Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2022 May 3.
Published in final edited form as: Violence Vict. 2021 Apr 1;36(2):320–336. doi: 10.1891/VV-D-20-00060

Alcohol’s Effects on Bystander Intervention Strategies to Prevent Sexual Assault

Ana J Bridges 1, Alita M Mobley 2, Isabel F Augur 3, Tiffany L Marcantonio 4, Jacquelyn D Wiersma-Mosley 5, Kristen N Jozkowski 6, Lindsay S Ham 7
PMCID: PMC9067066  NIHMSID: NIHMS1801770  PMID: 33795476

Abstract

Alcohol’s effects on bystander responses to potential sexual assault situations are under-studied. In this mixed-methods study, we examined quality of bystander responses in intoxicated versus sober people. Participants were 121 young adults (ages 21–29, 50% female) randomly assigned to consume alcoholic beverages or soda water. After drinking, participants listened to a sexual assault vignette and completed a semistructured interview assessing how they would respond if they had witnessed the situation. Nearly all participants reported they would directly intervene if faced with the situation. Intoxicated participants and men were significantly less likely to use high-quality bystander intervention strategies than were sober participants and women. Results suggest that alcohol intoxication may negatively impact the likelihood that bystander intervention efforts will be helpful.

Keywords: Intoxication, rape, bystander intervention, victimization, prevention

Sexual assault is defined as any nonconsensual sexual contact or penetration in which the perpetrator has used force, coercion, or other means (e.g., purposeful intoxication) to acquire such contact from another person (Cantor et al., 2015). Nearly 20% of women experience a sexual assault while in college (DeGue, 2014), and nearly one-third of sexual assaults occur in the presence of a third party who could have intervened prior to or during the assault (Planty, 2002).

Studies of bystander assistance in the context of possible sexual assault find individual differences in willingness to intervene. For instance, Hoxmeier et al. (2020) found that male college students reported significantly more missed intervention opportunities compared with female college students. Banyard and Moynihan (2012, as cited in Bennett et al., 2017) found women are more likely to engage in behaviors that promote safety (e.g., offering to walk a friend home) while men are more likely to engage in behaviors that involve direct intervention (e.g., talking to a friend about a concerning relationship). Bennett et al. (2017) found that in response to a vignette of a potential sexual assault, women reported greater intent to help victims while men reported greater intent to confront perpetrators.

The combination of high rates of sexual assaults on campuses and individual differences in intervention efficacy have led to the rise of bystander intervention programs (DeGue, 2014; Labhardt et al., 2017; Peterson et al., 2018). These programs often include teaching bystander intervention skills such as interrupting a situation, creating a distraction, recruiting others to assist with intervention, directly confronting the perpetrator or assisting the victim, and enlisting the help of authorities. However, the effect of alcohol intoxication on bystander intervention has been largely ignored (Leone et al., 2017), although estimates are that between 50% and 75% of sexual assaults involve the perpetrator and/or the victim imbibing alcohol (Abbey et al., 2001; Burn, 2009; Mohler-Kuo et al., 2004; O’Callaghan & Ullman, 2020).

Bystander Behavior

Once bystanders decide it is necessary to intervene in a potential sexual assault, they are challenged with determining how best to intervene. Berkowitz (2009) highlighted the distinction between direct (e.g., confronting the perpetrator, removing the victim) and indirect (e.g., telling other bystanders) methods of intervention. McMahon et al. (2013) surveyed first-year undergraduates who participated in a bystander education program about what they would do if witnessing a sexual assault situation. A majority reported they would use indirect tactics; one-third reported they would use a direct method of intervention. In contrast, Nicksa (2011) asked college students how they would intervene in a sexual assault. Half said they would directly intervene; approximately one-third would use indirect methods.

Bystander intervention is not without risk, which may impact the use of some intervention strategies (Liebst et al., 2018). Risks include being harassed or publicly embarrassed or scolded for attempting to intervene, being physically or verbally threatened, sustaining physical harm, having to serve as a witness if the situation requires public safety or legal intervention, spending extra time (e.g., processing the events with a friend, law enforcement officials, or administrators), or getting into trouble (e.g., being charged with assault or with underage drinking) (Banyard et al., 2019). Factors that promote bystander assistance may also place the bystander at greater risk for injury or harm (Liebst et al., 2018). A quality bystander strategy is therefore one that has the possibility of preventing assault and does not elevate risk of injury or harm (McMahon et al., 2017). Unfortunately, there is a gap in the research looking at the implementation and quality of bystander intervention strategies. It is likely, however, that alcohol will impair the quality of bystander intervention strategies.

Bystander Intervention and Alcohol

Alcohol myopia theory posits that alcohol impairs cognitive functioning by narrowing attentional focus (Steele & Josephs, 1990). Alcohol intoxication may result in lower quality bystander responses to sexual assault because of its impairing effects on cortical and subcortical regions of the brain that are prominent for higher-order cognition, including attention, evaluation, and planful action (Jacob & Wang, 2020). Leone et al. (2017) proposed that alcohol intoxication may impact all aspects of successful bystander intervention. Leone and Parrott (2019) found that intoxicated men were slower to respond to a sexual assault scenario than were sober men and Ham et al. (2019) found that bystander risk detection was negatively affected by alcohol intoxication. To our knowledge, no study has examined how alcohol impairs the quality of bystander intervention strategies people generate in response to a potential assault.

Current Study

The current study overcomes prior limitations in bystander behavior studies (for a review of limitations, see McMahon et al., 2017). First, we focused on a single situation (preassault high risk) with a high likelihood of eliciting bystander assistance. Second, we used open-ended questions to avoid ordering effects and allow for a range of bystander intervention strategies generated by participants. Third, we examined the associations of alcohol intoxication on verbally generated bystander intervention strategies, as suggested by Leone et al. (2017). Finally, we surveyed subject matter experts to obtain quantitative ratings of the quality of bystander responses.

The goal of this study was to assess the roles of alcohol intoxication and gender in how participants say they would respond as a bystander witnessing a potential sexual assault situation unfold. We hypothesized participants in the alcohol intoxication condition would generate lower quality bystander intervention strategies than participants in the sober condition. We expected to replicate findings regarding gender differences, with women stating they would be more likely to intervene than men. Finally, we explored whether there would be an interaction between gender and alcohol intoxication on the quality of verbally generated bystander intervention strategies.

METHOD

Participants

Participant characteristics are provided in Table 1. This study included 121 participants (50.4% female; 49.6% male) with a mean age of 23.48 (SD = 2.54). In total, 48.8% were in the control condition and 51.2% were in the alcohol condition. Most participants were enrolled in college (85.5%), identified as non-Hispanic White (77.8%), had an income of less than $19,000 (70.1%), and identified as heterosexual (92.1%). There were no significant demographic differences between the two conditions. A total of 22 participants (18.3%) reported sexual victimization in the past: 17 women (27.9%) and 5 men (8.5%). An additional 60 participants (51.7%) reported knowing someone who had been sexually assaulted. Participants stated they consumed alcohol two to three times a week (52.9%, n = 64). On a typical drinking occasion, 46.3% reported consuming one to two drinks (n = 56) and 32.2% reported consuming three to four drinks (n = 39).

TABLE 1.

Demographic Characteristics of Study Sample

Variable Total N N (%) M (SD)
Age M (SD) 121 23.48 (2.54)
Student 117 100 (85.5)
Male gender 121 60 (49.6)
Heterosexual 114 105 (92.1)
In a romantic relationship 116 67 (57.8)
Member of a sorority/fraternity 117 43 (36.8)
Employed 117 79 (67.5)
Income
 Less than $19,000 117 82 (70.1)
 $20,000–$34,000 117 21 (17.9)
 $35,000–$69,000 117 10 (8.5)
 More than $70,000 117 4 (3.4)
Race/Ethnicity
 White, Non-Hispanic 117 91 (77.8)
 Latino or Hispanic 117 11 (9.4)
 Asian or Asian American 117 7 (6.0)
 Bi or Multiracial 117 4 (3.4)
 Black or African American 117 3 (2.6)
 American Indian/Native American 117 1 (0.9)
Frequency of alcohol consumption
 Monthly or less often 121 4 (3.3)
 Two to four times per month 121 44 (36.4)
 Two to three times per week 121 64 (52.9)
 Four or more times per week 121 9 (7.4)
Number of drinks consumed per occasion
 One or two 121 56 (46.3)
 Three or four 121 39 (32.2)
 Five or six 121 20 (16.5)
 Seven or more 121 6 (5.0)
Victim of sexual assault 120 22 (18.3)
Known a victim of sexual assault 116 60 (51.7)
Open in a new tab

Procedure

Potential participants were recruited through flyers and advertisements to take part in a lab-based study about alcohol and perceptions of social situations. Interested participants completed a telephone screener to assess study eligibility. Exclusion criteria were based on recommendations from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA; 2005) and included a contraindicated medical condition or medications, past problematic experiences with the alcohol dose required for study participation, a clinically elevated score on a standardized measure of problematic alcohol use, suicidality, psychosis, or the presence of posttraumatic stress disorder with a sexual assault as the criterion trauma. Eligible participants were scheduled for a laboratory session and instructed to refrain from alcohol and drug use (24 hours) and to fast (3 hours) prior to their session; they were instructed not to drive to their appointment.

On arrival, participants completed a breath alcohol reading (BrAC; Alco-Sensor IV, Intoximeters Inc., ST. Louis, MO) to ensure alcohol abstinence. After providing informed consent, a second eligibility interview was conducted. Women completed a urine pregnancy screening and all participants were weighed to determine alcohol dose. Next, participants completed baseline questionnaires in a private room. Following the questionnaires, participants were randomly assigned to consume alcohol or a nonalcoholic control beverage in a simulated bar lab. All participants were informed of the actual content of their drinks. Participants assigned to the alcohol condition received a mix of grain alcohol (100 proof) and soda water in a 1:4 ratio. Alcohol dosage was set at.82 g/kg for men and.68 g/kg for women, with body weight adjusted volumes calculated to achieve a target BrAC of .08% (Davis, 2010; Norris et al., 2009). Participants in the control condition received soda water in the amount proportionate to what they would have consumed if assigned to the alcohol condition. Participants received beverages in three proportions and were allowed 3 minutes to consume each.

All but two individuals in the control condition were yoked to a same-gender participant in the alcohol condition to attenuate between-group variability in absorption time and onset of experiment (Davis et al., 2007). In both conditions, participants provided BrAC readings in 4-minute intervals. Intoxicated participants began the experiment when they reached a BrAC criterion of .055% (peak BrAC among participants in the alcohol condition was M = .10, standard deviation [SD] = .02). Control participants began the experiment when their yoked participant did. After beverage consumption, participants read and listened to a 1,077-word vignette depicting a potential sexual assault. The vignette was written in second person and participants were instructed to envision themselves as part of the story at their current level of intoxication (Davis et al., 2004; Davis et al., 2007). The vignette was designed to be a high-risk preassault situation. In such situations, McMahon et al. (2017) find that most people (>70%) choose to intervene.

In the vignette, the participant attends a party with their friend, Vicki, and sees another friend, Pete. The participant introduces Vicki and Pete to each other, believing the two would get along well. As the night continues, the participant notices Vicki drinking several shots of liquor as part of a drinking game and Pete cheering her on, but not drinking. Later, the participant sees Pete take Vicki upstairs; Vicki is stumbling. The participant then walks by the door where Pete has taken Vicki and notices that Pete is unzipping his pants and attempting to get on top of Vicki while she pushes him away (see Ham et al., 2019). After participants finished listening to and reading the story, they completed a 1-hour interview with a trained doctoral student. Participants answered a variety of questions assessing the five steps of bystander intervention as applied to this scenario (Latané & Darley, 1970). For the purpose of this study, we focused on the type of intervention behavior participants reported they would use in the situation with Pete and Vicki.

Measures

Demographic Characteristics.

Participants responded to questionnaires assessing their demographic characteristics, current alcohol use, sexual assault history, and whether they knew anyone who had experienced a sexual assault. Sexual assault history was assessed using the Sexual Experiences Survey—Short Form Victimization (Koss et al., 2007). All participants had been screened to ensure they were not experiencing symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder from a sexual assault.

Intervention Strategies.

After reading and listening to the story, participants were asked, “What do you think will happen next?” If participants did not provide a response that included providing some form of assistance, they were asked, “What, if anything, would you do in this situation?” After each response, participants were prompted once with a single question, “Anything else?” We specifically chose an open-ended response format to begin our interview instead of asking participants to respond first to self-report scales of bystander behavior because of the limitations of these scales, including concerns with ordering effects and limited response options (McMahon et al., 2017).

Qualitative Analysis

To analyze open-ended responses, we used an inductive content analysis coding procedure guided by Braun and Clarke (2006). First, the research team (one faculty advisor and three doctoral students) went through a subsample of responses. Responses that were conceptually similar were then grouped and labeled. Next, the research team created a codebook with operational definitions, examples, overarching themes, and subthemes. Themes were created by combining similar subthemes that represented an overarching relationship between the constructs (Braun & Clarke, 2006). After the codebook was finalized, the research team coded a new subset of responses that were reviewed by the lead author for accuracy; any discrepancies were discussed in team meetings. Then, a third subset of responses were coded and assessed for accuracy. There was over 90% consistency on codes from the last round of practice coding. Due to the high consistency, the research assistants began coding the full dataset. Cohen’s kappa coefficients for each intervention strategy ranged from .55 to .93, indicating adequate to excellent inter-rater reliability (Banerjee et al., 1999). After all data were coded, we calculated frequencies for all themes and used logistic regression to examine whether intoxication and gender predicted participants’ responses.

Quality of Intervention Strategies

After developing our coding categories, we asked five experts in the field of sexual violence to rate each code along two dimensions: likelihood that the behavior would prevent a sexual assault from occurring in that situation and likelihood that the behavior would prevent other negative consequences in that situation. Each item was rated on a 1 (very unlikely) to 4 (very likely) scale, with higher scores reflecting a higher quality bystander response.

RESULTS

Bystander Intervention Strategies

Participants spontaneously generated several bystander intervention strategies (Table 2) that were coded into the following categories: engaging others (including peers, authorities, ambiguous others; 6.6%), verbally intervening (checking in, confronting; 47.1%), physically intervening (distancing, confronting; 27.3%), ambiguous intervention (18.2%), and other intervention (9.1%). Some participants (12.4%) also reported they would “wait and see”—that is, they would monitor the situation but not intervene at this point.

TABLE 2.

Frequency of Bystander Intervention Themes (N = 121)

Theme Freq Example Responses Kappa
Do nothing 12.4% .92
Engage others 6.6% .93
 Peers 2.5% I might go find a guy friend or a least another girlfriend for back up. .85
 Authority 0.0% —
 Ambiguous 4.1% I would probably intervene or maybe call someone. .74
Verbally intervene 47.1% .82
 Check in 5.8% [I] will see what’s going on, like uh. What’re you doing with her, you fine. .55
 Confront 41.3% I would tell him, be like, Pete don’t be a dick, go home. Leave Vicki alone. .68
Physically intervene 27.3% .85
 Distance 24.0% I would try to separate them. .86
 Confront 9.1% I would go in there and punch Pete in the face. .90
Ambiguous 18.2% I would step into the room. .76
Other 9.1% Bribe [drunk person] with food. .67
Open in a new tab

Note. Freq = Frequency (percentage) of participants whose response to the question “What is the best thing to do in this situation?” included that theme. Participant responses could have included multiple themes, so sum is >100%. Cohen’s kappa indicates inter-rater reliability between the two coders.

Regarding quality of intervention strategies, there was consensus among experts that doing nothing was unwarranted in this situation. Nevertheless, 12.4% of participants reported they would not intervene (or not intervene yet). Experts generally rated physical distancing as the best strategy to use in the situation (best meaning most likely to prevent both a sexual assault and other negative consequences; Table 3). Only 24.0% of participants spontaneously reported they would use physical distancing to provide assistance in this situation. The second highest quality bystander intervention response, according to expert ratings, was verbal confrontation. A sizeable portion of participants in this study reported they would use this strategy (41.3%). In fact, this was the single most frequently reported specific intervention strategy generated by participants. A third high-quality intervention strategy our experts noted was engaging peers. However, only 2.5% of participants spontaneously generated this strategy during the interview (an additional 4.1% reported they would engage others but were not clear about who those “others” would be).

TABLE 3.

Quality of Bystander Intervention Themes (N = 121)

Theme QR1 QR2 QR1 × QR2
Do nothing 1.0 1.0 1.00
Engage others
 Peers 3.6 3.6 12.96
 Authority 2.4 2.2 5.28
 Ambiguous
Verbally intervene
 Check in 3.0 3.0 9.00
 Confront 3.8 3.6 13.68
Physically intervene
 Distance 4.0 3.8 15.20
 Confront 4.0 2.6 10.40
Open in a new tab

Note. QR = quality rating (1–4 scale, higher = higher quality) provided by bystander interventions for sexual assault research experts; QR1 = likelihood the action would prevent sexual assault; QR2 = likelihood the action would prevent other negative consequences aside from sexual assault.

Our experts noted physical confrontation was likely to be a highly effective strategy to prevent sexual assault, but the possibility of it resulting in other negative consequences made this a lower quality response than other options. Consistent with expert cautions, participants generally avoided describing physical confrontation as a first approach to managing the situation.

A moderately helpful strategy our experts noted was verbally checking in; however, only 5.8% of participants noted they would do this. Experts were torn about the possible utility of calling authorities, such as the police. On one hand, they noted this could be an important strategy, especially if others could continue to monitor the situation (i.e., if the strategy was used in conjunction with other approaches). On the other hand, they noted authorities may not respond at all (e.g., judge the situation not to require intervention) or may be slow to respond. Given the story provided to participants included knowing both the perpetrator and the victim, it appeared other direct strategies would be better. None of our participants spontaneously described calling authorities for help as a strategy they would use (although some did discuss calling for help if other strategies were not successful).

Hypothesis 1: Alcohol Intoxication

Table 4 provides descriptive information and Chi-square tests examining how alcohol intoxication related to bystander intervention strategies participants generated. There was a significant difference between sober versus intoxicated participants on their use of two bystander intervention strategies: engaging others and physically intervening. Supporting our first hypothesis, sober participants were significantly more likely to report using these strategies than intoxicated participants. There was a significant effect of alcohol intoxication on participants’ responses indicating some (any) form of bystander assistance was warranted. Sober participants were more likely to state they would do something to help the potential victim in the scenario than were intoxicated participants. In contrast, there was no difference between intoxicated and sober participants in likelihood of verbal intervention or ambiguous responses.

TABLE 4.

Comparing Frequency of Bystander Strategies by Alcohol Condition (N = 121)

Sober N = 59 Intoxicated N = 62 Chi-Square Test (df = 1) Phi Coefficient
Do nothing* 3 (5.1%) 12 (19.4%) 5.67 .216
Engage others* 7 (11.9%) 1 (1.6%) 5.15 −.206
 Authorities 0 (0%) 0 (%) – –
 Peers 2 (3.4%) 1 (1.6%) – –
 Ambiguous 5 (8.5%) 0 – –
Verbally intervene 24 (40.7%) 33 (53.2%) 1.91 .126
 Check in 2 (3.4%) 5 (8.1%) – –
 Confront 22 (37.3%) 26 (45.2%) – –
Physically intervene** 23 (39.0%) 10 (16.1%) 7.96 −.256
 Distance 20 (33.9%) 9 (14.5%) – –
 Confront 8 (13.6%) 3 (4.8%) – –
Ambiguous 11 (18.6%) 11 (17.7%) 0.02 −.012
Other 6 (10.2%) 5 (8.1%) 0.16 −.037
Open in a new tab

Note. df = degrees of freedom.

*

p < .05.

**

p < .01.

Hypothesis 2: Gender

Table 5 provides descriptive information and Chi-square tests examining how gender related to bystander intervention strategies participants generated. There were significant differences between men and women in their use of engaging others and physically intervening as a bystander. In support of our second hypothesis, women were more likely than men to report intentions to use these intervention strategies. There was a trend toward women being more likely to verbally intervene (check in and confront) than men. There were no significant gender differences in likelihood of bystander assistance, broadly, or ambiguous responding.

TABLE 5.

Comparing Frequency of Immediate Bystander Strategies by Gender (N = 121)

Men N = 60 Women N = 61 Chi-Square Test (df = 1) Phi Coefficient
Do nothing 10 (16.7%) 5 (8.2%) 2.00 −.129
Engage others* 1 (1.7%) 7 (11.5%) 4.71* .197
 Authorities 0 (0%) 0 (0%) – –
 Peers 0 (0%) 3 (4.9%) – –
 Ambiguous 1 (1.7%) 4 (6.6%) – –
Verbally intervene 32 (53.3%) 25 (41.0%) 1.85 −.124
 Check in 1 (1.7%) 6 (9.8%) – –
 Confront 31 (51.7%) 19 (31.1%) – –
Physically intervene** 8 (13.3%) 25 (41.0%) 11.66** .310
 Distance 6 (10.0%) 23 (37.7%) – –
 Confront 3 (5.0%) 8 (13.1%) – –
Other 3 (5.0%) 8 (13.1%) 2.41 .141
Ambiguous 14 (23.3%) 8 (13.1%) 2.12 −.132
Open in a new tab

Note. df = degrees of freedom.

*

p < .05.

**

p < .01.

Interaction of Gender and Alcohol Condition

Any Intervention.

We used binary logistic regression to examine whether providing any intervention (yes/no) was predicted by gender and alcohol condition (step 1) and their interaction (step 2). Results suggested a significant effect at step 1, step χ2 (2) = 8.12, p = .017, Nagelkerke R2 = .123. Of the predictors, only alcohol intoxication condition significantly predicted providing any intervention, with sober participants being four times more likely to intervene than intoxicated participants (odds ratio [OR] = 4.56). Gender and alcohol intoxication condition did not interact to predict bystander intervention behavior, step 2 χ2 (1) = 0.00, p = .950.

Engage Others.

Using binary logistic regression, we examined whether intervening by engaging others (yes/no) was predicted by gender and alcohol condition (step 1) and their interaction (step 2). Results suggested a significant effect at step 1, step χ2 (2) = 11.11, p = .004, Nagelkerke R2 = .227. Of the predictors, only alcohol intoxication condition significantly predicted providing verbal assistance, with sober participants being eight times more likely to engage others to intervene in the situation than intoxicated participants (OR = 8.70). Gender and alcohol intoxication condition did not interact to predict bystander intervention behavior, step 2 χ2 (1) = 0.26, p = .613.

Verbally Intervene.

Again, using binary logistic regression, we found no significant main effects of gender and alcohol intoxication condition on verbal bystander assistance, step χ2 (2) = 3.77, p = .152, Nagelkerke R2 = .041. There was also no significant gender by alcohol intoxication condition interaction, step χ2 (1) = 1.12, p = .290.

Physically Intervene.

Finally, using binary logistic regression, we found significant main effects of gender and alcohol intoxication condition on physical bystander assistance, step χ2 (2) = 20.94, p < .001, Nagelkerke R2 = .230. Women (OR = 5.02) and participants in the sober condition (OR = 3.76) were significantly more likely to say they would provide physical assistance in the situation than were men and intoxicated participants, respectively. There was no significant interaction effect between gender and alcohol intoxication condition, step χ2 (1) = 0.00, p = .995.

DISCUSSION

To help reduce rates of sexual assault, college administrators and other organizations are focusing on the helpful role of prosocial bystanders (DeGue, 2014; Labhardt et al., 2017; Peterson et al., 2018). While many of these programs promote diverse strategies to assist both in the moment to prevent assault and afterward to reduce the negative impact of an assault, lacking are studies exploring the quality of responses or how factors such as alcohol intoxication influence helping strategies. The primary purpose of this mixed-methods study was to examine whether alcohol intoxication impacted the quality of bystander intervention strategies participants generated in a hypothetical sexual assault situation. We were also interested in quantifying the quality of intervention strategies generated by our participants and exploring possible gender differences in approaches to intervening as a bystander, as we review below.

General Intervention Strategies

According to expert researchers in the area of sexual assault prevention, the highest quality bystander assistance response our participants generated was to physically distance the potential victim from the perpetrator. This was rated as having the greatest likelihood of preventing a sexual assault from occurring and had the highest likelihood of preventing other negative consequences. Taken together, 24% of participants noted they would use this approach, making it the second most generated strategy. The second highest quality bystander assistance response our participants generated was to verbally confront the potential perpetrator. This was the most common intervention strategy generated by our participants (~41%). The third highest quality bystander assistance response our participants generated, according to ratings by experts, was to engage peers to help intervene. However, few participants stated they would use this strategy in the situation (~7%). The worst strategy in this situation was to adopt a “wait and see” posture, as evidenced by the ratings provided by our content experts. Nevertheless, 12% of participants reported that they would do just that, suggesting they did not believe the cues of nonconsent provided in the vignette were of sufficient magnitude to be a clear refusal.

Bystander intervention programs often distinguish between direct intervention strategies (e.g., assertive communication, pulling a person aside) and indirect strategies (e.g., causing a distraction, informing an authority figure) (Berkowitz, 2009). Verbal and physical interventions (both direct strategies) were the most common methods participants reported they would use in the situation. The vignette used in this study was specifically designed to describe a high-risk situation in which intervention was indicated. Further, many known barriers to direct intervention (e.g., not knowing the victim or perpetrator; not feeling responsible for the situation) did not apply to the vignette in this study since the perpetrator and victim were both described as being friends with the participant and the participant was described as having introduced them to each other. In brief, the vignette was created to elicit a bystander response from participants. Nevertheless, a sizable portion of participants either reported the situation did not warrant intervention at all (12%) or suggested the use of indirect intervention strategies that are typically considered less effective (e.g., causing a distraction). We therefore examined whether two factors: alcohol intoxication and gender, related to variability in bystander strategies.

Alcohol Intoxication

We saw significant differences in intervention strategies generated by sober versus intoxicated participants for engaging others and physical distancing. Both of these intervention strategies were rated as highly effective by experts. We also saw differences in intervening at all versus adopting a “wait and see” posture among sober and intoxicated participants, which experts noted was the worst possible approach to this situation. In contrast, verbal intervention strategies, alternative strategies (e.g., creating a distraction), and ambiguous responses (those that lacked specificity) did not differ significantly by alcohol intoxication condition.

Regarding physical intervention, intoxicated participants were half as likely to generate a response to the situation that included physical distancing compared with sober participants. Sober participants were 10 times more likely to produce a response to the vignette that included engaging others in assisting with the situation than were intoxicated participants. Of note, none of our participants reported they would engage authorities, such as the police. Experts agreed that involving authorities would be a low-quality response, both because of the time it would take for law enforcement to arrive on the scene and because of the potential for additional negative consequences. Critically, intoxicated participants were four times more likely to adopt a “wait and see” approach to the situation (19%) than were sober participants (5%), suggesting alcohol interfered with risk recognition and interpretation of consent/refusal cues. This is consistent with prior work showing intoxication reduces sexual assault risk detection (Melkonian et al., 2020).

Another factor related to differences we observed between sober and intoxicated participants on bystander intervention strategies generated could be bystanders’ alcohol expectancies regarding sexual assault risk detection. However, research indicates mixed findings for alcohol expectancies and bystander intervention. Expectancies of being more social and affectionate increase prosocial bystander intentions to intervene, while negative expectancies decrease them (Testa et al., 2006). A recent study using vignettes reported that intoxicated bystanders’ positive valuations (i.e., expected positive or negative outcomes from drinking), but not expectancies (i.e., beliefs about drinking), were associated with decreased sexual assault risk detection (Wiersma-Mosley et al., 2020).

In short, our study suggests alcohol has the potential to impair bystander intervention in a potential sexual assault by both reducing risk recognition and reducing the quality of the strategies used by the bystander to intervene. Alcohol intoxication was associated with selecting strategies that were (a) less likely to result in a successful prevention of an assault, and (b) more likely to result in other unintended negative outcomes. Importantly, there were no differences in ambiguous responses to the scenario (e.g., “I would intervene”) by alcohol intoxication condition, suggesting differences in strategy selection were not simply due to a difficulty with articulating a specific intervention strategy in the alcohol condition. This is consistent with Leone et al. (2017) who suggest alcohol intoxication is likely to dampen effective bystander assistance in myriad ways, including: reducing the likelihood that bystanders will attend to relevant information that signals risk because of increased distractibility or mind wandering, failing to interpret risk cues accurately or to label inappropriate sexual behavior as problematic; narrowing of attentional focus that can reduce a sense of responsibility; and impairing in higher-order cognitive abilities such as problem-solving and planning that are required for a quality bystander response. Our results suggest bystander intervention programs to reduce sexual assaults should include information regarding the impeding effects of intoxication on prosocial bystander assistance and perhaps include a focus on teaching simple strategies that can be easily recalled and enacted during inebriated states. Of course, if risk detection is reduced because of alcohol intoxication, then even simple intervention strategies will not be deployed. Thus, results also support efforts to reduce sexual assault risk by including sober monitors in convivial settings. While monitoring one own’s and a potential partner’s use of alcohol in a convivial setting and seeking out public settings with potential prosocial bystanders who could intervene are all recognized as protective behavioral strategies to reduce sexual assault risk (Gilmore et al., 2018; Moore & Waterman, 1999), attention to the alcohol use of potential bystanders typically has not been considered an important risk reduction strategy. Our results suggest the presence of sober monitors could be included among other strategies people use to reduce the incidence of sexual assaults.

Gender

Consistent with prior research (Bennett et al., 2017; Hoxmier et al., 2020), we found women were significantly more likely to generate specific intervention responses and a larger variety of strategies to respond to the situation than were men. Women were six times more likely to say they would seek help from others and three to four times more likely to say they would use physical intervention strategies like distancing to help prevent the assault in the situation than were men. However, alcohol’s impairing effects were not moderated by gender. In most models that included both gender and alcohol intoxication, only alcohol intoxication was a significant predictor of bystander responses. The one exception was the use of physical intervention strategies, where both alcohol intoxication (sober) and gender (female) predicted greater likelihood of intervening. Nevertheless, here too gender and alcohol intoxication did not interact, suggesting each confers independent risk. In short, while gender may relate to willingness to intervene in a pro-social way, the attentional narrowing and impairments seen in alcohol intoxication similarly reduce effective prosocial bystander assistance for both men and women.

Limitations and Future Directions

The study findings should be considered in light of its limitations. First, participants responded to a hypothetical vignette; it is not clear whether responses would translate to a real-world situation. Second, the vignette identified the characters, Pete and Vicki, as friends of the participant. It is likely this impacted the strategies participants generated (Nicksa, 2011; Palmer et al., 2018). In fact, greater use of indirect strategies would probably be seen if the study were repeated with a vignette describing the bystander as witnessing the events occurring between two acquaintances or strangers, rather than between two friends. In the vignette the perpetrator was described as relatively sober while the target was described as clearly intoxicated. This discrepancy in alcohol intoxication served to cue participants of the high-risk nature of the scenario; however, it limits the strategies generated to those that might be used in an unambiguously risky situation. This study did not examine responses to a scenario in which both parties were intoxicated, which may be more reflective of real-life situations (Abbey et al., 2001). Future studies should include scenarios that are more ambiguous in terms of risk. Reading and listening to a brief story likely helped focus participants and did not simulate the “noisy” nature of bystander decision-making in real-world contexts, where attention can be focused away from risk cues and numerous elements in the environment may interfere with focus. As such, studies that use virtual reality, movies, or in-person interactions may improve our understanding of how bystanders react to risky situations in real time. The use of a researcher-administered interview allowed for a greater variety of participant-generated bystander strategies that might be deployed under these conditions, but it also may have increased socially desirable responding. Indeed, nearly all participants indicated some intention to intervene; this may have been in part because of how we collected the data (face-to-face interviews). While prior studies using self-report measures of intoxicated participants also found very high rates of intentions to intervene as a bystander (>95%; Melkonian et al., 2020), future studies should consider qualitative methods that reduce social desirability such as written, anonymous responses to vignettes. Finally, our study included relatively modest levels of alcohol intoxication. It would be important to investigate bystander intervention strategies with participants who have a greater range of intoxication states.

Funding.

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism 1R21AA023230-01A1, awarded to Lindsay S. Ham.

Footnotes

Disclosure. The authors have no relevant financial interest or affiliations with any commercial interests related to the subjects discussed within this article.

Contributor Information

Ana J. Bridges, Department of Psychological Science, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR.

Alita M. Mobley, Department of Psychological Science, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR.

Isabel F. Augur, Department of Psychological Science, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR.

Tiffany L. Marcantonio, Department of Health, Human Performance, and Recreation, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR.

Jacquelyn D. Wiersma-Mosley, School of Human Environmental Sciences, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR.

Kristen N. Jozkowski, Department of Health, Human Performance, and Recreation, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR.

Lindsay S. Ham, Department of Psychological Science, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR.

REFERENCES

  1. Abbey A, Zawacki T, Buck PO, Clinton AM, & McAuslan P (2001). Alcohol and sexual assault. Alcohol Research & Health: The Journal of the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 25, 43–51. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Banerjee M, Capozzoli M, McSweeney L, & Sinha D (1999). Beyond kappa: A review of inter-rater agreement measures. Canadian Journal of Statistics, 27, 3–23. 10.2307/3315487 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  3. Banyard V, Moschella E, Grych J, & Jouriles E (2019). What happened next? New measures of consequences of bystander actions to prevent interpersonal violence. Psychology of Violence, 9(6), 664–674. 10.1037/vio0000229 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  4. Bennett S, Banyard VL, & Edwards KM (2017). The impact of the bystander’s relationship with the victim and the perpetrator on intent to help in situations involving sexual violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 32, 682–702. 10.1177/0886260515586373 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Berkowitz A (2009). Response ability: A complete guide to bystander intervention. Beck & Co. [Google Scholar]
  6. Braun V, & Clarke V (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77–101. 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  7. Burn SM (2009). A situational model of sexual assault prevention through bystander intervention. Sex Roles, 60, 779–792. 10.1007/s11199-008-9581-5 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  8. Cantor D, Fisher B, Chibnall S, Townsend R, Lee H, Bruce C, & Thomas G (2015). Report on the AAU campus climate survey on sexual assault and sexual misconduct. Association of American Universities. http://www.aau.edu/uploadedFiles/AAU_Publications/AAU_Reports/Sexual_Assalt_Campus_Survey/Report%20on%20the% [Google Scholar]
  9. Davis KC (2010). The influence of alcohol expectancies and intoxication on men’s aggressive unprotected sexual intentions. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 18, 418. 10.1037/a0020510 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Davis KC, George WH, & Norris J (2004). Women’s responses to unwanted sexual advances: The role of alcohol and inhibition conflict. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 28, 333–343. 10.1111/j.1471-6402.2004.00150.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  11. Davis KC, Hendershot CS, George WH, Norris J, & Heiman JR (2007). Alcohol’s effects on sexual decision making: An integration of alcohol myopia and individual differences. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 68, 843–851. 10.15288/jsad.2007.68.843 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. DeGue S (2014). Preventing sexual violence on college campuses: Lessons from research and practice. White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault. https://nccpsafety.org/assets/files/library/Preventing_Sexual_Violence_on_College_Campuses.pdf [Google Scholar]
  13. Gilmore AK, Maples-Keller JL, Pinsky HT, Shepard ME, Lewis MA, & George WH (2018). Is the use of protective behavioral strategies associated with college sexual assault victimization? A prospective examination. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 33(17), 2664–2681. 10.1177/0886260516628808 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Ham LS, Wiersma-Mosley JD, Wolkowicz NR, Jozkowski KN, Bridges AJ, & Melkonian AJ (2019). Effect of alcohol intoxication on bystander intervention in a vignette depiction of sexual assault. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 80, 252–260. 10.15288/jsad.2019.80.252 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Hoxmeier JC, Acock AC, & Flay BR (2020). Students as prosocial bystanders to sexual assault: Demographic correlates of intervention norms, intentions, and missed opportunities. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 35, 731–754. 10.1177/0886260517689888 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Jacob A, & Wang P (2020). Alcohol intoxication and cognition: Implications on mechanisms and therapeutic strategies. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 14, 102. 10.3389/fnins.2020.00102 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Koss MP, Abbey A, Campbell,est C, & White J (2007). Revising the SES: A collaborative process to improve assessment of sexual aggression and victimization. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 31, 357–370. 10.1111/j.1471-6402.2007.00385.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  18. Labhardt D, Holdsworth E, Brown S, & Howat D (2017). You see but you do not observe: A review of bystander intervention and sexual assault on university campuses. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 35, 13–25. 10.1016/j.avb.2017.05.005 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  19. Latané B, & Darley JM (1970). The unresponsive bystander: Why doesn’t he help?. Appleton-Century-Crofts. [Google Scholar]
  20. Leone RM, & Parrott DJ (2019). Acute alcohol intoxication inhibits bystander intervention behavior for sexual aggression among men with high intent to help. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 43, 170–179. 10.1111/acer.13920 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Leone RM, Parrott DJ, & Swartout KM (2017). When is it “manly” to intervene?: Examining the effects of a misogynistic peer norm on bystander intervention for sexual aggression. Psychology of Violence, 7, 286–295. 10.1037/vio0000055 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  22. Liebst LS, Heinskou MB, & Ejbye-Ernst P (2018). On the actual risk of bystander intervention: A statistical study based on naturally occurring violent emergencies. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 55, 27–50. 10.1177/0022427817710776 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  23. McMahon S, Lowe Hoffman M, McMahon SM, Zucker S, & Koenick RA (2013). What would you do? Strategies for bystander intervention to prevent sexual violence by college students. Journal of College and Character, 14, 141–152. 10.1515/jcc-2013-0019 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  24. McMahon S, Palmer JE, Banyard V, Murphy M, & Gidycz CA (2017). Measuring bystander behavior in the context of sexual violence prevention: Lessons learned and new directions. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 32, 2396–2418. 10.1177/0886260515591979 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Melkonian AJ, Ham LS, Wiersma-Mosley JD, Jackson KK, Mobley AM, Jozkowski KN, Willis M, & Bridges AJ (2020). Alcohol intoxication impairs the bystander intervention process in a hypothetical sexual assault: A field investigation. Psychology of Violence, 10(6), 657–666. 10.1037/vio0000283 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Mohler-Kuo M, Dowdall GW, Koss MP, & Wechsler H (2004). Correlates of rape while intoxicated in a national sample of college women. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 65, 37–45. 10.15288/jsa.2004.65.37 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Moore CD, & Waterman CK (1999). Predicting self-protection against sexual assault in dating relationships among heterosexual men and women, gay men, lesbians, and bisexuals. Journal of College Student Development, 40(2), 132–140. [Google Scholar]
  28. National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. (2005). Administering alcohol in human studies. http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/Resources/ResearchResources/job22.htm
  29. Nicksa SC (2011). College students’ self-predicted reactions to witnessing sexual assault: The impact of gender, community, bystander experience, and relationship to the victim. Doctoral dissertation, Northeastern University. [Google Scholar]
  30. Norris J, Stoner SA, Hessler DM, Zawacki TM, George WH, Morrison DM, & Davis KC (2009). Cognitive mediation of alcohol’s effects on women’s in-the-moment sexual decision making. Health Psychology, 28, 20. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. O’Callaghan E, & Ullman SE (2020). Differences in women’s substance-related sexual assaults: Force, impairment, and combined assault types. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 10.1177/0886260520926321 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Palmer JE, Nicksa SC, & McMahon S (2018). Does who you know affect how you act? The impact of relationships on bystander intervention in interpersonal violence situations. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 33, 2623–2642. 10.1177/0886260516628292 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Peterson K, Sharps P, Banyard V, Powers RA, Kaukinen C, Gross D, Decker MR, Baatz C, & Campbell J (2018). An evaluation of two dating violence prevention programs on a college campus. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 33(23), 3630–3655. 10.1177/0886260516636069 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Planty M (2002). Third-party involvement in violent crime, 1993–1999. National Institute of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report. (Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report NCJ189100). U.S. Department of Justice. [Google Scholar]
  35. Steele CM, & Josephs RA (1990). Alcohol myopia: Its prized and dangerous effects. American Psychologist, 45, 921–933. 10.1037/0003-066X.45.8.921 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Testa M, Fillmore MT, Norris J, Abbey A, Curtin JJ, Leonard KE, Mariano KA, Thomas MC, Nomensen KJ, George WH, VanZile-Tamsen C, Livingston JA, Saenz C, Buck PO, Zawacki T, Parkhill MR, Jacques AJ, & Hayman LW Jr. (2006). Understanding alcohol expectancy effects: Revisiting the placebo condition. Alcoholism, Clinical and Experimental Research, 30, 339–348. 10.1111/j.1530-0277.2006.00039.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Wiersma-Mosley JD, Ham LS, Marcantonio T, Jozkowski KN, & Bridges AJ (2020). Intoxicated bystanders’ alcohol expectancies and valuations and the ability to detect risk in a potential sexual assault. Addictive Behaviors, 108, 1–5. 10.1016/j.addbeh.2020.106423 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES