One promising approach to prevent and intervene in violent situations includes those that utilize bystanders. To date, there has been little exploration of the extent to which a personal history of dating violence victimization and perpetration is associated with bystander intervention behaviors. This study examined the relationship between participants’ experience of violence and the number of times they intervened in potentially violent situations. Poster presented at ABCT, Nov. 2014.

1. Association Between Personal History of Dating Violence and Bystander Intervention Behaviors
William C. Woods1, Ryan C. Shorey2, & Tara L. Cornelius3
1The University of Chicago
2Ohio University, Athens
3Grand Valley State University
Introduction
Dating violence is a widespread problem with a variety of adverse
psychological consequences. One promising approach to prevent
intervene in these violent situations includes those that utilize
bystanders. Bystander interventions aim to empower individuals who
witness aggressive or potentially aggressive situations, to intervene
safely and successfully (Banyard, Moynihan & Plante, 2007). A number
of interpersonal and attitudinal factors are related to bystander
intervention behaviors, such as extraversion (Banyard, 2008) and
knowledge about sexual assault (Banyard & Moynihan, 2011). While
these static and attitudinal variables are informative, it may also be the
case that individuals’ personal experiences with interpersonal violence
also predict intervention as a bystander. To date, however, there has
been little exploration of the extent to which a personal history of dating
violence victimization and perpetration is associated with bystander
intervention behaviors. Therefore, the current study examined the
relationship between participants’ experience of psychological, physical
and sexual violence victimization and perpetration and the number of
times they intervened in potentially violent situations.
Hypotheses
1. Participants with a history of psychological, physical or sexual
violence victimization would report engaging in more bystander
behaviors than non-victims.
2. There will be a significant relationship between prior violence
perpetration and bystander behaviors (due to a dearth of research in
this area, we did not predict the direction of the relationship).
Results
First we calculated prevalence rates for violent behaviors in our
sample (Table 1). On average, women reported more sexual and
rape victimization, Women also reported perpetrating more
psychological and physical violence.
As predicted, a personal history of dating violence was associated
with more bystander behavior (Table 2). Specifically, those with a
previous history of physical, sexual and rape victimization reported
more bystander behaviors than non-victims. There was no difference
between victims and non-victims of psychological aggression.
Perpetrators of physical abuse also reported more bystander
behavior. There was no difference between perpetrators and non-
perpetrators of psychological aggression.
Because gender differences are commonly reported in dating
violence (Shorey, Cornelius, & Bell, 2008) and bystander (e.g.,
Banyard, Moynihan & Plante, 2007) research, we differentiated male
and female victims and non-victims, as well as perpetrators and non-
perpetrators (Table 3). Women, but not men, with a personal history
of physical or sexual dating violence victimization reported more
bystander behaviors than non-victims. Similarly, women who
reported perpetrating physical violence also reported more bystander
behaviors than non-perpetrators.
Discussion
There is a dearth of knowledge linking personal experiences to later
intervention as a bystander in situations involving dating violence.
Previous investigations have focused on discovering relationships
between attitudinal or static traits and bystander interventions. The
current study was designed to explore links between personal
experiences with dating violence and present bystander behavior.
Although our data did support our hypotheses, they were qualified
by gender. Only among women were there links between personal
history of dating violence and bystander behaviors. These findings
are in line with previous reports of gender differences in rates of
bystander behavior (Banyard, Moynihan & Plante, 2007).
The relationship between previous victimization and bystander
behavior did not extend to psychological violence. Although such
behaviors are linked to negative outcomes, most college students do
not perceive psychological aggression as unacceptable (Capezza &
Arriaga, 2008). It may be that victims of psychological aggression
do not view their experiences as serious enough to promote greater
bystander intervention.
Our results indicated that women who perpetrated physical violence
reported more bystander behaviors. Although perpetrators of
physical abuse tend to hold more accepting views of violent behavior
(e.g., Brown & Messman-Moore, 2010), it could be the case that
perpetrators in our sample had negative consequences to their
behavior. These consequences could promote intervening in others’
violent situations.
Our findings suggest that victims of dating violence may be more
readily able to identify potentially violent situations and respond
appropriately. Thus, it may be advantageous for future bystander
interventions to present participants’ personal history with dating
violence as an asset in helping to prevent others from facing similar
experiences.
Contact: woodsw@uchicago.edu, shorey@ohio.edu. cornelta@gvsu.edu
Method
Sample
Undergraduate students at a mid-sized university in the Midwest
completed the study for partial course credit (n=2430). The sample was
mostly female (74.3%), non-Hispanic Caucasian (86.3%) and
heterosexual (90.1%). The mean age was 21.04 (SD = 4.3).
Procedure and Instruments
Students completed the Revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS; Straus et
al., 1996) to measure physical and psychological aggression
victimization and perpetration in the preceding 12 months. The Sexual
Experiences Survey – Short Form Victimization (SES-SFV; Koss et al.,
2006) was used to measure unwanted sexual contact in the past 12
months ranging from attempted coercion to completed rape. Finally,
participants completed the Bystander Behavior Scale (Banyard, Plante,
& Moynihan, 2005) measured the frequency of bystander behaviors
participants had engaged in in the prior two months. All measures were
completed using SurveyMonkey.com.
Women Men
Variable Bystander
Behavior M
(SD)
t
Variable Bystander
Behavior M
(SD)
t
Psychological
Victimization
Victim
Non-Victim
7.89 (6.74)
8.63 (10.00)
1.06
Psychological
Victimization
Victim
Non-Victim
10.33 (12.12)
8.37 (11.30)
1.08
Physical Victimization
Victim
Non-Victim
11.37 (10.38)
8.06 (8.28)
4.07***
Physical Victimization
Victim
Non-Victim
12.44 (12.53)
9.04 (11.65)
1.72
Sexual Victimization
Victim
Non-Victim
10.07 (10.26)
7.28 (7.88)
3.73***
Sexual Victimization
Victim
Non-Victim
13.06 (14.71)
9.09 (11.43)
1.29
Rape Victimization
Victim
Non-Victim
10.44 (9.40)
7.92 (8.46)
2.43*
Rape Victimization
Victim
Non-Victim
14.13 (12.25)
9.05 (11.66)
0.56
Psychological
Perpetration
Perpetrator
Non-Perpetrator
8.48 (7.64)
8.13 (9.61)
0.54
Psychological
Perpetration
Perpetrator
Non-Perpetrator
9.97 (10.68)
8.23 (11.64)
1.20
Physical Perpetration
Perpetrator
Non-Perpetrator
10.19 (10.03)
8.14 (8.40)
2.93***
Physical Perpetration
Perpetrator
Non-Perpetrator
10.89 (10.90)
9.39 (11.91)
0.64
Note: *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001
Table 3 Differences in Bystander Behavior among Victims/Non-Victims and Perpetrators/Non-
Perpetrators of Dating Violence by Gender
Table 1 Prevalence and Gender Differences in Dating Violence
Variable Women (%) Men (%) χ2
Psychological Victimization 48.9 44.3 3.45
Physical Victimization 15.3 18.7 2.70
Sexual Victimization 37.2 17.5 56.22***
Rape Victimization 13.6 0.5 22.09***
Psychological Perpetration 64.8 55.6 11.58**
Physical Perpetration 22.5 15.0 11.26**
Note: **p<.01, ***p<.001
Table 2 Differences in Bystander Behavior among Victims/Non-Victims and Perpetrators/Non-
Perpetrators of Violence
Variable Bystander Behavior M (SD) t
Psychological Victimization
Victim
Non-Victim
8.37 (8.10)
8.54 (10.27)
.80
Physical Victimization
Victim
Non-Victim
11.56 (10.84)
8.28 (9.14)
4.27***
Sexual Victimization
Victim
Non-Victim
10.88 (9.63)
7.77 (9.17)
5.45***
Rape Victimization
Victim
Non-Victim
12.03 (8.99)
8.32 (9.39)
4.27***
Psychological Perpetration
Perpetrator
Non-Perpetrator
8.81 (8.37)
8.12 (10.19)
1.17
Physical Perpetration
Perpetrator
Non-Perpetrator
10.21 (10.07)
8.46 (9.41)
2.51*
Note: *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001