Presentation on theme: "Engaging Communities in Interpersonal Violence Prevention"— Presentation transcript:
1Engaging Communities in Interpersonal Violence Prevention Who Will Help?Engaging Communities in Interpersonal Violence PreventionVictoria L. Banyard, Ph.D.Psychology & Prevention InnovationsUniversity of New Hampshire2011 Bystander Summit, SUNY Oneonta
2Overview Translating bystander research into prevention Formative evaluation: Lessons LearnedImplementationDiffusion of innovationOutcome evaluation: Does it work?
3How do we promote positive bystander intervention? Lessons from social psychologyLessons from health behavior change literatureApplications to interpersonal violence: research examples
4Adapted from Latane and Darley and Dovidio. Notice event + need for helpEmpathyAssume responsibilitySocial NormsPros and cons including safetyPerceived efficacySkill set + experienceAdapted from Latane and Darley and Dovidio.Choose from optionsProvide help
5Need to notice risk factors AWARENESS/KNOWLEDGENeed to notice risk factorsNeed to define the situation as problematicPerceived susceptibility and severity (Health Belief Model)Cues to action (HBM)Asked to interveneCommunity specific stories, examples, dataKnowledge of sexual assault; knowledge of risk factors
6Characteristics of the bystander Perceptions of the victim RESPONSIBILITYCharacteristics of the bystanderPerceptions of the victimVictim empathyIn-group versus out-group statusSocial normsAgainst sexual violenceIn favor of intervention (TPB)Being asked (cues to action)Characteristics of the situationDiffusion and facilitationCharacteristics of the bystander: Research also shows the importance of personality dimensions of motivation (e.g. Michelini, Wilson, & Messe, 1975), religious faith (e.g. Hardy & Carlo, 2005) and personal experiences with the situational context. Research tends to find that people are more likely to help those that seem similar to them (e.g. Miller, Kozu, & Davis, 2001). Positive mood linked to helping. Finally, the role of demographics, particularly gender, is complex. Eisenberg and colleagues (2002) have garnered some evidence for aspects of a prosocial personality and prosocial moral judgement that seem to impact actual prosocial behavior over time . There also also likely personality differences in HOW an individual will feel most comfortable helping.A meta-analysis by Eagly and Crowley (1986) on gender and helping found men more likely to help in situations involving an emergency or danger and women more likely to help in more safe situations such as volunteering for organizations or needy groups or helping friends (e.g. George et al, 1998).Such research has begun to be applied to the field of interpersonal violence. For example, Christy and Voigt (1994) researched and conducted studies on bystander responses to child abuse and found that “bystanders intervened in situations where others also intervened”(841). They found that intervention was associated with the characteristics of the bystander, the abusive situation, the victim, and the perpetrator. For example, people who had intervened in a case of observed child abuse were more likely than non-interveners to say they knew how to intervene and felt responsible for stopping abuse. They were also more likely to have been abused themselves as a child. In terms of the situation, they were more likely to say that other witnesses did not intervene. Shotland and Straw’s (1976) review of the literature showed that men are less likely to intervene when a man attacks a woman than they are to intercede in other fights. Other literature also suggests that women are more likely to elicit help from strangers (see Laner, Benin, & Ventrone, 2001 for review). Researchers, however, have noted that in terms of interpersonal violence, knowledge that the abuser is related to the victim will affect the likelihood of intervention. If respondents know that the abuser and victim are related, respondents will be less likely to intend to intervene (Laner, Benin, & Ventrone, 2001; Levine, 1999; Shotland & Straw, 1976). A study by Harari, Harari, and White (1985), however, using a simulated rape found high rates of intervention by male bystanders whether the bystanders were alone or in a group. It should be noted, however, that the rape scenario involved the stereotypical scene of a stranger jumping out of the bushes and attacking a woman. Much less is known about interventions in situations of sexual assault by an acquaintance in a social setting such as a party.Is victim seen like self? More likely to help friends than strangers. UK research on in-group membership – can manipulate this to some extent to increase helping. Is victim seen as helpless or as causing their problems (is where links to rape myth acceptance may be key – issue of fault and victim blame).Social norms about being a bystander – Stein article about men’s peers view of sexual assault prevention. Key component of theories like Theory of Reasoned Action.Characteristics of situation – number of bystanders makes a difference and whether bystanders know each other – larger number of bystanders who are unknown to each other decreases helping but more cohesive group of bystanders can promote helping. My research on residence halls – more helping in smaller halls. Frye research on neighborhoods here too. Gracia research – social disorganization in communities (low sense community) related to increased reluctance to report DV.
7PROS/CONS/PERSONAL SAFETY Health behavior theories support decision process for new behaviors – weigh pros and consBystander research also shows cost/benefit analysisSafety nets for bystandersSocial norms to support helpful interventionAudience inhibition (Berkowitz)Need to help people be conscious about pros and cons – key components of HBM and other theories of health behavior change.Need to have policies and norms that support helpful bystanders stepping in – good samaritan type policies. This is a concern for students.
8CONFIDENCE AND SKILLS FOR ACTION Increase confidence/efficacyNeed specific skill buildingNeed role models (POLS research)Need range of options (MVP program)Beliefs about outcomes (TPB)Focus on efficacy comes from bystander research but also part of HBM and TRA. – very strong predictor in these models!!!
9Empirical Support for the Situational Model: Studies of Bystander Behavior and Relationship Violence Review findings on studies of correlates of bystander behavior.Bystander attitudes: Recent Brown & Messman-Moore article; Chabot article in JIV – peer norms are important in likelihood of intervening (like Stein study of likelihood of men getting involved in rape prevention).Most studies are on attitudes rather than actual behavior. Social psych studies use experimental design – less understood is actual behavior in the community (Frye article is an exception here).Bystander behavior: my recent analyses with Mary – role of gender as moderator; importance of decisional balance; importance of sense of responsibility for men.UNH research on sexual violence and bystanders. Greater sense of community, knowledge of sexual assualt, decreased rape myths were associated with greater expressed willingness to help. Also greater bystander efficacy was related to later measures of actual bystander behavior.
10Attitudes***********Banyard, V. L. (2008). Measurement and correlates of pro-social bystander behavior: The case of interpersonal violence. Violence and Victims, 23,
12Longitudinal Predictors of Behavior: Attitudes matter ***Study of nearly 400 UNH students. N=94 who completed 2 mo followup behavior measure and didn’t get the program (control group only from NIJ study).Banyard, V. L. (2008). Measurement and correlates of pro-social bystander behavior: The case of interpersonal violence. Violence and Victims, 23,
13Complexities Gender Age Who is helped? Typology of helping Friends versus strangersVictims versus perpetratorsTypology of helpingWhich models better predict behavior?Environmental contexts (e.g. community size; sense of community)Residential life data about small dorms and sense of community.
14Theories of Health Behavior Change: Lessons from Prevention ParallelsReadiness for Change processKey variables from Social/cog model, TPB, HBM:KnowledgePersonal attitudes and Peer normsConfidence/efficacyBeliefs about outcomes (pros and cons)Behavioral intentionStages of change parallel situational model in many waysDifferent tools for different stages – our program seeks to do this - modeled on work related to prevention of smoking or healthy behavior promotion, substance abuse is key topic here.ELMQ – Heppner work – need to make messaging personally relevant – local stories and statsHBM – need to increase effiacacy that you can do something about the problem and see own behavior as relevant – key for prevention behaviors like wearing sunscreen or breast cancer screening.Key role of social norms – Edwards POLS work with SEEDS and green dot programs are relevant here. – HIV research very key here.
15Founding Bystander Programs Founding Programs:Jackson Katz – Mentors in Violence Prevention (MVP)Alan BerkowitzRecent ProgramsBringing in the Bystander (UNH)Foubert – The Men’s ProgramEdwards - SEEDSTheater ProgramsInterACT – California State UniversityNo Zebras – Central MichiganiScream – Rutgers - McMahon
16Shared components Use of discussion and active learning Visualization exercisesbuild empathyConnect material to participants’ felt experiencePractice sceneriosModel and practice skillsPractice applying to own experienceIncrease awarenessDebunk mythsProvide information to reduce ambiguityDirectly ask people to play a roleNeed for evaluation data
18The Program: Specific content What is a bystander?Victim empathyDefining scope of sexual violencecauses and consequencesConsent 101Range of safe interventions for bystandersModeling range of skillsReviewing community resourcesEmphasis on bystander safetyPledge to interveneBystander plan
19A Local Example: Stoke Hall Gang Rape 1987 Three men gang raped a woman in 1987 in Stoke Hall, a residence hall at UNH.The victim transferred to another University.Two of three offenders plead guilty to misdemeanor sexual assault for which they would each spend 2 months in prison.
20Small Group Work Ask participants to: think of examples when they did or did not intervenethink of examples when they saw someone else intervenethink of examples when someone intervened on their behalfdiscuss and list the reasons they did or did not interveneshare how they felt about their experiences, what impact it had on themdiscuss if it is easier or more difficult to intervene when it’s a friend or a stranger, and why?
21Responsibility Responsibility bystander pledge being asked to step in readiness for change – use of lots of different tools to move forward people who are in different places in readiness to change.
22BYSTANDER PLEDGEI pledge toExpress my outrage about rape and all forms of sexual violence.Talk to other community members about sexual violence.Interrupt sexist jokes that objectify women and girls.Seek information about why sexual violence is so prevalent in our society and how I can help prevent it.Change anything I may be doing that contributes to sexual violence.Support and encourage men and women to take responsibility for ending sexual violence.Listen to my friends’ and partners’ fears and concerns for safety.Pay attention to cries for help and take action.Challenge images of violence against women in advertising and entertainment.Support women and men working together to end sexual violence.Nurture myself and be aware of my personal safety.Believe and support women, children, and men who have experienced any form of sexual violence._____________________________________Name and DateWitness and Date
24Decision Making Process QUESTIONS TO ASK BEFORE I TAKE ACTION:Am I aware there is a problem or risky situation?Do I recognize someone needs help?Do I see others and myself as part of the solution?QUESTIONS TO ASK DURING THE SITUATION:How can I keep myself safe?What are my available options?Are there others I may call upon for help?What are the benefits/costs for taking action?DECISION TO TAKE ACTION:When to act?Resources: people, phone, etc available?ACT
25Close up Least safe With others Alone Most safe Distant Multiple exercises for generating bystander behaviors BEFORE; DURING; AFTER and related to FRIENDS, ACQUAINTANCE OR SOMEONE YOU DON’T KNOW BUT WHO YOU SEE IN A RISKY SITUATION.EMPHASIS CONTINUALLY ON HOW TO KEEP SELF SAFE.Distant
27SCENARIO THREE:You are walking down the hall to catch the elevator to go to your room. When you pass a dorm room on the first floor you hear a man and a woman yelling at each other. The man is calling the woman a “slut” and other names.Decision Making Process:People have arguments all the time…is this my business? Have they been drinking?…I wonder if this argument will escalate and someone is at risk of being physically hurt…will someone else call the police if it continues?…should I go get my RA? What am I supposed to do?Pros and cons of each option:Nothing. It is none of my business.Go to my room and come down in an hour to see if they are still “going at it.”Go get my RA and discuss it with her/him.Call 911.Your own idea:_____________________________________What do you do? How do you stay safe?* Format adapted with permission from Katz, Mentors in Violence Prevention
28PERSONAL PLAN OF ACTION SCENARIO:___________________________________________________________DECISION MAKING PROCESS:_____________________________________PLAN OF ACTION:____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Program seems to work and have persisting effects for 2 monthsProgram works for both men and women ADDS TO PREVIOUS LITERATURE BUT ALSO LINKS TO PRACTICE! FOUNDATION FOR MEDIA CAMPAIGN AND UNH PD IMPLEMENTATION GRANT TO REDUCE VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN.Need to replicate with more diverse sampleNeed longer follow-upPreliminary analyses of 4 & 12 month show persistence of effects on attitudes and knowledge, less so for behavior but may be artifact of data collection time point (February – when last 2 months included school break) – small sample size here and overrep of females.Need to work on improving and expanding measures – ex. Measure of opportunities to intervene. Also, measures of things like Malamuth attractiveness of sexual aggression.Further analyses of current data: Unpack few gender differences, examine readiness to change and ELMQ, survivor questions. Have grant for secondary analysis submitted and being reviewed at NIJ right now.Partnership with UNH PD grant to prevent VAW on campusPilot project with Fraternities, Sororities, and athletes.Media CampaignMeasurement developmentGrant under review to expand across different types of campuses and with dual focus on SV and IPV.Broader community focus – secondary schools, wider community context – special issue of Journal of Prevention and Intervention in the Community
29Stages of ChangeDenial and precontemplation: lower efficacy and higher rape myth acceptance, cons outweigh prosContemplation: greater knowledge, intent, confidence, pros outweigh consAction: greater helping and confidence (cost/benefit not significant)
33Experimental Evaluation 3 conditionsControlOne-session treatmentThree-session treatmentLongitudinal designPart of this project was supported by Grant No WG-BX-0009 awarded by the National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Dept. of Justice. Points of view in this presentation are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Dept. of Justice
34Participants 389 undergraduates (172 men ; 217 women) Exclusionary criteria: participants excluded if not traditional college age and if had received prior training as peer advisor or advocate at sexual assault crisis center.Retention rate 75-94%
35Outcomes Knowledge Efficacy Attitudes Rape myth acceptance Willingness to helpPros and cons of being a bystanderSelf-reported bystander behavior
36Hypothesis: Program will be effective Repeated measures using measure of social desirability as covariate across 3 time points (pre-, post-, 2 mo).Significant time x group interactionNo gender differences in program effectsSome persistence of effects at 4 and 12 monthsBanyard et al (2007). Sexual violence prevention through bystander education: An experimental evaluation. Journal of Community Psychology, 35,
44CDC grant 2 campuses Cohort Effects Social marketing as booster for programCommunity surveys
45Collaboration with Residential Life Who helps? An ecological modelIntrapersonal: women, first year students; those who spend less time drinking, watching TV and videogames, those who study more, prosocial tendenciesInteractional: Higher floor sense of community; Higher campus sense of community; Those involved in student orgsExosystem: size of living situation
47Acknowledgements Mary Moynihan, UNH Jane Stapleton, UNH Sharyn Potter, UNHBobby Eckstein, UNHMary Mayhew and the staff of SHARPPAngela BorgesOur Umass Lowell partners: Linda Williams, Alison Cares, Mary FrederickElizabethe PlanteGrace Mattern and the NH Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual ViolenceOur teams of graduate and undergraduate peer educators and research assistants.UNH Office of Residential LifeResearch participants who gave their time to the projects