cross-products of pertinent first-order variables.

Test of Hypotheses

Helping friends.

In Step 1, the regression model was significant, F(5,147) = 4.40, p = .001. Results revealed a significant main effect of status and antifemininity on bystander behavior toward friends. Consistent with Hypothesis 1, this finding indicated that adherence to the status norm was associated with more frequent bystander behavior whereas adherence to the antifemininity norm was associated with less frequent bystander behavior. No other main effects were detected.

In Step 2 of the models that included the Status × Heavy Drinking and Toughness × Heavy Drinking interactions (Hypothesis 3), the models remained significant, F(6, 147) = 3.65, p < .002; F(6, 147) = 3.67, p < .002, respectively. However, neither model accounted for a significant amount of additional variance in bystander behavior. No significant interactions were detected.

In Step 2 of the model that included the Antifemininity × Heavy Drinking interaction (Hypothesis 3), the model remained significant and explained a significant amount of additional variance in bystander behavior, F(6, 147) = 4.405, p < .002, R2Δ = .02. As depicted in Table 2, a significant Antifemininity × Heavy Drinking interaction was detected, b = −.27, p = .048, 95% confidence interval (CI) = [−.54, −.003]. Examination of simple slopes revealed that the relation between antifemininity and bystander behavior toward friends was significant and negative among heavy drinkers (b = −1.01, p < .001, 95% CI = [−1.52, −.51]) but not significant among non-heavy drinkers (b = −47, p = .074, 95% CI = [−98, .05]). In other words, adherence to the antifemininity norm was associated with significantly less frequent intervention among heavy drinkers but not among non-heavy drinkers (see Figure 1).

Table 2.

Hierarchical Linear Regression for the Moderating Effects of Heavy Drinking on the Relation Between Antifemininity and Bystander Behavior Toward Friends.

b SE 95% CI p
Model 1
 Age −.20 .07 [−0.31, −0.03] .014
 Heavy drinking .00 .12 [−0.24, 0.24] .990
 Status .27 .23 [0.15, 1.06] .010
 Toughness .00 .23 [−0.46, 0.46] .998
 Antifemininity −.34 .22 [−1.19, −0.31] .001
Model 3
 Age −.19 .07 [−0.30, −0.03] .017
 Heavy drinking −.02 .12 [−0.26, 0.21] .873
 Status .26 .23 [0.12, 1.02] .013
 Toughness .02 .22 [−0.41, 0.50] .835
 Antifemininity −.34 .22 [−1.12, −0.31] .001
 Heavy Drinking × Antifemininity −.16 .14 [−0.54, −0.00] .048
Open in a new tab

Note. CI = confidence interval.

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Open in a new tab

The moderating effects of heavy drinking on the relation between adherence to antifemininity and bystander behavior.

Note. Simple slopes are graphed at 1SD above and below the mean.

Helping strangers.

In Step 1, the regression model was not significant, F(5,147) = 1.53, p = .185. Results revealed a significant main effect of antifemininity on bystander behavior toward strangers. Consistent with Hypothesis 1, this finding indicated that adherence to the antifemininity norm was associated with less frequent bystander behavior. No other main effects were detected. Step 2 of the models that included the Status × Heavy Drinking interaction, F(6, 147) = 1.26, p = .278, Toughness × Heavy Drinking interaction, F(6, 147) = 1.30, p = .263, and Antifemininity × Heavy Drinking interaction, F(6, 147) = 1.55, p = .166, (Hypothesis 3) were not significant. No significant interactions were detected.

Discussion

The aim of the present study was to examine the moderating effect of heavy drinking on the relation between traditional masculinity and bystander behavior in drinking contexts. We extended prior research by adopting a multidimensional conceptualization of masculinity and measuring self-reported bystander behavior for friends and strangers as an outcome (as opposed to likelihood to intervene). Hypotheses were partially supported and suggest that (a) traditional norms of masculinity differentially predict bystander behavior toward friends, but not strangers, in drinking and (b) stronger endorsement of the antifemininity norm is associated with less frequent intervention for friends among heavy drinkers but not among non-heavy drinkers.

Consistent with Hypothesis 1, results indicate that adherence to the status norm is associated with more frequent bystander behavior toward friends, whereas adherence to the antifemininity norm is associated with less frequent bystander behavior toward friends. These results extend past research linking adherence to male role norms to bystander attitudes in a sample of college men (Leone et al., 2016). The present findings suggest that men who adhere to the belief that men should avoid feminine activities are less likely to intervene to prevent sexual aggression, perhaps because they view preventing sexual aggression as a women’s responsibility and fear that intervention will lead to emasculation by their peers. In other words, these men may be most impacted by barriers at Step 3 (failure to develop a sense of personal responsibility) and Step 4 (failure to intervene due to audience inhibition) of the decision-making model (Latané & Darley, 1970). Conversely, men who adhere to the belief than men should attain social status are more likely to intervene in party situations. These men likely view themselves as the “alpha” male (Carlson, 2008) and believe that speaking out or confronting another’s behavior maintains their position on the social hierarchy. In drinking contexts, men high in status may view themselves as the “white knight” who can intervene to protect an intoxicated woman, who are often viewed as “easy targets” for sexual aggression (Graham et al., 2014). It may be that this effect is accounted for by benevolent sexism, which reflects men’s idealization and chivalrous attitudes toward women who fit gender stereotypes (Glick & Fiske, 1996, 1997). Future research should account for this construct.

Results also demonstrated that heavy drinking exacerbated the negative association between adherence to the antifemininity norm and bystander intervention toward friends in drinking contexts. In keeping with Alcohol Myopia Theory (Steele & Josephs, 1990), the pharmacological effects of alcohol likely focus the attention of intoxicated men who adhere to this norm toward (a) beliefs that they should not act in stereotypical feminine ways—including engaging in helping behavior—and (b) concerns about risks to their masculinity identity, to the exclusion of less salient cues. Thus, these data suggest that alcohol-induced myopia magnifies men’s perception of risks to their masculine—and specifically antifeminine—identity. With such a heightened focus on reasons not to intervene, heavy drinking men who strongly endorse the antifemininity norm are especially unlikely to engage in bystander intervention toward friends in drinking contexts. In particular, these men may progress through noticing (Step 1) and interpreting the situation as high-risk (Step 2), developing a personal sense of responsibility (Step 3), but stop short at deciding to help (Step 4) because their attention is focused on the social consequences of intervention.

It is somewhat perplexing that heavy drinking was not independently associated bystander behavior in drinking contexts. This is in conflict with research which suggests that heavy drinking men have lower prosocial bystander attitudes (Fleming & Wiersma-Mosley, 2015; Orchowski et al., 2016). It is plausible that this difference is because the present study measured prior bystander behavior whereas related studies measured bystander attitudes or intentions. Notably, recent work suggests that alcohol alone may not deter bystander intervention; rather, alcohol may be particularly likely to inhibit intervention behavior as a function of relevant individual characteristics (Leone & Parrott, 2019b).

Somewhat surprisingly, alcohol did not moderate the association between toughness or status and bystander behavior in drinking contexts. Moreover, contrary to prior research on bystander attitudes (Leone et al., 2016), analyses did not detect an association between adherence to the toughness norm and bystander behavior. These null findings may best be understood by taking into account how adherence, and thus expression, of masculinity is context dependent (Leone & Parrott, 2015). For example, some contexts call for men to be tough, whereas others may call for men to be independent. Thus, it may be that in drinking contexts where men often go to “pick up women” (Wells, Graham, & Tremblay, 2009), concerns related to antifemininity are more salient than attaining social status or appearing tough to peers. Such concerns to appear masculine are further exacerbated when intoxicated. Fears related to intervening in another man’s sexual conquest may be especially threatening to manhood among those who adhere to the antifemininity norm, as getting called out as a “wuss” may far exceed not maintaining one’s position on the social hierarchy or tough guy image. Moreover, in party contexts men are often encouraged to drink, and to do so in large quantities, or their masculinity is called into question by peers (Carlson, 2008). In other words, avoidance of appearing feminine in front of peers may be most salient in party contexts where pressures to drink and engage in sexual behavior are paramount.

Consistent with some prior research (Katz et al., 2015), the aforementioned effects were only detected for bystander behaviors directed toward friends, not strangers. Bystanders may feel more confident or skilled intervening when a potential victim of sexual aggression is a friend or have more opportunities to help friends. Consistent with this literature, the mean number of behaviors performed was higher overall for intervention for friends compared with strangers. It is unclear if this difference is a result of lack of opportunity; however, men may have felt more confident in their abilities to intervene or responsible to help a friend compared with a stranger. In other words, there may be fewer barriers to intervention with friends (Burn, 2009). However, other research does not support this view (Banyard, 2008; Katz et al., 2015), which points to the possibility that various individual-level factors (e.g., heavy drinking, adherence to the antifemininity norm), account for these differences. All told, it seems clear that future research is needed to understand how the bystander’s relationship with the victim influences the extent to which individual-level factors predict bystander behavior.

Limitations

Several limitations warrant discussion. First, due to the cross-sectional design of the study, temporal or causal conclusions about the variables under investigation cannot be confirmed and should be considered tentative. Second, although we measured men’s tendency to engage in heavy drinking, it is unclear whether bystanders were actually drinking in the assessed party contexts and thus inhibited from intervening due to the pharmacological effects of alcohol. Indeed, the present study’s cross-sectional design and reliance on self-report data limit our ability to draw conclusions that directly link acute alcohol use to intervention behavior. To address this limitation and confirm the observed pattern of effects, future research would benefit from using experimental paradigms (e.g., Leone & Parrott, 2019b). Third, the measure of bystander behavior did not take into account opportunity to intervene. Thus, it remains unclear if individuals did not report engaging in bystander behavior because they did not have the opportunity or because they had the opportunity but were obstructed by a barrier to intervention (e.g., did not notice risk). Future research would benefit from assessing both opportunities to intervene and then whether or not bystanders intervened in response to those opportunities. Fourth, the present study used a sample of community men, and these findings may not necessarily generalize to all college students. For example, prior research suggests year in college can impact bystander attitudes and behaviors (Brown, Banyard, & Moynihan, 2014). Furthermore, given cross-cultural variations in masculinity (Hsu & Iwamoto, 2014), future research is needed to determine how culture-specific masculine norms may impact intervention and what barriers may prevent intervention across cultures.

Future Directions and Implications

Limitations notwithstanding, the present study adds to the small but growing literature on the effects of alcohol use on bystander intervention. More research is needed to elucidate how bystanders intervene when they are intoxicated and whether their tactics vary from when they are sober. For example, it is well-documented that alcohol is a contributing cause of aggression (Parrott & Eckhardt, 2018). Given this, are intoxicated bystanders more likely to use aggressive intervention strategies or nonaggressive intervention strategies (e.g., eliciting help from others)? In addition, although men warrant particular attention because they are less likely to intervene and experience more barriers (e.g., Amar, Strout, Simpson, Cardiello, & Beckford, 2014; Burn, 2009), research has yet to examine the distal or proximal effects of alcohol on women’s bystander behavior. Intervention programming has already begun to capitalize on women’s naturally occurring friends as a mechanism to prevent sexual aggression (Blayney, Jenzer, Read, Livingston, & Testa, 2018) and gaining a better understanding of how alcohol interferes with this process is an important next step.

The present findings may be seen as supporting calls for more engagement in gender-based violence programming with a single-sex group composition (Katz, 2018). However, Coker (2018) highlighted the challenges faced in this work. Importantly, it is not always feasible in certain settings to have singlesex training and men are not as likely as women to attend and complete trainings (Coker, 2018). Single-sex trainings may be appropriate in some settings (e.g., sports teams) and exclusionary in others (e.g., schools) where individuals do not fit into the gender binary. A recent meta-analysis of bystander training program outcomes (i.e., attitudes, beliefs, behavior) demonstrated that single-sex prevention programs do not differ from mixed-sex groups, with one exception; there was no effect on bystander behavior for single-sex groups (Jouriles, Krauss, Vu, Banyard, & McDonald, 2018). Despite these logistical challenges, results from the present study provide evidence that specific norms about traditional masculinity should be challenged to encourage men, who may be inhibited by alcohol, to intervene. Given these differential effects, it appears especially important for programming efforts to consider the unique facets of masculinity that may impact behavior, rather than using a monolithic conceptualization.

As outlined by Leone and colleagues (2018), despite current limited evidence on the effects of alcohol on bystander intervention, training programs should consider targeting bystander’s alcohol use. Researchers are just beginning to critically and rigorously evaluate programs that do take alcohol use of bystanders into effect, with promising results (Orchowski et al., 2018). The present results highlight that heavy drinking men who hold certain beliefs about masculinity may be an especially beneficial population to target. There are undoubtedly many other factors that interact with heavy drinking to predict intervention. Identifying these factors is vital in continuing to refine training programs to reduce the prevalence of sexual aggression.

Acknowledgments

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported by National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism grant F31-AA-024369 awarded to Ruschelle M. Leone.

Biography

Ruschelle M. Leone, MA, is a clinical psychology doctoral candidate at Georgia State University. She is currently completing her internship at the Medical University of South Carolina. Her research is focused on identifying the dispositional (e.g., adherence to traditional masculinity) and situational (e.g., peer norms) factors that interact with alcohol to predict violence against women. She is particularly interested in the intersection of alcohol use, bystander intervention, and sexual aggression.

Dominic J. Parrott, PhD, is a professor of psychology (clinical) and director of the Center for Research on Interpersonal Violence at Georgia State University. His research uses laboratory and survey methods to examine risk factors and mechanisms for aggression perpetration, with a particular emphasis on the effects of alcohol on intimate partner violence (IPV), aggression toward sexual minorities, and sexual aggression. An end goal of his research program is to inform directly the development of interventions that prevent or reduce alcohol-related violence.

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.

References

  1. Abbey A (2002). Alcohol-related sexual assault: A common problem among college students. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 14, 118–128. doi: 10.15288/jsas.2002.s14.118 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Amar AF, Strout TD, Simpson S, Cardiello M, & Beckford S (2014). Administrators’ perceptions of college campus protocols, response, and student prevention efforts for sexual assault. Violence and Victims, 29, 579–593. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Banyard VL (2008). Measurement and correlates of prosocial bystander behavior: The case of interpersonal violence. Violence and Victims, 23, 83–97. doi: 10.1891/0886-6708.23.1.83 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Banyard VL, Moynihan MM, Cares AC, & Warner R (2014). How do we know if it works? Measuring outcomes in bystander-focused abuse prevention on campuses. Psychology of Violence, 4, 101–115. doi: 10.1037/a0033470 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  5. Blayney JA, Jenzer T, Read JP, Livingston JA, & Testa M (2018). Enlisting friends to reduce sexual victimization risk: There’s an app for that… but nobody uses it. Journal of American College Health, 66, 767–773. doi: 10.1080/07448481.2018.1446439 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Branch KA, Richards TN, & Dretsch EC (2013). An exploratory analysis of college students’ response and reporting behavior regarding intimate partner violence victimization and perpetration among their friends. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 28, 3386–3399. doi: 10.1177/0886260513504494 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Brown AL, Banyard VL, & Moynihan MM (2014). College students as helpful bystanders against sexual violence: Gender, race, and year in college moderate the impact of perceived peer norms. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 38, 350–362. doi: 10.1177/0361684314526855 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  8. Burn SM (2009). A situational model of sexual assault prevention through bystander intervention. Sex Roles, 60, 779–792. doi: 10.1007/s11199-008-9581-5 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  9. Carlson M (2008). I’d rather go along and be considered a man: Masculinity and bystander intervention. The Journal of Men’s Studies, 16, 3–17. [Google Scholar]
  10. Casey EA, & Ohler K (2012). Being a positive bystander: Male antiviolence allies’ experiences of “stepping up.” Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27, 62–83. doi: 10.1177/0886260511416479 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Coker AL (2018). Commentary on Katz’s bystander training as leadership training. Violence Against Women, 25, 1777–1784. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Connell RW, & Messerschmidt JW (2005). Hegemonic masculinity—Rethinking the concept. Gender & Society, 19, 829–859. doi: 10.1177/0891243205278639 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  13. Estep T (2015, April 16). Suspect in spring break gang rape arrested in DeKalb County. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Retrieved from https://www.wsbradio.com/news/suspect-spring-break-gang-rape-arrested-dekalb-county/vIzFr7iWw9ANeClHZHK96H/ [Google Scholar]
  14. Flack WF Jr., Daubman KA, Caron ML, Asadorian JA, D’Aureli NR, Gigliotti SN, … Stine ER (2007). Risk factors and consequences of unwanted sex among university students: Hooking up, alcohol, and stress response. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 22, 139–157. doi: 10.1177/0886260506295354 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Fleming WM, & Wiersma-Mosley JD (2015). The role of alcohol consumption patterns and pro-social bystander interventions in contexts of gender violence. Violence Against Women, 21, 1259–1283. doi: 10.1177/1077801215592721 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Frazier PA, Tix AP, & Barron KE (2004). Testing Moderator and Mediator Effects in Counseling Psychology Research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51, 115–134. doi: 10.1037/0022-0167.51.1.115 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  17. Gidycz CA, Orchowski LM, & Berkowitz AD (2011). Preventing sexual aggression among college men: An evaluation of a social norms and bystander intervention program. Violence Against Women, 17, 720–742. doi: 10.1177/1077801211409727 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Glick P, & Fiske ST (1996). The ambivalent sexism inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 491–512. [Google Scholar]
  19. Glick P, & Fiske ST (1997). Hostile and benevolent sexism: Measuring ambivalent sexist attitudes toward women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 119–135. [Google Scholar]
  20. Graham K, Bernards S, Abbey A, Dumas TM, & Wells S (2017). When women do not want it: Young female bargoers’ experiences with and responses to sexual harassment in social drinking contexts. Violence Against Women, 23, 1419–1441. doi: 10.1177/1077801216661037 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Graham K, Bernards S, Osgood DW, Abbey A, Parks M, Flynn A, … Wells S (2014). Blurred lines?” Sexual aggression and barroom culture. Alcoholism: Clinical & Experimental Research, 38, 1416–1424. doi: 10.1111/acer.12356 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Haikalis M, Leone RM, Parrott DJ, & DiLillo D (2018). Sexual assault survivor reports of missed bystander opportunities: The role of alcohol, sexual objectification, and relational factors. Violence Against Women, 24, 1232–1254. doi: 10.1177/1077801218781941 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Hsu K, & Iwamoto DK (2014). Testing for measurement invariance in the Conformity to Masculine Norms-46 across White and Asian American college men: Development and validity of the CMNI-29. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 15, 397–406. doi: 10.1037/a0034548 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Jouriles EN, Krauss A, Vu NL, Banyard VL, & McDonald R (2018). Bystander programs addressing sexual violence on college campuses: A systematic review and meta-analysis of program outcomes and delivery methods. Journal of American College Health, 66, 457–466. doi: 10.1080/07448481.2018.1431906 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Katz J (1995). Reconstructing masculinity in the locker-room—The Mentors in Violence Prevention Project. Harvard Educational Review, 65, 163–174. doi: 10.17763/haer.65.2.55533188520136u1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  26. Katz J (2018). Bystander training as leadership training: Notes on the origins, philosophy, and pedagogy of the Mentors in Violence Prevention model. Violence Against Women, 24, 1755–1776. doi: 10.1177/1077801217753322 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Katz J, Pazienza R, Olin R, & Rich H (2015). That’s what friends are for: Bystander responses to friends or strangers at risk for party rape victimization. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 30, 2775–2792. doi: 10.1177/0886260514554290 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Latané B, & Darley J (1970). The unresponsive bystander: Why doesn’t he help? Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. [Google Scholar]
  29. Leone RM, Haikalis M, Parrott DJ, & DiLillo D (2018). Bystander intervention to prevent sexual violence: The overlooked role of bystander alcohol intoxication. Psychology of Violence, 8, 639–647. doi: 10.1037/vio0000155 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Leone RM, & Parrott D (2019a). Misogynistic peers, masculinity, and bystander intervention for sexual aggression: Is it really just “locker-room talk?” Aggressive Behavior, 45, 42–51. doi: 10.1002/ab.21795 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Leone RM, & Parrott DJ (2019b). Acute alcohol intoxication inhibits bystander intervention behavior for sexual aggression among men with high intent to help. Alcoholism: Clinical & Experimental Research, 43, 170–179. doi: 10.1111/acer.13920 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Leone RM, & Parrott DJ (2015). Dormant masculinity: Moderating effects of acute alcohol intoxication on the relation between male role norms and antigay aggression. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 16, 183–194. doi: 10.1037/a0036427 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Leone RM, Parrott DJ, Swartout KM, & Tharp AT (2016). Masculinity and bystander attitudes: Moderating effects of masculine gender role stress. Psychology of Violence, 6, 82–90. doi: 10.1037/a0038926 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Lindgren KP, Pantalone DW, Lewis MA, & George WH (2009). College students’ perceptions about alcohol and consensual sexual behavior: Alcohol leads to sex. Journal of Drug Education, 39, 1–21. doi: 10.2190/DE.39.1.a [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. McMahon S, & Dick A (2011). “Being in a room with like-minded men”: An exploratory study of men’s participation in a bystander intervention program to prevent intimate partner violence. The Journal of Men’s Studies, 19, 3–18. [Google Scholar]
  36. Murnen SK, Wright C, & Kaluzny G (2002). If “boys will be boys,” then girls will be victims? A meta-analytic review of the research that relates masculine ideology to sexual aggression. Sex Roles, 46, 359–375. [Google Scholar]
  37. National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. (2003). National Council on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism recommended sets of alcohol consumption questions. Retrieved from https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/research/guidelines-and-resources/recommended-alcohol-questions
  38. Oesterle DW, Orchowski LM, Moreno O, & Berkowitz A (2018). A qualitative analysis of bystander intervention among heavy-drinking college men. Violence Against Women, 24, 1207–1231. doi: 10.1177/1077801218781931 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Orchowski LM, Barnett NP, Berkowitz A, Borsari B, Oesterle D, & Zlotnick C (2018). Sexual assault prevention for heavy drinking college men: Development and feasibility of an integrated approach. Violence Against Women, 24, 1369–1396. doi: 10.1177/1077801218787928 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Orchowski LM, Berkowitz A, Boggis J, & Oesterle D (2016). Bystander intervention among college men: The role of alcohol and correlates of sexual aggression. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 31, 2824–2846. doi: 10.1177/0886260515581904 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Parrott DJ, & Eckhardt CI (2018). Effects of alcohol on human aggression. Current Opinion in Psychology, 19, 1–5. doi: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.03.023 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Salazar LF, Vivolo-Kantor A, Hardin J, & Berkowitz A (2014). A web-based sexual violence bystander intervention for male college students: Randomized controlled trial. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 16(9), e203. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Sobell LC, & Sobell MB (2003). Alcohol consumption measures. In Allen JP & Wilson VB (Eds.), Assessing alcohol problems: A guide for clinicians and researchers (2nd ed., pp. 75–99). Bethesda, MD: National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. [Google Scholar]
  44. Steele CM, & Josephs RA (1990). Alcohol myopia. Its prized and dangerous effects. American Psychologist, 45, 921–933. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Thompson EH, & Bennett KM (2015). Measurement of masculinity ideologies: A (critical) review. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 16, 115–133. [Google Scholar]
  46. Thompson EH, & Pleck JH (1986). The structure of male role norms. American Behavioral Scientist, 29, 531–543. [Google Scholar]
  47. Wells S, Graham K, & Tremblay PF (2009). “Every male in there is your competition”: Young men’s perceptions regarding the role of the drinking setting in male-to-male barroom aggression. Substance Use & Misuse, 44, 1434–1462. doi: 10.1080/10826080902961708 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Zinzow HM, Thompson MP, Goree J, Fulmer CB, Greene C, & Watts H (2018). Evaluation of a college sexual violence prevention program focused on education, bystander intervention, and alcohol risk reduction. College Student Affairs Journal, 36, 110–125. doi: 10.1353/csj.2018.001910.2196/jmir.3426 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES