There are posited to be many factors that contribute to (or disinhibit) bystander action in response to having the opportunity. Some commonly cited factors include assessment of the riskiness of the situation, a person’s relationship with the target of harm, and a person’s own perceived barriers to intervention. The purpose of this investigation was to examine the influence of risk assessment and relationship closeness on engaging in bystander action, in the context of personal barriers. Data from n = 1,594 college students who completed a campus climate survey and indicated having an opportunity to use bystander intervention were analyzed. Mediated moderation path analyses were used to examine whether relationship closeness moderated the relationship between risk assessment and bystander actions, mediated by bystander barriers in eight unique bystander situations. There was no association between risk assessment and bystander actions across situations (Hypothesis 1). Additionally, there was no interaction between risk assessment and relationship closeness across situations (Hypothesis 2). The relationship between risk assessment and bystander action was mediated by bystander barriers only in Situation 1 (i.e., witnessed intoxication with fear they’d be taken advantage of) (Hypothesis 3). Direct relationships were found in all situations between bystander barriers and taking action. Additional theoretical and empirical work needs to be conducted to understand factors that influence bystander actions in specific situations. Prevention programming, particularly bystander intervention programs, should continue to reduce barriers to bystander action in order to increase the likelihood that bystanders intervene when they witness something concerning.
Alegría-FloresK.RakerK.PleasantsR. K.WeaverM. A.WeinbergerM. (2017). Preventing interpersonal violence on college campuses: The effect of one act training on bystander intervention. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 32(7), 1103–1126. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260515587666
2.
Asher BlackDeerA. A.Patterson Silver WolfD. A.Beeler-StinnS.DuranB. (2022). Substance use and interpersonal violence: Exploring potential threats to underrepresented minority students’ academic success. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 24(1), 193–212. https://doi.org/10.1177/1521025120911638
3.
BanyardV. L. (2015). Toward the next generation of bystander prevention of sexual and relationship violence: Action coils to engage communities. Springer Science + Business Media. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-23171-6
4.
BanyardV. L.DemersJ. M.CohnE. S.EdwardsK. M.MoynihanM. M.WalshW. A.WardS. K. (2020). Academic correlates of unwanted sexual contact, intercourse, stalking, and intimate partner violence: An understudied but important consequence for college students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 35(21–22), 43754392. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260517715022
5.
BasileK. C. (2020). Interpersonal violence victimization among high school students—Youth risk behavior survey, United States, 2019. MMWR Supplements, 69, 28–37.
6.
BennettS.BanyardV. L. (2016). Do friends really help friends? The effect of relational factors and perceived severity on bystander perception of sexual violence. Psychology of Violence, 6(1), 64–72. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037708
7.
BennettS.BanyardV. L.GarnhartL. (2014). To act or not to act, that is the question? Barriers and facilitators of bystander intervention. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 29(3), 476–496. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260513505210
8.
BloomB. E.JosephR.UlibarriM. D.ReedE.UlloaE. C. (2024). Factors associated with engaging in bystander intervention behavior among college students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 39(7–8), 1731–1759.
9.
BreaughJ. A. (2008). Important considerations in using statistical procedures to control for nuisance variables in non-experimental studies. Human Resource Management Review, 18(14), 282–293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2008.03.001
10.
BrownA. L.BanyardV. L.MoynihanM. M. (2014). College students as helpful bystanders against sexual violence: Gender, race, and year in college moderate the impact of perceived peer norms. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 38(3), 350–362.
11.
BurnS. M. (2009). A situational model of sexual assault prevention through bystander intervention. Sex Roles, 60(11–12), 779–792. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-008-9581-5
12.
ClearE. R.CokerA. L.BushH. M.BrancatoC. J.DavidovD. (2019). Lessons learned in creating a college consortium. Journal of Family Violence, 35, 541–550. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-019-00105-8
13.
DarleyJ. M.LatanéB. (1968). Bystander intervention in emergencies: Diffusion of responsibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8(4, Pt.1), 377–383. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/h0025589
14.
EndersC. K. (2001). The performance of the full information maximum likelihood estimator in multiple regression models with missing data. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 61(5), 713–740. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164401615001
15.
FantasiaH. C.SutherlandM. A.HutchinsonM. K. (2018). Lifetime and recent experiences of violence among college women. Journal of Forensic Nursing, 14(4), 190–197. https://doi.org/10.1097/JFN.0000000000000211
16.
HackmanC. L.BranscumP.Rush GriffinS.CastleA.HagadornE. (2022). Gender differences in bystander intervention intentions to prevent sexual assault: A reasoned action approach. Journal of School Violence, 21(3), 237–251. https://doi.org/10.1080/15388220.2022.2075880
17.
HebenstreitC. L.DePrinceA. P.ChuA. T. (2014). Interpersonal violence, depression, and executive function. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 23(2), 168–187. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926771.2014.872749
18.
HoxmeierJ. C.MennickeA.McMahonS. (2020). Bystander intervention opportunities and prosocial behaviors among gender and sexual minority college students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 37(9–10), NP6439–NP6465. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260520967131
19.
HuL.BentlerP. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
20.
IversonK. M.DickA.McLaughlinK. A.SmithB. N.BellM. E.GerberM. R.CookN.MitchellK. S. (2013). Exposure to interpersonal violence and its associations with psychiatric morbidity in a US national sample: A gender comparison. Psychology of Violence, 3(3), 273–287. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/a0030956
21.
KaniaR.CaleJ. (2021). Preventing sexual violence through bystander intervention: Attitudes, behaviors, missed opportunities, and barriers to intervention among Australian university students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(5–6), 2816–2840. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260518764395
22.
KatzJ.EdgingtonC.McCabeE. (2021). Bystander responses to intimate partner misconduct: Barriers to responding to physical and sexual violations. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(11–12), NP6508–NP6525. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260518815141
23.
MainwaringC.ScottA. J.GabbertF. (2024). Facilitators and barriers of bystander intervention intent in image-based sexual abuse contexts: A focus group study with a university sample. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 39(11–12), 2655–2686.
24.
MehrJ. B.BennettE. R.PriceJ. L.de SouzaN. L.BuckmanJ. F.WildeE. A.TateD. F.MarshallA. D.Dams-O’ConnorK.EsopenkoC. (2023). Intimate partner violence, substance use, and health comorbidities among women: A narrative review. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 1028375. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1028375
25.
MennickeA.BowlingJ.MontanaroE.WilliamsM.CarlsonH.McClareV.MeehanE.TempleJ.JulesB. N.TirunagariA.KisslerN.PrunedaP.MathewsK.HaleyG.BrienzoM.McMillanI. F.YoderA.MaseahC.CorreiaC.McMahonS. (2025). The bystander intervention for problematic alcohol use model (BIPAUM). Journal of American College Health, 73, 792–802. https://doi.org/10.1080/07448481.2023.2245497
26.
MoschellaE. A.BanyardV. L. (2021). Action and reaction: The impact of consequences of intervening in situations of interpersonal violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(7–8), NP3820–NP3843. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260518782983
27.
MujalG. N.TaylorM. E.FryJ. L.Gochez-KerrT. H.WeaverN. L. (2021). A systematic review of bystander interventions for the prevention of sexual violence. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 22(2), 381–396. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838019849587
28.
MullaM. M.HaikalisM.OrchowskiL. M.BerkowitzA. D. (2022). The prospective influence of perceived social norms on bystander actions against sexual violence and relationship abuse: A multiple mediation model. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 37(3–4), NP2313–NP2337. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260520933035
NickersonA. B.JenkinsL. N.YangY.HarrisonD. S. (2024). Individual and contextual-level predictors of progression in the bystander intervention model. Aggressive Behavior, 50(4), e22159. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.22159
31.
NightingaleS. D. (2022). Campus climate and the sexual assault victimization of LGBQ college students. Journal of Homosexuality, 69(13), 2250–2266. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2021.1938466
32.
OesterleD. W.OrchowskiL. M.MorenoO.BerkowitzA. (2018). A qualitative analysis of bystander intervention among heavy-drinking college men. Violence Against Women, 24(10), 1207–1231. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801218781931
33.
Palm ReedK. M.HinesD. A.ArmstrongJ. L.CameronA. Y. (2015). Experimental evaluation of a bystander prevention program for sexual assault and dating violence. Psychology of Violence, 5(1), 95.
34.
PolaninJ. R.EspelageD. L.PigottT. D. (2012). A meta-analysis of school-based bullying prevention programs’ effects on bystander intervention behavior. School Psychology Review, 41(1), 47–65. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2012.12087375
35.
RobinsonS. R.CasianoA.Elias-LambertN. (2022). “Is it my responsibility?”: A qualitative review of university students’ perspectives on bystander behavior. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 23(1), 117–131. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838020933829
36.
WalkerJ.KeltyS. F.Ng Tseung-WongC. (2024). Bystander intervention in coercive control: Do relationship to the victim, bystander gender, and concerns influence willingness to intervene?Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 39(15–16), 3791–3815.
37.
WangS.KimK. J. (2024). Effects of victimization experience, gender, and empathic distress on bystanders’ intervening behavior in cyberbullying. The Social Science Journal, 61(4), 853–862.
38.
WoodsW. C.KistlerT. A.StuartG. L.CorneliusT. L. (2022). Bystander intervention behavior as function of victimization history, opportunity, and situational context. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 37(9–10), NP8006–NP8031.
39.
XiaY.YangY. (2019). RMSEA, CFI, and TLI in structural equation modeling with ordered categorical data: The story they tell depends on the estimation methods. Behavior Research Methods, 51(1), 409–428. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-018-1055-2
40.
YuleK.GrychJ. (2020). College students’ perceptions of barriers to bystander intervention. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 35(15–16), 2971–2992. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260517706764
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
