Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2025 May 1.
Published in final edited form as: J Am Coll Health. 2022 Jun 3;72(4):1289–1295. doi: 10.1080/07448481.2022.2076099

College Student Alcohol Use and Confidence to Intervene in Interpersonal Violence: Differences by Gender and Sexual Orientation

Ruschelle M Leone 1,2, Daniel Oesterle 3, Harshita Yepuri 1, Debra L Kaysen 4, Lindsay Orchowski 5, Kelly Cue Davis 6, Amanda K Gilmore 1,2
PMCID: PMC9718886  NIHMSID: NIHMS1836330  PMID: 35658026

Abstract

Objectives:

The current study examined the association between alcohol use frequency (i.e., days a week one consumes alcohol), sexual and gender identity, and bystander confidence to intervene in interpersonal violence (i.e., bystander self-efficacy).

Participants:

Participants were 750 undergraduate students aged 18–25 (260 heterosexual men, 260 heterosexual women, 59 SM men [54 cisgender, 5 transgender (female-to-male)], 171 SM women [169 cisgender, 2 transgender (male-to-female)).

Methods:

Participants completed an online survey about alcohol and sexual behaviors.

Results:

Results indicated that (1) alcohol use frequency was positively associated with greater bystander self-efficacy, (2) heterosexual men, compared to heterosexual women, reported lower bystander self-efficacy, and (3) the association between alcohol use frequency and bystander self-efficacy was significant and positive among heterosexual, but not SM, women.

Conclusions:

Prevention efforts may benefit from targeting individuals who drink more frequently and ensuring that they have the skills to effectively intervene.

Keywords: Alcohol use, bystander effect, gender identity, sexual orientation, college students

Interpersonal violence, including sexual and intimate partner aggression, is a significant public health problem on college campuses that disproportionately impacts women and individuals who identify as a sexual minority (SM)1, 2. Specifically, research estimates that SM college students are 2.32 times more likely to experience sexual assault and 2.29 times more likely to experience physical intimate partner violence in the past 6 months compared to the heterosexual peers2. Over half of sexual assaults involve alcohol use3, and three decades of research indicates that alcohol use has been identified as a causal factor in intimate partner violence4. Bystanders are often present in drinking contexts where sexual assault occurs5, 6, and may similarly witness intimate partner aggression in drinking contexts. Understanding the association between alcohol use and bystander attitudes is important to inform bystander training programs, which have rarely targeted alcohol use, with few exceptions 7–9. Further, because approximately 19% of college students identify as a SM10, understanding differences in bystander attitudes among cisgender men, cisgender women, SM men, and SM women is important to inform and tailor violence prevention programs. The aim of the present study was to examine the associations between alcohol use frequency, gender and sexual identity, and bystander self-efficacy (i.e., one’s confidence to intervene in interpersonal violence), which is a key proximal variable for bystander behavior often targeted in bystander training programs11–13.

Bystander Self-Efficacy: Differences Based on Gender and Sexual Orientation

Research has consistently demonstrated that college women report fewer barriers to bystander intervention, greater confidence to intervene, and greater self-reported bystander behavior, compared to men14–16. This gender difference is not surprising, given that college women disproportionately experience interpersonal violence, as well as reporting an increased awareness of the pervasive problem of sexual assault, particularly as compared to men17. However, research has rarely examined how the intersection of gender and sexual identity may be associated with bystander intervention, with few exceptions. A recent study with a large sample of undergraduate students found that (1) gay and bisexual men reported more opportunities to intervene in dating abuse than heterosexual men, (2) gay men reported more intervention behavior for dating abuse, compared to cisgender heterosexual men, and (3) bisexual women reported greater opportunities and more intervention behavior for sexual assault compared to heterosexual women18. However, this study did not examine gender differences. Another recent study has examined differences in bystander opportunities among SM youth, and found that SM girls were more likely to notice a bystander opportunity compared to their heterosexual peers19. It may be that individuals who identify as SM, particularly SM women, are more confident in their ability to intervene in high-risk situations because they are more aware of the issue of sexual and interpersonal aggression due to the high prevalence of interpersonal violence perpetrated against SM women2. Alternatively, in line with recent research, it may be that SM take more responsibility to intervene in sexual assault20.

Alcohol Use and Bystander Self-Efficacy

Approximately one-fourth of sexual assaults occur in settings where a bystander is present, and bystanders consume alcohol in about 90% of these instances6. Emerging theoretical and empirical evidence suggests that alcohol use can inhibit bystander intervention21, 22. College men who report heavy episodic drinking (i.e., 5 or more drinks in one sitting) report lower prosocial bystander attitudes and less willingness to intervene in interpersonal violence, compared to men who do not report heavy episodic drinking22, 23. Qualitative research with heavy drinking men indicates that while men believe alcohol negatively influences their ability to recognize risky situations in drinking settings, alcohol can also increase one’s confidence to intervene24. Similarly, more recent research with college men who reported intervening to prevent sexual assault indicated that half reported they were “slightly” but not “severely” intoxicated while intervening, and that this slight intoxication provided them additional “liquid courage” to intervene25. However, because most college students do not engage in heavy episodic drinking26, understanding how other alcohol use patterns, including the frequency of use, are associated with bystander attitudes is important. Given the prevalence of interpersonal violence in drinking settings27, 28, it may be that regardless of quantity consumed, individuals who consume alcohol more frequently may be (1) better able to recognize patterns of high-risk behavior and (2) have more opportunities to intervene in high-risk situations than less frequent drinkers, resulting in more confidence to intervene because of their experience.

Another major limitation of the aforementioned research on alcohol use and bystander attitudes is the lack of gender and sexual diversity, as most studies have been conducted with heterosexual men. Not surprisingly given the lack of research on women and sexual minority individuals, two out of the three current bystander training programs that integrate alcohol use only target men7, 8. In order to inform more inclusive bystander training programs, understanding how alcohol use frequency is associated with bystander self-efficacy among other identity groups is needed.

Current Study

The purpose of the current study was to examine the association between (1) alcohol use frequency and (2) sexual orientation and gender identity, and bystander self-efficacy. First, it is hypothesized that alcohol use frequency will be positively associated with bystander self-efficacy (Hypothesis 1). Because prior research indicates that men, compared to women, report less self-efficacy to intervene in interpersonal violence14, it is hypothesized that SM and heterosexual men will report less bystander self-efficacy compared to heterosexual women (Hypothesis 2a). Further, in light of research with adolescents which indicates that SM girls are more likely to report bystander opportunities19, it is hypothesized SM women they will report greater bystander self-efficacy compared to heterosexual women (Hypothesis 2b). Finally, given the limited theoretical and empirical data on alcohol use and bystander intervention among SM populations, this study will examine whether sexual/gender identity (heterosexual men, SM men, SM women compared to heterosexual women) moderates the association between alcohol use frequency and bystander self-efficacy (Exploratory Aim).

Methods

The present study was drawn from a larger study examining differences in drinking norms among college students (Author Citation). Hypotheses tested herein are novel and the analytic plan was developed specifically to address these aims.

Participants

A total of 6,500 students aged 18–25 were randomly selected from the registrars list at a large university in the Southwestern United States to receive an email invitation to participate in an online survey. Of the students receiving the recruitment email, 758 participants (11%) completed the online survey. Although some research has demonstrated higher responses rates 29, 30, a larger number of invitations was needed to oversample individuals who identified as a sexual or gender minority. Participation rates were capped to ensure a relatively equal number of students who identify as cisgender heterosexual men (34.3%, n=260), cisgender heterosexual women (34.3%, n=260), and individuals who identified as either a sexual or gender minority (31.4%, n=234). Among the sexual or gender minority group, seven participants were identified as non-binary, gender queer, or gender fluid and were excluded from the present study, which aims to test differences based on gender and sexual orientation in bystander self-efficacy. The remaining participants in this identity group (n=227) all identified as a SM, resulting in a final sample of 750 participants.

In regard to gender and sexual identity of the final sample (n=750), 260 participants identified as cisgender heterosexual men, 260 participants identified as cisgender heterosexual women, 59 participants identified as SM men (54 cisgender, 5 transgender (female-to-male)), 171 participants identified as SM women (169 cisgender, 2 transgender (male-to-female)). Among SM women, most participants identified as bisexual (n=96, 56.1%), lesbian (n=20, 11.6%), questioning (n=19, 11.1%), queer (n=17, 9/9%), or another sexual orientation (n=19, 11.1%). Among SM men, most participants identified their sexual orientation as bisexual (n=21, 35.6%), gay (n=18, 30.5%), questioning (n=7, 11.9%), or another sexual orientation (n=13, 22%). On average, participants were 18 or 19 years old (71.5%, n=535), with a mean age of 19.13 years old (SD=1.09). Consistent with university demographics, most participants identified as White (64%), non-Hispanic/Latinx (74.6%), and were in college for less than a year (56%). Full descriptive statistics are reported in Table 1.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics

Heterosexual Women (n = 260) Heterosexual Men (n = 260) SM Women (n = 171) SM Men (n =59)
N % N % N % N %
Racial/Ethnic Identity
White 119 68 93 56.4 82 63.6 30 71.4
Hispanic/Latinx 47 26.9 34 30.6 37 28.7 11 26.2
Black 7 4 12 7.3 11 8.5 2 4.8
Multiracial 27 15.4 19 11.5 18 14 4 9.5
Other 21 12.6 41 24.4 18 14 5 11.9
Year in College
Freshman 156 60.0 150 57.7 83 48.5 32 54.2
Sophomore 63 24.2 56 21.5 45 26.3 11 18.6
Junior 30 11.5 36 13.8 38 21.1 19 16.9
Senior 11 4.2 15 5.8 7 26.3 6 10.2
Greek Membership 43 16.5 34 13.1 16 9.4 5 8.5
Single 160 61.5 188 72.3 116 67.8 40 67.8
M SD M SD M SD M SD
Age 19.02 1.04 19.15 1.12 19.18 1.13 19.34 1.04
Sexual Victimization (Lifetime) 9.99 13.61 1.75 5.98 9.66 14.45 5.03 14.09
Alcohol Use Quantity 3.49 5.62 5.33 9.96 4.26 6.63 3.59 4.96
Alcohol Use Frequency 1.01 1.23 1.15 1.47 1.10 1.24 1.07 1.16
Bystander Self-Efficacy 88.63 10.82 76.98 17.16 85.90 13.01 82.21 17.15
Open in a new tab

Note.

*

Racial/ethnic identity includes missing data due to a computer programming error, percentages are based off the number of participants who reported on this variable (n=512); Sexual victimization is a severity score; Percentages for identity groups are out of the identity group sample; Alcohol use quantity is the total number of drinks a week participants consume on average; Alcohol use frequency is the number of days a week on average participants consume alcohol (0–7).

Procedure

All study procedures were approved by the institutional review board. Participants were presented with an informational statement prior to enrolling in the study, and provided informed consent electronically. Participants completing a 30-minute online survey received a US$15 gift card, and had the opportunity to win one US$100 gift card.

Measures

Demographics.

Participants completed items assessing age, racial identity, ethnicity, year in college, Greek membership, and relationship status.

Gender Identity.

To assess gender identity, participants were asked the following question: “Understanding gender identity can be complex, which one category best describes your gender identity now?” Prior research has validated the use of this item to assess gender identity (Reisner et al., 2014). Responses included to following options: a.) female; b.) male; c.) transgender (female-to-male FTM); d.) transgender (male-to-female MTF); e.) other.

Sexual Orientation.

To assess sexual orientation, participants responded to the question: “Understanding that sexual identity can be complex, which one category best describes your sexual identity now?” This item has been used in previous research among sexual minority individuals31. Response options included the following: a.) lesbian; b.) gay; c.) bisexual; d.) queer; e.) two-spirit; f.) straight/heterosexual; g.) questioning; h.) other; i) prefer not to answer1.

Sexual Assault Victimization.

The Sexual Experience Survey – Short Form Victimization (SES-SFV)32 was used to assess participants’ experiences with sexual victimization during their lifetime (asked separately for since age 14 and in the past year). This assessment included items such as non-consensual sexual contact (e.g., fondling) and attempted or completed penetration (i.e., oral, vaginal, or anal). In addition, perpetrator tactics included in this instrument included verbal coercion, incapacitation, and physical force. Participants were asked how often each sexual experience was obtained by each tactic with response options ranging from 0 (never) to 3 (three or more times). As recommended by Davis et al. (2014), a severity scoring method was utilized to accounts for multiple victimizations through multiple tactics. This scoring procedure takes into account both frequency of experiences (0, 1, 2, or 3) and severity of experiences (1=sexual contact by verbal coercion to 6=attempted or completed rape scale) by multiplying frequency of experiences by the victimization experience. The total number of experiences is then scored, with higher scores indicated greater sexual assault victimization severity.

Alcohol Use.

The Daily Drinking Questionnaire33 was utilized to measure the quantity and frequency of alcohol use in a typical week. Participants were asked to estimate the typical number of drinks and total time they consumed alcohol on average for each day of a typical week (i.e., “How many drinks do you consume on a typical Friday?”, “Over how many hours”). One drink was defined as one 12-ounce beer, one 5-ounce glass of wine, or one 1.5 ounce shot of 80-proof spirits. Alcohol use quantity was a sum scores of average drinks per week, whereas alcohol use frequency was the number of days (0–7) participants reported consuming alcohol on average. Alcohol use quantity and frequency were consistent with prior samples34

Bystander Self-Efficacy.

The Bystander Efficacy Scale35 is a 14-item Likert-type scale that measures participants’ confidence in performing a variety of bystander behaviors related to sex (e.g., “Criticize a friend who tells me that they had sex with someone who was passed out or who didn’t give consent”) and dating violence (e.g., “Talk to a friend who I suspect is in an abusive relationship”). Modifications were made to the original scale to make items gender neutral (i.e., changing woman to someone). Participants rate items on a scale from 0 (can’t do) to 100 (very certain), with higher scores reflecting of greater self-efficacy for engaging in bystander behaviors (α=.93).

Statistical Analyses

Data were modeled using Mplus8 v. 1.6. Prior to analyses, participants responding that they identified as (1) male and female-to-male transgender and straight/heterosexual were placed into the heterosexual men group (2) female or male-to-female transgender and straight/heterosexual were placed into the heterosexual women group (3) male and female-to-male transgender and that their sexual orientation was any response other than straight/heterosexual, were placed into the SM men identity group and (4) female or male-to-female transgender and that their sexual orientation was any response other than straight/heterosexual, were placed into the SM woman identity group. Identity group was dummy coded with heterosexual women as the reference group (dummy code 1: SM women=1, heterosexual women=0; dummy code 2: SM men=1, heterosexual women=0; dummy code 3: heterosexual men=1, heterosexual women=0). Alcohol use frequency was mean centered. Interaction terms were calculated by obtaining a cross-product of the centered alcohol use frequency variable and the dummy coded identity group variables. Interactions were tested to examine if the association between alcohol use frequency and bystander self-efficacy differed among groups. Sexual assault victimization severity and average alcohol use quantity were included in the models as covariates because they these variables were significantly correlated with bystander self-efficacy in preliminary analyses. Two separate OLS regression models were run to test for main and interactive effects. Maximum likelihood estimation was used, and confidence intervals were computed using bootstrapping procedures with 5,000 draws.

Results

Preliminary Results

For descriptive statistics see Table 1. A series of chi-square tests and one-way ANOVAs explored demographic differences in alcohol use frequency and bystander self-efficacy. Results indicated that individuals who belong to a sorority or fraternity reported drinking more often than those not affiliated (F(2)=33.97, p<.001). No other effects were detected.

Test of Hypotheses (see Table 2)

Table 2.

Independent and joint effects of alcohol use frequency and sexual identity on bystander self-efficacy

Main Effects Model B SE z p LL 95%CI UL95% CI
Sexual Assault Victimization Severity −.03 .04 −.70 .485 −.09 .04
Average Use Quantity −.04 .04 −.81 .416 −.11 .04
Alcohol Use Frequency .10 .04 2.49 .013 .03 .16
Dummy Code 1: SM Women compared to Heterosexual Women .07 .04 1.87 .061 .01 .14
Dummy Code 2: SM Men compared to Heterosexual Women −.07 .04 −1.87 .061 −.13 −.01
Dummy Code 3: Heterosexual Men compared to Heterosexual Women −.29 .04 −7.14 >.001 −.35 −.22
Interaction Model
Sexual Assault Victimization Severity −.01 04 −.22 .825 −.07 .05
Average Use Quantity −.07 .05 −1.56 .118 −.15 .00
Alcohol Use Frequency .13 .06 2.10 .035 .03 .24
Dummy Code 1: SM Women compared to Heterosexual Women .07 .04 1.67 .094 .00 .13
Dummy Code 2: SM Men compared to Heterosexual Women −.07 .04 −1.92 .055 −.13 −.01
Dummy Code 3: Heterosexual Men compared to Heterosexual Women −.28 .04 −6.98 >.001 −.35 −.22
Alcohol Use Frequency x SM Women −.10 .04 −2.19 .028 −.17 −.02
Alcohol Use Frequency x SM Men .07 .04 1.90 .057 .01 .14
Alcohol Use Frequency x Heterosexual Men −.01 .05 −.12 .903 −.09 .08
Open in a new tab

Note. LL= Lower Limit; UL=Upper Limit; SM=Sexual Minority.

In the main effects model, alcohol use frequency was positively associated with bystander self-efficacy. Additionally, heterosexual men reported less bystander self-efficacy compared to heterosexual women. No other effects were detected.

In the model with the interaction terms, there was a conditional main effect of alcohol use frequency, that was qualified by a significant Alcohol Use Frequency x SM Women (vs Heterosexual Women) interaction. As displayed in Figure 1, explication of this interaction indicated that the association between alcohol use frequency and bystander self-efficacy was significant and positive among heterosexual (b=−1.52, p=.036), but not SM (b=−.98, p=.286) women. In other words, alcohol use frequency was associated with greater bystander self-efficacy for heterosexual, but not SM women.

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Open in a new tab

Moderating effect of identity group on the relation between alcohol use frequency and bystander self-efficacy

Discussion

The current study examined the association between alcohol use frequency, gender, sexual identity, and bystander intentions among a random sample of college students at a large university. Consistent with Hypothesis 1, findings demonstrated that across all identity groups, alcohol use frequency was associated with greater bystander self-efficacy. While prior evidence suggests that heavy episodic drinking is associated with lower intentions to intervene in interpersonal violence22, 23, this is the first study to our knowledge to demonstrate that how often one consumes alcohol is associated with bystander confidence. It may be that frequent drinkers may have greater prior experience intervening, thereby boosting their confidence. Given the robust link between alcohol use and interpersonal violence and venues frequented by those consuming alcohol (i.e., parties, bars), the situations warranting intervention may also prove to be familiar, thus increasing a prospective bystander’s confidence as well.

Consistent with prior research, results also demonstrated that heterosexual men are less confident in their ability to intervene compared to heterosexual women (Hypothesis 2a). Prior research suggest that heterosexual men are more susceptible to barriers to bystander intervention related to peer norms36, which may limit their confidence to intervene. Men’s report numerous barriers to intervening24 and it is possible that heterosexual men may be more likely to think women should intervene in interpersonal violence, thereby impacting their efficacy to be an effective bystander.

Although we did not find any differences in bystander self-efficacy between SM women and heterosexual women (Hypothesis 2b), exploratory analyses indicated that the association between alcohol use frequency and bystander self-efficacy differs among heterosexual and SM women. Specifically, heterosexual, but not SM, women who drink more often report being more confident in their ability to intervene in interpersonal violence. One possible explanation for this association is that alcohol use provides liquid courage to heterosexual women to intervene and increases their confidence. Similarly, it is possible heterosexual women have had more successful opportunities to intervene in interpersonal violence in drinking settings, leading to an increase in confidence. On the other hand, SM women may not experience the same acute confidence boost when drinking because they have more barriers to intervene in alcohol related contexts. For example, SM women may have greater concerns for their own safety in drinking contexts thereby decreasing their confidence to help. This is particularly important to contextualize within the highly elevated rates of interpersonal violence experienced by SM minority, where it is possible that some intervention scenarios may pose an increased risk for SM women be victimized as a result of their intervention. It is also likely that because current bystander training efforts do not provide tailored content at SM students, including the program offered at the university where this study took place, SM women have not had training to boost their confidence to intervene in risky situations they are most likely to encounter. More research is needed to test these assumptions.

Several limitations warrant discussion. First, the current sample included a random sample of students at one university, therefore, it is possible that the findings may not generalize to other universities. Second, because a random sample of college students were collected with a cap based on identity groups, there was not enough variability in the SM group to assess differences in bystander self-efficacy between individuals who identify as a sexual minority (e.g., lesbian, bisexual, gay). Further, given the small sample of gender non-conforming students in our study, we were unable examine differences in this group. Given that individuals who identify as a sexual or gender minority are not a homogenous group, future work should examine differences within these populations. Next, our measure of alcohol use frequency assessed drinking patterns in a typical week, thus the detected associations may not generalize to students who engage in alcohol use less frequently (e.g., once a month). This variable was selected because it is likely that individuals who engage in alcohol use more frequently are also more likely to be in contexts in which they have an opportunity to intervene as bystanders, however future research should directly assess drinking contents (e.g., party attendance). Given the importance of intersectionality, particularly as it relates to instances of interpersonal and interpersonal violence, it may be likely that other identities (i.e., racial, ethnic, socioeconomic status) may also influence one’s confidence to intervene. Finally, due to the cross-sectional design of this study, temporal conclusions between variables are not possible and should be interpreted with caution.

The current study is the first study to our knowledge that examines the association between alcohol use frequency and bystander self-efficacy among college students who identify as a SM. Findings from the current study suggest that there may be a need for tailored programming for students based on their alcohol consumption and sexual identity, particularly for women, given the differences in bystander self-efficacy. Thus, in line with prior calls from scholars37, there is a need for more inclusive programming rather than a sole focus on male-to-female sexual assault.

Acknowledgements:

This work was supported by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism under Grants R34AA025691 and K01AA028844

Footnotes

1

Seven participants reported “prefer not to answer” on this question. These participants were ultimately classified into one of the two SM groups based on their responses to the question, “Would you say that your sexual feelings and attractions these days are a). only towards women, b.) mostly towards women, c.) equally towards women and men, d.) mostly towards men, or e.) only towards women. Analyses were conducted with and without these participants in the model. The pattern of effects was the same between the two models, and thus these participants were retained in the final model.

Conflicts of Interest: The authors have no conflicts to disclose.

References

  • 1.Muehlenhard CL, Peterson ZD, Humphreys TP, Jozkowski KN. Evaluating the One-in-Five Statistic: Women’s Risk of Sexual Assault While in College. J Sex Res. May -Jun 2017;54(4–5):549–576. doi: 10.1080/00224499.2017.1295014 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Edwards KM, Sylaska KM, Neal AM. Intimate partner violence among sexual minority populations: A critical review of the literature and agenda for future research. Psychol Violence. 2015;5(2):112. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Abbey A. Alcohol-related sexual assault: A common problem among college students. J Stud Alcohol Suppl. Mar 2002;Supplement(14):118–28. doi: 10.15288/jsas.2002.s14.118 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Leonard KE, Quigley BM. Thirty years of research show alcohol to be a cause of intimate partner violence: Future research needs to identify who to treat and how to treat them. Drug Alcohol Rev. Jan 2017;36(1):7–9. doi: 10.1111/dar.12434 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Graham K, Bernards S, Wayne Osgood D, et al. “Blurred lines?” Sexual aggression and barroom culture. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. May 2014;38(5):1416–24. doi: 10.1111/acer.12356 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Haikalis M, Leone RM, Parrott DJ, DiLillo D. Sexual Assault Survivor Reports of Missed Bystander Opportunities: The Role of Alcohol, Sexual Objectification, and Relational Factors. Violence Against Women. Aug 2018;24(10):1232–1254. doi: 10.1177/1077801218781941 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Orchowski LM, Barnett N, Borsari B, et al. Randomized Pilot Trial of an Integrated Alcohol and Sexual Assault Prevention Program for Heavy Drinking College Men: Six Month Outcomes. Alcoholism-Clinical and Experimental Research. Jun 2016;40:253a–253a. [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Salazar LF, Vivolo-Kantor A, Hardin J, Berkowitz A. A web-based sexual violence bystander intervention for male college students: randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res. Sep 5 2014;16(9):e203. doi: 10.2196/jmir.3426 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Zinzow HM, Thompson MP, Goree J, Fulmer CB, Greene C, Watts H. Evaluation of a college sexual violence prevention program focused on education, bystander intervention, and alcohol risk reduction. College Student Affairs Journal. 2018;36(2):110–125. doi: 10.1353/csj.2018.0019 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.American College Health Association. 2020. American College Health Association-National College Health Assessment III: Reference Group Executive Summary Fall 2020. [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Jouriles EN, Krauss A, Vu NL, Banyard VL, McDonald R. Bystander programs addressing sexual violence on college campuses: A systematic review and meta-analysis of program outcomes and delivery methods. J Am Coll Health. Aug-Sep 2018;66(6):457–466. doi: 10.1080/07448481.2018.1431906 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Katz J, Moore J. Bystander education training for campus sexual assault prevention: an initial meta-analysis. Violence Vict. 2013;28(6):1054–67. doi: 10.1891/0886-6708.vv-d-12-00113 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Kettrey HH, Marx RA. The Effects of Bystander Programs on the Prevention of Sexual Assault across the College Years: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. J Youth Adolesc. Feb 2019;48(2):212–227. doi: 10.1007/s10964-018-0927-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Amar AF, Strout TD, Simpson S, Cardiello M, Beckford S. Administrators’ perceptions of college campus protocols, response, and student prevention efforts for sexual assault. Violence Vict. 2014;29(4):579–93. doi: 10.1891/0886-6708.vv-d-12-00154 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Banyard VL. Who will help prevent sexual violence: Creating an ecological model of bystander intervention. Psychol Violence. 2011;1(3):216–229. doi: 10.1037/a0023739 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Brown AL, Banyard VL, Moynihan MM. College students as helpful bystanders against sexual violence: Gender, race, and year in college moderate the impact of perceived peer norms. Psychol Women Q. Sep 2014;38(3):350–362. doi: 10.1177/0361684314526855 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Hoxmeier JC, McMahon S, Connor JO. Beyond Yes or No : Understanding Undergraduate Students ‘ Responses as Bystanders to Sexual Assault Risk Situations. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 2017;doi: 10.1177/0886260517723143 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Hoxmeier JC, Mennicke A, McMahon S. Bystander Intervention Opportunities and Prosocial Behaviors Among Gender and Sexual Minority College Students. J Interpers Violence. Oct 21 2020:886260520967131. doi: 10.1177/0886260520967131 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Waterman EA, Edwards KM, Beaulieu AE, Banyard VL. Who sees opportunity to help? A prospective study on adolescents’ detection of intervention opportunities in situations of sexual and dating violence. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. 2020;37(10–11):2843–2862. doi: 10.1177/0265407520940415 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Wyatt JD. Comparing Bystander Intentions in Sexual Assault Situations involving Same-Gender and Opposite-Gender Individuals: The Role of Sexual Orientation. Ohio University; 2020. [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Leone RM, Haikalis M, Parrott DJ, DiLillo D. Bystander Intervention to Prevent Sexual Violence: The Overlooked Role of Bystander Alcohol Intoxication. Psychol Violence. Sep 2018;8(5):639–647. doi: 10.1037/vio0000155 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Orchowski LM, Berkowitz A, Boggis J, Oesterle D. Bystander intervention among college men: The role of alcohol and correlates of sexual aggression. . J Interpers Violence. Oct 2016;31(17):2824–2846. doi: 10.1177/0886260515581904 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Fleming WM, Wiersma-Mosley JD. The role of alcohol consumption patterns and pro-social bystander interventions in contexts of gender violence. Violence against Women. Oct 2015;21(10):1259–1283. doi: 10.1177/1077801215592721 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Oesterle DW, Orchowski LM, Moreno O, Berkowitz A. A qualitative analysis of bystander intervention among heavy-drinking college men. Violence against Women. Aug 2018;24(10):1207–1231. doi: 10.1177/1077801218781931 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Kaya A, Le TP, Brady J, Iwamoto D. Men who intervene to prevent sexual assault: A grounded theory study on the role of masculinity in bystander intervention. Psychology of Men & Masculinities. 2020;21(3):463–478. doi: 10.1037/men0000249 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Krieger H, Young CM, Anthenien AM, Neighbors C. The epidemiology of binge drinking among college-age individuals in the United States. Alcohol Research: Current Reviews. 2018;1(39):23–30. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Testa M, Cleveland MJ. It Depends on How You Look at It: The Role of Alcohol in Men’s Sexual Aggression Perpetration. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs. Jan 2017;78(1):18–19. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Graham K, Wells S, Bernards S, Dennison S. “Yes, I do but not with you” - Qualitative analyses of sexual/romantic overturn-related aggression in bars and clubs. Contemporary Drug Problems. 2010;37(2):2–25. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Testa M, Livingston JA, Wang W. Dangerous Liaisons: The Role of Hookups and Heavy Episodic Drinking in College Sexual Victimization. Violence Vict. Jun 1 2019;34(3):492–507. doi: 10.1891/0886-6708.VV-D-18-00075 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Iwamoto DK, Corbin W, Brady J, et al. Heavy Episodic Drinking Trajectories Among Underage Young Adult Women: The Role of Feminine Norms. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. Mar 2018;42(3):551–560. doi: 10.1111/acer.13582 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Davis KC, Gilmore AK, Stappenbeck CA, Balsan MJ, George WH, Norris J. How to score the Sexual Experiences Survey? A comparison of nine methods. Psychol Violence. 2014;4(4):445–461 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Dworkin ER, Kaysen D, Bedard-Gilligan M, Rhew IC, Lee CM. Daily-level associations between PTSD and cannabis use among young sexual minority women. Addict Behav. Nov 2017;74:118–121. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2017.06.007 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Koss MP, Abbey A, Campbell R, et al. Revising the SES: A collaborative process to improve assessment of sexual aggression and victimization. Psychol Women Q. Dec 2007;31(4):357–370. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-6402.2007.00385.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Collins RL, Parks GA, Marlatt GA. Social determinants of alcohol consumption: the effects of social interaction and model status on the self-administration of alcohol. J Consult Clin Psychol. Apr 1985;53(2):189–200. doi: 10.1037//0022-006x.53.2.189 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Sher KJ, Rutledge PC. Heavy drinking across the transition to college: Predicting first-semester heavy drinking from precollege variables. Addict Behav. Apr 2007;32(4):819–35. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2006.06.024 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Banyard VL. Rape prevention through bystander education: Bringing a broader community perspective to sexual violence prevention. US Department of Justice. 2005;doi: 10.1037/e535792006-001 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Leone RM, Parrott DJ, Swartout KM. When is it “manly” to intervene?: Examining the effects of a misogynistic peer norm on bystander intervention for sexual aggression. Psychol Violence. Apr 2017;7(2):286–295. doi: 10.1037/vio0000055 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Potter SJ, Fountain K, Stapleton JG. Addressing sexual and relationship violence in the LGBT community using a bystander framework. Harv Rev Psychiatry. Jul-Aug 2012;20(4):201–8. doi: 10.3109/10673229.2012.712838 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES